Matt Salmon

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Dr. Sydney Salmon, who passed away recently after a three year bout with pancreatic cancer. Dr. Salmon served as the Director of the Arizona Cancer Center at the University of Arizona from its founding in 1976 until last year. During that time, he built the Center into one of the pre-eminent research facilities in the world and emerged as a national figure in cancer clinical research. A noted innovator and academic, Dr. Salmon invented numerous medical techniques that have had a major impact on biology, and he authored nearly 400 scholarly papers. Although ailing with cancer, Dr. Salmon set aside time to educate me about a fatal flaw--literally--in our health care system that contributes to cancer's carnage. He informed me that our system discourages patients eligible for cancer clinical trials, the most effective type of care for many with cancer, from enrolling. I learned that if it were not for clinical trials, we wouldn't have the successful treatments that we enjoy today. Dr. Salmon inspired me to develop the Access to Cancer Clinical Trials Act, which today I rename the ``Dr. Sydney E. Salmon Access to Cancer Clinical Trials Act'' in his memory. I am both proud and duty bound to honor a great man with this legislation. The act guarantees cancer patients access to any federally approved cancer clinical trial by requiring insurers to pay the routine patient costs--blood work, physician visits, etc.--that would be covered if the patient was in the standard treatment of care. The measure would not require health insurers to pay for the cost of new drugs, securing informed consent, collecting and managing data or complying with research-related paperwork. All of these costs would be paid by the sponsor of the clinical trial. For many cancer patients, cancer clinical trials are not only the best option, they are the only option. If we increase participation in cancer clinical trials we increase the survival rate and provide hope for those afflicted with this horrible disease. Unlike the managed care bill that recently passed the House, the Sydney Salmon Clinical Trials Act isn't limited to trials sponsored by government agencies, but also covers FDA trials. Coverage of FDA trials is a critical component of anti-cancer legislation. Two-thirds of trials are FDA-approved trials. Moreover, it is not enough to only cover trials conducted by government agencies when we know that many of the most important advances occur in private trials. The proper policy is to encourage participation in all trials that meet stringent guidelines, not just those sponsored by government agencies. I will urge the House-Senate Conference that ultimately develops the final managed care reform package to include language guaranteeing all cancer patients access to safe and federally approved clinical trials. Participation in cancer clinical trials is dangerously low. Twenty percent of cancer patients are qualified candidates for clinical trials, yet only 3 percent participate in them. One of the major reasons for this disparity is the uncertainty regarding whether routine patient care costs will be covered by managed care companies. The decline in enrollment in trials at the Arizona Cancer Center corresponds with the rise of managed care. In 1995, the Center enrolled 398 cancer patients in 169 different clinical trials. In 1998, the numbers dropped to 246 patients enrolled in 158 studies. Managed care companies might be excused for their policy on cancer clinical trials if studies suggested that the cost of covering routine expenses were prohibitive and would increase the ranks of the uninsured. This is not the case. A Mayo Clinic study revealed that the costs of clinical trials averaged a trivial five percent more than standard therapy. But not trivial are the costs of not permitting patients to enroll in clinical trials. Research is thwarted, the war on cancer is hindered and patients who have no other hope for treatment needlessly suffer. The advances in treatment that clinical trials develop--virtually all standard therapies evolved from clinical trials--ultimately reduce the cost of providing care by reducing treatment costs. As evidence of the effectiveness of clinical trials, consider that for most childhood cancers the survival rate is nearly 75 percent, in large part because 80 percent of children participate in clinical trials. Insurance companies seem to be suffering from an acute case of myopia when it comes to covering these state-of-the-art treatments. As a conservative Republican, I've always been opposed to mandates. But the federal government has an obligation to support research and development. Unless Congress acts, and acts decisively, vital research opportunities will be lost. Some 40 major cancer groups support the approach taken in the Dr. Sydney E. Salmon Access to Cancer Clinical Trials Act. Congress should listen to the cancer community and ratify this approach.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Telemarketing Victims Protection Act of 1999. The bill directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to promulgate rules and regulations which require telemarketing firms to notify consumers that they are eligible to be placed on national and state do-not-call lists. If a consumer elects not to be called, the telemarketing firm must report that request to the appropriate state or national authority. Additionally, the legislation prohibits telemarketing firms from blocking the identity of their phone number in order to evade caller ID devices. Furthermore, it requires telemarketing firms to obtain (and reconcile with their own lists) the appropriate do-not-call list. It also amends the time of day telemarketers are allowed to call consumers. Under current law, telemarketers are prohibited from calling consumers before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. My bill would amend current law to prohibit pesky telemarketers from disturbing families during dinner hours. And finally, it requires the FTC to study appropriate penalties for telemarketers who repeatedly violate the law. My legislation does not affect organizations already exempt from current law. As you know, Congress has spent the last decade trying to