Matt Salmon

Mr. SALMON

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

Mr. SALMON. No, I will not yield. Approve the waiver now, President Clinton. Mr. Speaker, I also forgot to say that there is one other crucial difference between President Clinton and Charles Barkley. I still believe Charles Barkley somewhere in the country could win an election. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Arkansas.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, for the last 4 years I have been serving in the Arizona State legislature prior to coming to this noble institution. One of the privileges that I have had is to co-chair the Joint Select Committee on Children and Family Services. What I have seen over the last several years has really frightened me. I think that government has become the great enabler. Those of us that have dealt with programs with alcoholics, people that we have tried to help to get off the problem, recognize that first of all, they have to have a desire deep inside that they want to change that terrible situation that has been plaguing them for probably many years. But if they do not decide that they want to change, it is not going to happen. I think government has become the great enabler with welfare programs in that we have basically robbed people of self-dignity. We have told them, we do not want you in mainstream society. We will pay you to stay at home because you really have no value to society. I think it is a very counterfeit type of compassion. Just as it would be with the alcoholic that is going through detox, when they are writhing in agony and going through the pain, to offer them a bottle of scotch to solve their problem, I believe that the government programs that have really trapped people in a snare of government dependency and replaced it with nothing, which has robbed people of their self-dignity. They have got to be replaced. We have to flee from those programs as fast as we can. I do not mean to belittle the efforts tonight of the minority party in trying to reform the system. But I will say, with all due respect, you have had 30 years to do it so I am not sure that the sincerity of the effort tonight is truly noted. I really feel that it is time for us to get off of our duff. It is time for us to help people to help themselves. It was a great President on his inauguration that said, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. How quickly, it has only been three short decades since that prophetic declaration was made, and here we are today trying to be mother and father to people that really on their own are crying for dignity and they want the ability to be able to help themselves and get out of the trap that they are ensnared in, the destructive trap that they are ensnared in. In Arizona, we were able to pass some really key reforms within the last couple of years. In fact, I would like to talk a little bit about one of my favorite people in Arizona. It is Charles Barkley. Mr. Speaker, there are at least two huge differences between President Bill Clinton and Arizona's own Charles Barkley. Sir Charles, for one, backs up his big talk with big action. We have no such luck with Bill Clinton. In my home State, we have been waiting for the Clinton administration HHS to grant us a waiver so we can implement our State's innovative welfare reform proposals. Let me tell you about one of the pilot programs which would cash out the value of food stamps and give it to an employer to subsidize them to hire an employee, to hire a welfare recipient. It is a win/win. They get a job. They get dignity and self-respect and the employer gets a valued employee. Our bill was signed by the governor a year ago but the waiver paperwork was done last August. I personally wrote nothing. But there he was, just a few days later, talking big before the National Association of Counties, while the President's waiver application grows cobwebs on the President's desk, Bill Clinton declared, to applause in fact, here it is in the paper, in the Washington Times, ``Clinton wants States to have freedom to adjust welfare.'' He basically said, to applause, that we should abolish the waiver system altogether. Well, Mr. Clinton, we are waiting.

Mr. SALMON. I do believe people ought to have the dignity to be able to go out into the private sector to be able to get jobs, and really, if sincerely you do believe that this is a good idea, would you call President Clinton for me tomorrow and tell him to pass that waiver?

