Matt Salmon

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered in good faith. But it is slightly misnamed. This amendment is not about human rights, and this amendment is not about foreign policy. This amendment instead is about a philosophical difference that exists within the Congress. Some in this body simply believe that all arms sales to our allies are wrong in all cases. They believe that helping our allies defend themselves and helping them defend our vital interests amounts to exporting violence. I disagree. Often selling arms to our allies may mean we do not have to send U.S. troops, and that makes sense for Americans. Moreover, responsible arms sales have for many years played an important role in our Nation's foreign policy. Obviously, opponents of arms sales to our allies could not hope to enact a complete ban on the practice, so they have come up with this lesser amendment. But we should not artificially restrict our arms sales to our allies, or hold them hostage to interpretations of vague definitions contained in this amendment. I welcome continued debate on whether we should ban all arms sales to other nations. But this back door effort at beginning such a ban today, should be defeated. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback].

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the well-crafted Brownback amendment. It is never easy to reduce Government spending but this amendment protects our top priorities while meeting our obligations to our children and our grandchildren to balance the budget by the year 2002. This amendment protects critical aid to our allies, Israel and Egypt, and ensures substantial levels of aid to the hungry and the needy across the world, while acknowledging that given $200 billion annual deficits, some programs like cultural exchange programs will have to look more to the private sector that to taxpayers and to deficit spending. I urge bipartisan support for the Brownback amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot].

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

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent to withdraw my name as a cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 87.