help consumers cope with an industry that is out of control. Despite Congress' efforts, great advances in technology have enabled bad telemarketers to continue to flourish. According to numerous sources, it is estimated that consumers lose $40 billion a year to fraudulent telemarketers. As telemarketing operations become more sophisticated, so must our laws governing the industry. In my home state of Arizona, many consumers--especially seniors--fall prey to fraudulent telemarketers. The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) estimates that Arizonans have lost roughly $100 million to fraud during the last five years. And, according to the Arizona Republic and Daniel Drake, Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney, victims from Arizona are lucky if they recover five percent of what they lose. According to FBI Special Agent Jim Whalen, ``Arizona continues to be a high target area for illegal telemarketers due to the State's significant number of elderly residents.'' Agent Whalen recently reported to the Arizona Republic that the average Arizonan loses $20,000 to $100,000, including one man who lost roughly $1.8 million. In another extreme case, the Arizona Republic reported that one family lost $2 million of its inheritance to fraudulent investment scams. And, Mr. Drake reported that the last three cases his agency prosecuted involved scams of $17 million. Many other states besides Arizona are beginning to recognize the problem. Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, and Pennsylvania (to name a few) have or are considering legislation to set up a do-not-call list. The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) currently maintains a national do- not-call list for the industry. But, too often, fraudulent and pernicious telemarketers target the most vulnerable who are unaware of their right to be placed on these lists. Currently, telemarketing companies are not required to subscribe to the DMA's list and simply putting your name on the list does not guarantee that you won't be called. Besides, most consumers are not even aware of their current rights dealing with professional telemarketers. Telemarketing fraud seems to be alive and well. That is why I believe that my legislation, particularly the consumer information section, is desperately needed. The FTC has repeatedly reported that the elderly are disproportionately represented among victims of telemarketing fraud. And, a survey by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) found that seniors, on the whole, were less familiar with their consumer rights than younger people, and they were less suspecting of deceptive sales practices. For consumers who know their rights and ask to be placed on a do-not-call list, it usually takes three months before their request is honored--if at all. The issue is neither partisan nor political. Leaders on all sides of the political spectrum have joined in the fight to help protect consumers against telemarketing fraud. In his national radio address of April 17, 1999 President Clinton declared war on telemarketing fraud. He said that ``we must fight telemarketing fraud that robs people of their life savings and endangers their well-being. Every single year illegal telemarketing operations bilk the American people out of an estimated $40 billion. More than half of the victims are over 50. That's like a fraud tax aimed directly at senior citizens.'' And, in a speech declaring the first week of May in Texas as Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Awareness Week, Governor George W. Bush said, ``Armed with the right information, elderly Texans can take steps to avoid becoming a victim of telemarketing fraud.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in the fight against telemarketing fraud.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Computer Crime Enforcement Act of 1999. The bill provides $25 million in grants (from the Department of Justice) to local law enforcement officials to combat computer crime. Specifically, the grants will be used to: Teach State and city law enforcement agents how to investigate hi-tech crimes; purchase the necessary equipment to assist in the investigation of computer crime; and train prosecutors to conduct investigations and forensic analysis of evidence in prosecutions of computer crime. As you know, many businesses, educational institutions, banks, hospitals, and other information-intensive entities have fallen prey to hi-tech criminals who illegally break into computer systems and steal sensitive information. And too often, local law enforcement agents have not had the necessary equipment or training to protect the public from hi-tech thieves. Computer Crime is on the rise. And companies are requiring more Federal assistance. According to a recent report released by the FBI and the Computer Security Institute, 32 percent of companies surveyed required help from law enforcement agencies--up 17 percent from the prior year. And, according to a recent report by San Francisco's Computer Security Institute, nearly a third of U.S. companies, financial institutions, government agencies, and universities say their computer systems were penetrated by outsiders last year. More than half of the organizations said their computer systems were subject to unauthorized access by insiders, and 57 percent said the Internet was a ``frequent point of'' by hackers, up 37.5 percent from 3 years ago. We can no longer afford to be mystified by those who commit these hi- tech crimes. The small network that once was the electronic home to a few scientists has become an electronic labyrinth where hundreds of millions of people regularly pay taxes, trade stock bank, buy goods, and send intensely personal information. When criminal gain access to this sensitive information, the consequences can be devastating. Computer criminals know no boundaries. And they are becoming sophisticated to the point that most companies aren't even aware that they are under attack. therefore, it is imperative that Congress address the needs of local police officers who are fighting this new wave of crime on the front lines. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor my bill.