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim the balance of my time, and I would like to say I believe in private sector jobs and in more government-funded programs.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is too unreasonable to require the Federal Government to operate based on good science, and I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that analysis before rules are promulgated. Let me tell you a little bit of a horror story as a State legislator I had to deal with in the State of Arizona. We came under fire of the Federal Government because of the 1990 Clean Air Act, and basically we were told not only what the outcome should be of our plan to avert destruction by the Federal Government, but also what the modality should be. In fact, it was dictated to us that we must institute the IM-240 program, which is about three to four times more costly than the existing vehicle emissions testing and takes about four to five times as long, those that have to wait in line for the tests. Could you imagine all the smog and pollutants that are put into the atmosphere while they are waiting an extra hour in line with their cars running? Finally, I would just like to say we have an opportunity to turn all of these, this madness around, and I hope we get a chance to do that. Look before we leap.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, one of my staff was in a grocery store, local grocery store, just a few days ago and happened to be in the toy section of the store and lo and behold here is what he found and picked up. These are little toy soldiers, just like we used to play with when we were little boys and girls. It says ``U.N. troops.'' Mr. Speaker, how far have we gone? How far has this madness gone? It used to be, when I was a little boy, I would play with my G.I. Joe. They were American soldiers we used to play with. They were not United Nations troops. I think maybe the reason these kinds of toys are being marketed now is because maybe it is becoming acceptable that we no longer have our sovereignty any more, we no longer have control. We have given control of U.S. troops, our young men and young women, put them in harm's way, put them under the direct jurisdiction of the United Nations. In fact, in 1988, there were only 5 peacekeeping operations being operated by the United Nations across the world. Today the United Nations supports 17 peacekeeping operations. More and more, these missions involved internal unrest, including ethnic clashes as opposed to conflicts between nations. Mr. Speaker, today is a landmark day. We passed a wonderful piece of legislation that redirects our attention, that refocuses our priority on America, on America's vital interests, what is beneficial to this country and not the world at large. This is a wonderful day, and I think it was one of the most impactful bills, but unfortunately the media out there has decided to neglect any discussion of this bill. I will not comment as to why. But I will comment that these toy soldiers, they are meaningless, you can throw them away, they can end up in the wastebasket, it does not matter. But young men and young women, their lives do matter. When they are fighting on foreign soil, we have an obligation in this body to be sure they are standing up for our interests, our vital national security interests, and not for some utopian concepts of peacekeeping in areas that we really cannot keep the peace. This bill, H.R. 7 that we just passed, is very impactful in that it restricts the deployment of U.S. troops to missions that are in our interest. It demands that U.S. troops be commanded by U.S. commanders, not by U.N. bureaucrats. It reduces the cost to the United States for U.N. peacekeeping missions and demands that the United States Representatives to the United Nations press for reforms in the management practices of the United Nations. Mr. Speaker, I have also got to mention that I believe we have got to keep our eye on that one big ball that is out there, that $5 trillion Federal debt that we have. Not only do we not have human lives to waste abroad for needless causes, but we do not have the capital as well. We have a debt to pay off. As Mr. Kim pointed out adequately, we have paid a disproportionate share of the cost of peacekeeping. We pay 33 percent. The next highest country, Japan, pays in the neighborhood of 13 percent. That is unreasonable. We pay 25 percent of the costs for upkeep and maintenance of the United Nations. If we were getting what we paid for, it might be a different story. But I do not think we are. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate this body for doing some wonderful work today, and, hopefully, the measure will pass the other body and President Clinton will get significant support from the people out there, the voters, calls from the real people out there, the voters, calls from the real lives wasted in the future needlessly. Maybe these soldiers, these toy soldiers, it is okay to risk their lives because they do not mean much, but our young men and women, they do matter. President Clinton, please do not veto this legislation.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, brave young American men and women volunteer in our Armed Forces in order to serve their But in recent years, those soldiers have increasingly been put under foreign command and operational control--Americans ``peacekeeping'', or as it often becomes, defending themselves from attack--under the U.N. flag. Mr. Chairman, not one American should die serving the United Nations. When an American is sent in harm's way, that American deserves--and we in Washington have a moral obligation to provide--a clear understanding of the vital interests of the United States that justify putting that American at risk. No Utopian affection for the U.N. on the other side of the aisle should affect this solemn obligation. And, Mr. Chairman, they say that ``nature abhors a vacuum.'' While that may be true, it is also true that our adversaries love a vacuum. And now, where there was American leadership under Presidents Reagan and Bush, there is, in its place, a vacuum of leadership. Presidents