Mr. SALMON

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

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, before I begin to talk about my strong support of H.R. 1215, I cannot help but respond to a comment that was made about the safety net that supposedly we are cutting out. I might add this safety net is lined with flypaper. It is very, very difficult to get out of. In fact, it is a net, I am not sure it is a safety net. Mr. Chairman, with the tax provisions in the Contract with America we are going to be passing I believe today, this bill is so important to the American people because it provides tax relief to virtually all Americans. It will create incentives for savings and investment. Not only will passage of this bill provide more tax fairness, but it will also stimulate growth in America's private sector. I would like to speak specifically about the American Dream Restoration portion of H.R. 1215. I was a sponsor of this part of the bill along with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Nussle] when it was introduced as part of the contract. This part of the bill ease the marriage penalty that punishes men and women for getting married by making them pay more in taxes than if they had remained single. It creates a new IRA that will allow Americans to save for the purchase of a home, for education, for medical expenses, and for retirement. It will also provide working families with a $500 child tax credit. Mr. Chairman, let us move away from the greatest American nightmare and move back to the American dream.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, well, as one of my heroes once said, there you go again. I think this is all in the definition. We have heard from the Democrats that we intend to give the tax cuts to the rich. The problem is your definition of the rich is anybody that works for a living. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot from the limousine liberals on the other side of the aisle about fairness. What they need to explain to us is what is so fair about the current system. The Clinton administration's own statistics show that Americans are working harder and getting less for it. Is that fair? Is this what the President meant when he talked about his comprehensive plan to get our economy moving again? We are going to begin working this week to restore fairness to the Tax Code. We will restore $25 billion in Social Security cuts engineered by Clinton and the Democrats, make it easier to buy that first home, or put your children through college, make it easier to adopt, and encourage capital formation. And we will pay for these tax reductions by cutting wasteful and unnecessary government spending. Our philosophy is simple: The taxpayer is not responsible for the deficit; Washington is. Let us face up to it.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I have to commend the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis] for putting together a bill that does not violate the vote of the Arizona voters. I appreciate that. Let me tell you one compelling reason, one big large fat reason why we should vote for term limits. It is the number 5 trillion, because this Congress, over the last few decades, has plunged this country $5 trillion in debt. Maybe, just maybe, if we know we are going to be here for a time certain, 6 years, we will have some guts and make the proper decisions to make the cuts where they need to be cut. Fifteen States have passed term limit laws that are limiting the House Members to 6 years, and 82 percent of the term limit supporters out there support 6 years. I personally support the toughest possible amendment in keeping with the will of the people in Arizona who sent me here, and that is why I cosponsored the Inglis amendment. A limit of three terms for House Members will restore this body to a citizen legislature, because it will mean an average turnover approaching 50 percent. Now, if we limit it to just six terms, the average turnover is only going to be about 20 percent. Right now it is 16. So we are only going to pick up a net of 4 percent. The Founding Fathers never intended for us to become professional politicians. They intended for Members of Congress to serve for a limited time and then go back to their farms at that time and work under the laws that they passed. We will get better laws out of this body. Let us abide by the will of the American people. Let us support the 6-year Inglis amendment.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary] for all his hard work on this issue. He has put together a coalition, I believe, that is the envy of everybody in this body in a very, very short time, and I praise his efforts. I would also like to praise the 20 percent of my Democrat colleagues who support the term limits concept and the 80 percent of my Republican colleagues who support the same concept. As my colleagues know, it is interesting. I heard one of the opponents say that only losers support term limits. Twenty-two States have passed term-limits laws, and what I am hearing from the opposition is the voters were smart because they voted for them, but they were not so smart when they voted for term-limits laws. What could be more democratic than 38 States having to ratify what we pass out today? This does not end here. After we pass this as a constitutional amendment, it goes out to the States, and they then will make that decision. I would like to tell my colleagues a little bit about Arizona's term- limits law because 5 years ago, when I started in the Arizona legislature, I sponsored the first term-limits law. I might point out also that it was a Democrat controlled Senate and they would not even hear the bill. Well, the people in Arizona got so frustrated that they, through the initiative process, went out and collected tens of thousands of signatures during the hot Arizona summer, and let me tell my colleagues it is hot and sweltering, and they collected the signatures to get it on the ballot. Seventy-four percent of the people in our State voted in favor of term limits. Now I think that we have talked a lot about deferring to the States, about deferring to the will of the people. Here we have an opportunity to put up or shut up. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary] gives the ability of the States to determine how long that their Representatives will serve. It is the ultimate in democracy. It allows the States to make that decision, but it sets a 12-year cap. I cannot understand why there would be any opposition to that. Now I do not know if the Founding Fathers would have ever placed term limits initially. I cannot say that; I was not there, did not even get the T-shirt. But I will tell my colleagues this: The Founding Fathers never envisioned a Congress like this that has plunged this country $5 trillion into debt. The American people deserve better, and, if we had 6 years or 12 years to serve in Congress, we would have a time certain, and we might stop the nonsense.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond. From the other side I have heard the allegation now that there is only four people. I just kind of wonder where you have been because last week there was a press conference held, and there were at least nine of us, some from the Democrat ranks as well, that went and signed a pledge and turned it in to the Secretary saying that we would not run more than our States had authorized us to run. The State of Arizona has a six-year term limit and has stated that they do not want our representatives serving any more than six. I have made that pledge, as have a number of other Members in this Congress, and just because the other side does not know it happens does not mean it ain't so.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, with utmost respect, I must differ with my friend and colleague from Florida, although I know he has championed the idea of term limits for a lot of years. I respect him for that. I have got to differ on this issue. We have had three amendments so far tonight on term limits. I voted for every one of them. One was a term limit proposal which would be retroactive. The second one was the Inglis 6 year in the House, 12 year in the Senate. And the third one was the Van Hilleary amendment which was a 12 and 12 but would yield to the states that have already passed term limit laws. I said this earlier, when I testified for the Van Hilleary bill, that the citizens of Arizona, because the Arizona State legislature did nothing on this issue, in their frustration took on the initiative process and braved the summer heat collecting tens of thousands of signatures just to get this issue on the ballot. And they voted for a 6 and 12, overwhelmingly. Seventy-four percent of Arizonans voted for a 6 and 12. I, in good conscience, cannot come to this body and say Arizona voters, you do not know what you were doing. We know better than you. We are the font of all knowledge in this hallowed place. I cannot do that here today. It is for that reason, even though I support strongly the concept of term limits, I cannot sell Arizona voters down the river on this issue by voting for something that is silent. And if the Supreme Court does, and I think it will, I think most of us here know that the Supreme Court will probably overturn the States laws, it will become null and void. I cannot in good conscience do that to my voters.