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, Webster's dictionary defines the word emergency as, ``an unforseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action.'' In the past, Congress has passed emergency spending legislation to address pressing needs resulting from natural disasters, wars or other unforseen crisis. But today, the House will consider legislation to expand the definition of ``emergency'' to fund, of all things, the census. Now, maybe I'm just naive. Or maybe I just don't get it. But from what I understand, the federal government has been conducting the census every ten years since 1790. In fact, the authority of Congress to do so is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Over 200 years later, how can anyone with a straight face really say that census funding is something unforseen--an emergency? If funding for the census is truly an emergency, what is not? What about the Departments of Treasury, Justice or State? Like the census, these are a core responsibility of the federal government. Should we use emergency spending to fund these departments? Where does it end? Unfortunately, this isn't the first time Congress has used emergency spending to bypass spending limits. The Omnibus spending bill passed last year contained about $20 billion in speciously classified emergency spending. I voted against that bill for the same reason that I will oppose this legislation today--because it is fiscally irresponsible. It's time to end this charade. We impose budget caps for a very simple reason--to control spending. If we are not willing to respect those caps, let's not use a bunch of fancy budget gimmickry and smoke and mirrors to fool the American people into believing that we are. Let's have an honest vote--up or down--on whether or not we are willing to abide by the agreement we passed in 1997. At least that way, the American people will know who is serious about controlling spending and who is not. I urge my colleagues to support the Coburn Amendment.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, on Roll No. 370, the Serrano amendment to the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (H.R. 2670), I intended to vote ``no.''

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I would like to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Mark Udall) for his help with this amendment. He and his staff have been generous with their ideas and time, and their outstanding work is much appreciated by the renewable energy community and myself. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the chairman of the subcommittee, for his help with this amendment. Even though the House energy and water budget allocation is $1.5 billion less than the Senate bill, we were still able to come to a good faith agreement to increase the renewable energy budget above Senate levels. The amendment I am proposing today is a responsible effort to restore renewable energy funding to near FY 1999 levels. We ask that the $30 million be returned to the renewable energy budget. We need this funding to continue the quality research and development that is vital to our national security, international competitiveness, and environmental protection. We spend more than $100 billion per year to import foreign oil from regions where political instability is tied to fluctuating oil prices. Diversification of our national energy portfolio with renewable energy technologies would lessen the need for costly and potentially prolonged military intervention abroad to defend our access to oil supplies. Economically, the export market for U.S.-made renewable energy technologies is potentially huge. With 2 billion people around the world still without electric power, we should be doing everything that we can to help American companies compete in this lucrative global market. This amendment will help the United States maintain its lead in the renewable energy race. Clearly, renewable energy is a clean alternative to conventional fuel. Avoiding pollution through clean, renewable energy technology is almost always cheaper and less intrusive than the alternative of prescriptive government mandates. Furthermore, renewable energy technologies approach zero emissions for pollutants. The American Lung Association estimates that Americans spend $50 billion a year each year on health care needs that result directly from air pollution alone. Avoiding pollution through clean, renewable energy is preventative medicine, and it is smart. Renewable energy programs are strongly supported by the public. A survey of 1,018 registered voters conducted in April of 1998 asked what energy programs should receive the highest priority for Federal research and development funding. Renewable energy and energy efficiency programs were supported by 61 percent of all respondents. Natural gas received the next highest level of support from Americans, with 10 percent support, followed by fossil fuels, 7.5 percent, and nuclear energy, 5.9. Similarly, House support for renewable energy here is strong. The House Renewable Energy Caucus boasts 153 bipartisan Members. Whether Members are concerned about national security, economic prosperity, or the environment, renewable energy technology is a valuable commodity. As President George Bush said, we must encourage environmentally responsible development of all U.S. energy resources, including renewable energy. Renewable energy does reduce demand upon our other finite natural resources. It enhances our energy security, and clearly, it protects the environment. So I would like to, again, express my appreciation to the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) for supporting this measure, and also for his commitment to fight for this number in conference committee. We also proposed an offset of $30 million to be deducted from contractor travel. As Members know, the GAO has investigated contractor travel spending and found outrageous abuses that must be terminated. Regardless, given the choice between travel dollars and research dollars of this valuable resource, it is clear that we must choose the latter. I urge my colleagues to support the renewable energy research and development funds. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record an accounting of the Allocation of Additional Funds for Solar and Renewable Energy Programs.