Reagan and Bush understood that the United Nations was an important body that we could work with to advance America's vital interests. This administration believes that America's vital interests--and the safety of its fighting men and women--should take a back seat to the interests of the United Nations. Well, Mr. Chairman, this administration has it backwards, and we promised the American people we would correct it. This bill will restore our Nation's interests to the top of the equation. It does not, as our liberal critics contend, abandon the United Nations. But it does say--loud and clear--that our soldiers serve to protect the vital interests of the American people, not the interests of U.N. bureaucrats. And as long as I have a vote in Congress, I will oppose Americans going to war, or serving in so-called peacekeeping operations, when America's vital national interests are not present and clearly defined. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 7.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I heard a story about a little boy recently who wrote a letter to God, and in that letter he said: ``Dear God, please send me $10.'' I guess he thought that would be the best way to get the money. And the post office, not knowing where else to send the letter, sent it to the Office of the President. The President thought it was a very cute story, so he decided to send the little boy a dollar. A couple of weeks later the little boy received the dollar in the mail, and he was very, very disappointed. So he wrote another letter back to God, and this time it said, ``Dear God, thank you very much for the money. But as you recall, I asked for $10. Next time please don't send it by way of Washington. Those folks took $9 out of the $10.'' I do not think truer words were ever spoken. The fact is, this place taxes too much. When I was a little boy from a small family of 6 children, my father bringing up his family had to pay roughly about 2 percent of his income to the Federal Government. As Archie Bunker would say, ``Those were the days.'' But now we have taxed our way into oblivion. And what have we got to show for it? As the previous speaker mentioned, is the crime rate any better, and as a result of the Great Society programs of the 1960's, has our War on Poverty succeeded? With the programs we have instituted here in Washington, DC., have we really made things better or have we made things worse? I would submit we have made things much worse, and that is because of these failed programs. We have taxed and broken the backs of the American people, of the small businesses out there, and it is time to draw some lines in the sand. It is time for us to follow up and to do that thing that Thomas Jefferson regretted not putting in the Constitution, and that is a balanced budget requirement. We can even go one step better and make it tougher to tax. I cannot fathom how anybody in this body would not want to make it tougher to raise taxes on individuals out there who are struggling to make ends meet. I personally have four children. I consider myself the most average of average people. I came here not a man of wealth, but a man that had to struggle from paycheck to paycheck, and I understand what it is like out there in the real world to try to raise a family. My wife had to work a second job as well just to try to make ends meet, just so that we could pay our debt to Uncle Sam. And frankly, I think my children would be much better off, and so does she, if she would be able to spend a little bit more time at home with them rather than work to pay off Uncle Sam. If this truly is going to be a family-friendly Congress, and one that cares about people, let us draw that line in the sand. Let us pass the Barton amendment. Let us make it tough to raise taxes. I live in the same State as Mr. Shadegg does and served in the State legislature, and let me tell my colleagues, in the 1980's we were fourth in the Nation in per capita tax increases. It seems our answer for solving the problems of Arizona year after year after year was to raise taxes. And finally, when we got some common sense from the people, we, through the initiative process, passed a two-thirds requirement for any tax increase. And you know something, it did not paralyze government. In fact, after 3 consecutive years of decreasing taxes, out of a $4.5 billion State budget we had a $800 surplus this year by decreasing taxes. The same phenomena could happen at the Federal level. But we have to make tough decisions. But the people who elected us, elected me, elected me to come here and fight hard for them, not for government. They elected me to come here to stop spending and fight taxes at the same time, and I intend to do that. Just finally, I would like to reiterate what my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] did. Please, those who are out there, please, congresswoman, ask them, no, demand that they support the Barton amendment. It is crucial to each and every one of us.

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

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Nice try. But I would like to say this: One thing I have learned over my political career is that I know I am an incredibly average person, and the incredibly average person that I talk to out there cannot understand why we cannot move this to a vote and why we cannot move it quickly. I think some good points have been made, and we will get an opportunity I believe to visit some of these issues later. But I do not want to wait. I want to move, and I want to vote now. Let us vote this through. Let us make Congress live under the very same laws as any other American. It is the right thing.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, this has been an awesome day for me. I was able to sit here on the floor of this very hallowed place with my four children, and I can't tell you the experience this has been for me, to be able to sit among some of the most intelligent minds of our country, and to be able to have just heard the very eloquent speech of Mr. Frank. I am impressed. You are even better in person than you are on C- SPAN.