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say that I did miss rollcall No. 262. If I had been here, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, delinquent parents can no longer be allowed to shirk their responsibilities and expect the Government to act in their place. That is unfair to the child. It is unfair to the taxpayer. It is time we sent a message if you bring a child into this world that you are going to care for it. This is the children. In child support cases, liens are not used by States to their full potential. Upon locating property, many caseworkers still prepare individual liens and seek judicial approval for each case. This is a slow and ineffective process, and our Nation's children are the ones that are paying for it. Our amendment makes it easier for States to collect or for States to issue liens to collect past-due support and to help each other collect child support debts by providing that child support liens are enforceable across State lines without going to court again unless contested. Past-due support in all cases already becomes a judgment by operation of law. Many States support this amendment. In fact, just about every State we have talked to wants this amendment. This is not an unfunded mandate. In fact, the States will save money by this measure, and the Nation's children will benefit. America cannot work unless its citizens take more responsibility for their own actions. It is time that parents fulfill not only their own emotional but also their financial obligations to their children. We can at least address the financial obligations in this body. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has widespread support from the national child support enforcement advocates. Marilyn Smith, president of the National Child Support Enforcement Association, has campaigned tirelessly for the reforms in this amendment, and Jerri Jensen, president and founder of Aces, whose story was told this week in the TV movie ``Abandoned and Deceived,'' says that irresponsible parents should not be able to profit from selling out-of-state property while their children suffer due to lack of court-ordered child support. Child support enforcement is a vital component of welfare reform. Delinquent parents can no longer be allowed to shirk their responsibilities and expect the Government to act in their place. That is unfair to the child, and unfair to the taxpayer. It is time we sent the message that if you bring a child into this world, you must care for it. This is the compassionate and sensible thing to do for our Nation's children. The national collection rate of child support payments is abysmal. Regularly received collections average 18 percent in the United States. In my State, Arizona, the rate is only 10 percent, and even in the best States it reaches only as high as 27 percent. For this reason we have decided to adopt child support enforcement measures as part of the Welfare Reform legislation we promised in our Contract With America. The States will achieve a better collection rate though these provisions and thus lower costs to the States and Federal Government, who are left to provide the full financial care for children of delinquent parents. States are already required to use liens to collect past-due support but do not use this remedy to its full potential. Upon locating property, they prepare individual liens and must go back to court for each case, which is burdensome and slows the process significantly. Thus deadbeat parents can indulge in luxury items such as boats and fancy cars, buy real estate, make investments, etc., while their children are left to endure life's hardships with not only the emotional, but also the financial support of only one parent. Most often the mothers are left with this heavy burden, and are forced to look to the State and Federal Government for a helping hand. Abandoning parental responsibility can no longer be tolerated if this country is to survive, and the Government should not bear the burden of deadbeats anymore. The Salmon-Waldholtz-Torkildsen amendment is a simple, straightforward approach to the problems States are currently experiencing in collecting past-due support. It states that liens will arise by operation of law, which means that processing the thousands of delinquent cases will be much easier and cheaper by avoiding return visits to court. For example, since 1992, Massachusetts has issued administrative liens in every case where a noncustodial parent owed more than $500--liens to more than 90,000 child support delinquents with property as varied as workman's compensation claims, wages, bank accounts, and real estate. All were handled by computer on a wholesale rather than retail basis, collecting more than $13 million. Not only has the collection process been difficult within a State, it is even more so when delinquent parents cross State lines to thwart efforts to track them down and collect. Although 30 percent of all child support cases are interstate, only 10 percent of all dollars collected originate from out-of-State. For example, if a deadbeat dad from Arizona moves to Utah to avoid supporting his children, currently it is extremely difficult to recover the money he owes across State lines. Under our amendment, if the lien is sent to another State to attach property owned in that State, it can be filed by the State agency in the second State without going to court to get accepted as a lien issued in that State. Again, this simplifies the process and thus it will be vastly easier for States to collect even across State lines. Arizona, Massachusetts, and Utah have come out in support of this amendment and other States have expressed great interest in such procedural changes. The sections of the welfare reform bill that were reported out of the Committee on Ways and Means--primarily those sections dealing with child support enforcement reform--go far in solving the collection problems experienced at the State level. However, the Salmon-Waldholtz- Torkildsen amendment is fundamental to the successful reform of the system, according to child support associations and State agencies across the Nation. The National Child Support Enforcement Association, a leader is the reform movement, has called this amendment the basis for every other enforcement mechanism in this legislation. Time is of the essence in our efforts to end the cycle of dependency while ensuring the well-being of our children. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery].

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema]. (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.).

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller]. (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I am a little confused. I have not found that the gentlewoman from Florida or the gentleman from Tennessee have been--they have been going on and on--and I do not find any of this information in the Salmon-Waldholtz-Torkildsen amendment.

Mr. SALMON. I am baffled. We seek child support enforcement. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough].

Mr. SALMON. Yes, we will request the additional 5 minutes.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I am a little bit baffled. It seems that we are hearing that this amendment somehow benefits the rich. I am getting a little bit confused. Actually this amendment hurts the rich deadbeat dads and it helps the children that are not getting their child support, and I would really appreciate if we can understand that cogent point and stay on point. I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, how this amendment came about. It did come up in the Committee on Ways and Means. It was not successful. I think it should have been there. I will agree that it should be a bipartisan effort, and I am happy to say I believe now it is. The gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen] and I put our heads together and came up with this idea. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen] has been working on this issue for the last couple of years, and it is an important issue, not only to American families, but children everywhere.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].