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

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

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, this is not a lot of time to debate such a sensitive issue, but I will say this. After having served a mission from my church among the Chinese people, after having learned about their language and their culture and communicating one on one with these people for 2 years in my youthful life, I learned a lot of things, I thought, not only about their society, but about our society. I have learned one thing painfully clear in my life, and that is you never improve any relationship by walking away from it. Right now I think this relationship is at an all-time low and I think both sides have some culpability in that situation. But I will say this: the last speaker was right on. There are human rights violations, there are problems with Taiwan, there are nuclear nonproliferation problems. But I will say this as well: when it comes to the espionage issue, I do not fault China nearly as much as I do this administration for falling asleep at the switch. Let us not try to penalize China what we should take out on this administration for not doing its job. Let us not close the door on a lot of people who would like to be able to open up their doors to Christianity, and they would not get that opportunity, I believe, if we revoke MFN. Please, let us vote against this measure.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1995, the Teacher Empowerment Act. By combining and streamlining existing federal education programs, this legislation will provide states and localities with the flexibility they need to improve our children's education. I was pleased to be able to include in the manager's amendment, with the gracious support of Chairman Goodling and Mr. McKeon, a provision that will allow states to use federal money to conduct background checks on teachers. Cases of teachers who rape, molest, and even murder their students have been occurring with frightening regularity. Even more frightening is the fact that many of these predators who find their way into our children's classrooms are previously convicted sex offenders. They are able to conceal their criminal records because some schools cannot afford to pay for a background check on every prospective teacher. As a result, thousands of children every day, in schools across America, enter the classroom with no protection. My provision simply would allow schools to use federal money to conduct background checks to insure that criminals who target children are not allowed into the classroom. Teachers are some of our most revered role models. We entrust them with the greatest responsibility; to care for our children when we are gone. Not only do they teach our children to read, write and do arithmetic, but they shape and influence the attitudes and values our children carry into adulthood. When that trust is violated, innocent children and families pay the price. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of teachers are caring, law- abiding citizens. Nevertheless, we should spare no expense to insure that every child who enters the classroom is protected from those who prey upon the innocence of youth.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the amendment that I have proposed with Representatives Andrews and Saxton, which would require the State Department to issue periodic reports on the investigations of Palestinian terrorists who have murdered Americans, will be included in the American Embassy Security Act. I thank Chairman Ben Gilman for his personal involvement in this matter. The Senate unanimously accepted this anti-terrorism amendment to the Senate State Department Authorization bill. At least twelve American citizens have been killed by Palestinian terrorists in Israel since the signing of the Oslo Accords in September 1993. Over 20 suspects in the attacks currently reside in territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority. Several of these suspects are walking about free. Some have reportedly been given positions in Palestinian police forces. The United States has the right and the responsibility under U.S. law to prosecute the terrorist killers of Americans. The House of Representatives strongly endorsed this principle last year when it voted 406 to 0 in favor of a resolution declaring that the ``[Palestinian] suspects should be tried in the United States unless it is determined that such action is contrary to effective prosecution.'' While the administration should be commended for sending investigative teams to Israel to investigate these attacks, the effort has been incomplete. For example, no rewards have yet been offered by the U.S. government for information leading to the capture of the Palestinian killers of the murdered Americans, even though multimillion dollar rewards have been offered in other cases of Americans killed by terrorists abroad. And despite reams of evidence implicating certain individuals in the murders of Americans--including in one case an outright confession--no indictments have been secured by U.S. authorities. The reports will help to respond to concerns that political considerations may be stalling these investigations. The bipartisan amendment responds to the lack of progress in the investigations. Specifically, the amendment would require the administration to provide Congress with regular, detailed reports on the status of the investigations into the killers of Americans. The report would also contain information on the policy of the State Department with respect to offering rewards for information leading to the capture of the terrorist suspects and a list of suspected terrorists serving in Palestinian security forces. Smartly, the language protects against the disclosure of information that would impede ongoing investigations. Obviously, the American families that have lost loved ones in terrorist attacks do not want these investigations compromised in any way. The families of the victims support our effort. I quote from a letter signed by three of the families: ``Your legislation addresses a serious and immediate problem. We have constantly been frustrated and disappointed at the difficulty of finding out the most basic information about the status of U.S. investigators into the attacks in which our children were killed. This legislation will help rectify the problem. Reports to Congress on these investigations will help to make it possible for Congress to play a crucial supportive role in facilitating efforts to apprehend, prosecute, and punish terrorists who have murdered American citizens in Israel or the administered territories.'' The letter continues: ``Keeping a spotlight on these issues is a crucial component in the process of achieving Middle East Peace. . . . The peace process can only be strengthened by a move toward justice.'' The amendment is about achieving justice, and achieving peace for the families who have lost loved ones in terrorist attacks. It's about recognizing that American life isn't cheap, and that if you're an American citizen killed abroad, the United States will never forget you.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 144) urging the United States Government and the United Nations to undertake urgent and strenuous efforts to secure the release of Branko Jelen, Steve Pratt, and Peter Wallace, 3 humanitarian workers employed in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia by CARE International, who are being unjustly held as prisoners by the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SALMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, on March 31, 1999, Serbian authorities detained Mr. Steve Pratt, Mr. Peter Wallace of Australia, and Mr. Branko Jelen of Serbia who were carrying out their duties as employees of CARE/Australia. These men, who were endeavoring to provide humanitarian assistance to victims of Serbian aggression in Kosovo, were subsequently charged with espionage and are now being unjustly held as prisoners in Serbia. The detention of these individuals strikes at the very heart of the ability of humanitarian and aid organizations such as CARE to operate in conflicts such as the one in Kosovo. It is noteworthy that the actual charges they were convicted of concerned only the passing of situation reports on the conditions in Kosovo to their headquarters in order for CARE to be able to determine the needs of the population it was attempting to assist and the conditions under which its employees were working in Kosovo. For the Serb authorities to construe these actions as hostile makes a mockery of the terms of their agreement that permitted CARE to operate in Serbia in the first place. Indeed, one day prior to the detention of its employees, CARE had received a letter from the Yugoslavia authorities commending its work. The continued imprisonment of these men is an affront to the Prime Minister of the entire international community and a threat to the ability of international and private organizations to function under the difficult circumstance they face in numerous countries around the globe. We would be remiss if we did not also take note of another detention of an individual engaged on a humanitarian mission in North Korea. According to accounts in the press, Ms. Karen Hahn was detained some weeks ago and has been held incommunicado by the known authorities. The welfare of Ms. Hahn is also in our minds as we consider this resolution. House Concurrent Resolution 144 urges the United States and the United Nations to undertake urgent and strenuous efforts to secure the release from Serbia of the three imprisoned CARE Australia staffers. I urge all members of the House to join me in signalling our demand for the release of these individuals and restoration of our confidence that organizations such as CARE can continue to operate without harassment in the difficult and sometimes dangerous environments that they face throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 107) expressing the sense of Congress rejecting the conclusions of a recent article published by the American Psychological Association that suggests that sexual relationships between adults and children might be positive for children, as amended.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There are no lower life forms than adults who sexually abuse children. Child molesters rob children of their innocense and subject them to a lifetime of nightmares. Those who engage in this activity deserve the harshest punishment. Those who excuse this evil conduct, particularly those in positions of influence, are also pretty low on the food chain and deserve the harshest possible condemnation. Towards this end, we are here today to consider House Concurrent Resolution 107, which condemns and denounces all suggestions in an article published in the Psychological Bulletin, a journal of the American Psychological Association, that sexual relationships between adults and ``willing'' children might be positive for children. The resolution also stresses that Congress will vigorously oppose any public policy or legislative attempts to normalize child sexual abuse. The study in question, ``A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,'' escaped public scrutiny until talk host Dr. Laura Schlessinger brought this matter to the attention of her listeners. Dr. Laura denounced the study, which reviewed 59 earlier studies of dubious validity, as ``flawed pseudo-science.'' She reported that 38 percent of the studies were never subjected to peer review or published, and that all of the studies were based on self-reporting. Also unsettling, no follow-up analysis occurred on the college students examined in the studies. We should all be indebted to Dr. Laura. While the mainstream media ignored what some call the ``emancipation proclamation of pedophiles, the article did not escape the attention of groups such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association, which highlights the conclusions of the article on its web page, and for defense attorneys who have been encouraged to cite the article in closing arguments in child sexual abuse criminal cases. It was irresponsible for a respected academic journal to publish a study which implies that adult-child sex could be a positive experience. But I applaud the APA for responding to the recent public uproar over the study by clarifying its opposition to any adult-child sexual relations, and for promising to consider their social responsibility when making publishing decisions in the future. The APA's actions will help to deny pedophiles from citing the study in a legal defense. House Concurrent Resolution 107 has been revised to include language praising the APA for its commitment in fighting child sexual abuse. While I am delighted that the Congress is considering this resolution denouncing attempts to normalize child sexual abuse, our work is not done with the passage of this resolution. Words alone will not protect children from the monsters who prey on them. Typically, sexual predators who victimize children receive light prison sentences in this country. On average, a convicted child molester, that is, not one who plea bargains down to a lesser offense, serves less than 4 years behind bars, and recidivism rates are quoted as high as 70 percent. Those are just the ones who get caught. In other words, they get out of prison and they prey on children again and again. The next time, the pedophiles may end up killing the child to make sure there is not evidence so they can be put away again. In my opinion, the average sentence is about 96 years too short. The Congress took an important step in addressing this problem recently when both the House and Senate voted with huge bipartisan majorities for Aimee's Law, otherwise known as the No Second Chances for Murderers, Rapists, or Child Molesters Act. My initiative would encourage States to keep child molesters and other serious criminals behind bars for longer sentences, which would prevent literally thousands each year of 100 percent preventable offenses, either child sexual assaults or other crimes that occur each year by those who are let out of prison for committing exactly the same crime. Before I close, I would like to thank the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for their assistance in moving House Concurrent Resolution 107 forward. I also would like to thank the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts and Mr. Weldon, for all of their work on the resolution. Finally, the Family Research Council should be commended for their efforts to educate Members of Congress about how the public release of the Meta-Analytic study is an assault on children. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to make a strong congressional statement in opposition to efforts to normalize child sexual abuse, and vote in favor of House Concurrent Resolution 107. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Concurrent Resolution 107, as amended.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 117) concerning United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/6, as amended.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this measure.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SALMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend the efforts of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman). He is the author of this piece of legislation. It is very timely and very needed, and he is always there in the pinch, and we appreciate him on this side. Mr. Speaker, our consideration of this resolution is certainly timely as it concerns the convening, under extraordinary and almost unprecedented circumstances, of the parties of the Fourth Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilians in Times of War later this week in Geneva, Switzerland. The focus of this unusual meeting will be ``Illegal Israeli Actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the Rest of the Occupied Territory.'' From its very title, we can see that this meeting will be just another kangaroo court convened solely for the purpose of pillorying Israel whose behavior in Jerusalem and the Occupied Territory has already been predetermined to be ``illegal.'' Regrettably, by using the such important instruments as the Fourth Geneva Convention to carry on their anti-Israel campaign, the supporters of this Special Session in Geneva actually undermine the validity of the Convention and efforts to protect civilians in armed conflicts. We can be certain that little will be said of the many civilian victims of the numerous terrorist acts by Palestinian and Islamic groups hostile to Israel. Most of us are keenly aware of the anti-Israel fervor which resonates throughout the institutions and committees of the United Nations. We cannot forget the evil that was unleashed during consideration of the ``Zionism is Racism'' resolution years ago. Clearly, the United Nations has a history of anti-Israel statements, resolutions, conferences and activities. This troubling action taken by the United Nations General Assembly earlier this year is but the latest of a long series of United Nations activities designed to unfairly and in a highly prejudicial fashion paint Israel as an aggressive rogue state beyond the pale of international law. The resolution before us urges states of the United Nations to oppose all efforts to attack Israel at this conference and urges U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and Switzerland to refrain from assisting in the convening of the conference. Mr. Speaker, regarding Switzerland's role in the conference, I would like to point out, as the repository of the Geneva Convention, Switzerland has no recourse but to honor the will of the U.N. General Assembly that has invoked this conference. As an observer state of the U.N., the Swiss were not even entitled to vote in the emergency session of the General Assembly that decided this measure. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members of this House to send a strong message in opposition to this ill-considered and unhelpful initiative by supporting the adoption of H. Con. Res. 117. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I would just like to reiterate the position, not only of myself, but I believe most people on our side of the aisle from the Committee on International Relations, and that is that it is a highly inappropriate action which the Geneva Convention seeks to undertake at a time when we should all be working together toward the peace process in the Middle East. These kinds of anti-Israel statements do not assist the process; they harm the process. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.