Matt Salmon

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It is really appropriate we are here on April 15, when people are feverishly trying to scrape together their hard-earned incomes so that they can keep this wonderful Federal Government going. It is interesting. I listened to the other side, those people that oppose making it tougher to raise taxes, and it is those same people that say we do not need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, we simply have the willpower here in Congress. Somehow they believe that the American people are going to wake up and say Congress is going to be different from the last 40 years; things are going to be completely different now into the future, because suddenly they have this resolve; they do not need to have their feet kept to the fire. Frankly, I think the American people are on to us. Once again those opposed to any limits on Federal spending have come out of the woodwork to proclaim that a constitutional amendment limiting Congress' ability to spend other people's money is dangerous and, indeed, unnecessary. They claim that willpower alone can limit taxes and spending. I will not doubt the commitment of the U.S. Congress to cut spending and balance the budget. Just look at the great job Congress has done in the past. Nor will I question the resolve of this President, who boldly declared last year in his State of the Union Address that the era of big government is over. Although he has vetoed two balanced budgets and has yet to produce a balanced budget that really balances, we can all sleep like angels, knowing this time he truly means it. Mr. Speaker, it is time to end this charade. For decades the politicians in Washington have promised to rein in Federal spending, yet every year the tax burden shouldered by the American people continues to rise. Only by making it harder to raise taxes can we give the American people a reason to believe that things are going to be a little different here in Washington, DC.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to stand up here and rant and rave or accuse the other side of being evilminded, because frankly, I think there are a lot of people over there that strongly believe in their position, but I believe they are really misguided. I think instead of using their heads, maybe it is time to use their hearts. This issue is divided between whether we should save the life of the mother or save the life of the child. Life is life. It is important no matter whose life it is. It really saddens me that we cannot stand up for the most innocent of life. We have detailed how gruesome and how disgusting this procedure is. Many would stand up when we talk about China, when a baby girl has her back snapped when she is born because the people want a baby boy instead of a baby girl and they have a one-child policy. We say that is disgusting. We say that is infanticide. If this is not infanticide, then what is? I would think that our God goes to the outer edges of our universe and weeps bitterly that a people could do this to the most innocent in a society. Let us stand up for all life, be it the life of the mother or the life of the baby. Let us stop this heinous practice.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I extend my best wishes and greetings to the Republic of China on Taiwan on the occasion of its 85th anniversary on October 10, 1996. Under President Lee Teng-hui and Vice President Lien Chan's leadership, the Republic of China continues its excellent record of economic growth and its historic democratization. Since I lived in Taiwan in the 1970's we have seen a different Republic of China emerge. It is now a major trading nation, and its GNP is one of the world's largest. Its growth in per capita income has improved the lives of the people on Taiwan. Also, the rapid democratization and constitutional reforms on Taiwan in recent years have made Taiwan a model for many nations. I would also like to welcome at this time the Republic of China's Representative Jason Hu to Washington. He will most certainly strengthen the on-going relations between Taipei and Washington. And I would like to congratulate Dr. Lyushun Shen on his promotion and return to Taiwan. His outstanding service on behalf of his government has strengthened our bilateral relationship. I wish him all the best, and I hope he continues to recognize the United States as an ally for peace, prosperity, and stability in Asia.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, last Saturday my alma mater, the Arizona State Sun Devils, took on the No. 1 ranked, two-time defending national champion cornhuskers of Nebraska. The result should be a lesson to all the pundits who have already written off Bob Dole. The pundits and so-called experts said A.S.U. had no chance against Nebraska. They pointed out that Nebraska had a 37 game winning streak, and that Nebraska had not been shut out in a regular season game since 1973. The point spread, looking a lot like some of the recent presidential polls, predicted that Nebraska would win by 23 points. Yet Arizona State managed to shut out Nebraska 19-0. The experts said Arizona State could not beat Nebraska, but the experts were wrong. The experts also tell us that Bob Dole and Jack Kemp do not have a chance to beat a certain liberal currently living in the White House. We Sun Devils know better.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an Arizona electric company that has done outstanding working the area of electrical efficiency. Recently, the Arizona Public Service Co. won an award from the Edison Electric Institute for its electrical efficiency in architectural design. As you know, we have some very warm weather in the Southwest, just like we do right here in Washington, DC, creating a tremendous demand for air conditioning and refrigeration. To find ways to make the most efficient use of electricity, the people at Arizona Public Service Co. designed an Environmental Showcase Home. Sacrificing neither comfort nor aesthetics, the home uses 60 percent less electricity and water. Mr. Speaker, I assure you that savings such as this will rapidly add up in Phoenix's large home-building market. Ms. Pat Vincent, APSC marketing and sales director, was in Washington recently to receive the award from EEI President Thomas R. Kuhn in a Capitol Hill ceremony. My congratulations to Arizona Public Service Co. for this well-deserved honor.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, last year during floor consideration of an amendment to eliminate the advanced light water reactor program, I supported continued funding for the program. I did it because I was assured that fiscal 1996 would be the final year of the program. To my surprise, tonight is deja vu all over again. I thought it was important to support the program throughout its completion in order to recoup some of the $340 million of taxpayer money we have invested in the program to date. But it is becoming increasingly apparent that this technology, once certified, may not even have a market. General Electric canceled development of a similar reactor because they believe that the market for smaller advanced light water reactors is nonexistent. If this reactor is really worth the investment, can a corporate giant like Westinghouse not come up with the $17 million to complete the program? We can save $17 million for the taxpayers tonight if we vote for discontinuing this program, or we can be back here next year, same program, same debate, deja vu again.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, it is virtually the same amendment that we submitted for the unanimous-consent request. I appeal to the Chair on that issue.

Mr. SALMON. Yes, it does. If I may be permitted to speak, I will explain how.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, last year I introduced a piece of legislation that I think could have been dubbed the Personal Responsibility Act. We are going to be talking a lot about personal responsibility this week when we talk about welfare reform. I think most of us know that a couple of years ago there was a real problem within the White House Travel Office

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, let me be as succinct as I possibly can. In a nutshell, all this amendment does is reduce within the administration and the Office of the White House the amount commensurate that we have already appropriated within the bill to compensate the seven people from the White House Travel Office that were, many of us believed, unlawfully terminated and vigorously pursued by the administration via the FBI. We already know the story. There is money in the bill to compensate these people. My proposal is simply that we get back to accountability and that the Office of the White House and the administration of the White House pay those moneys. Instead of appropriating new tax dollars to compensate those victims, that the money come out of already appropriated moneys and we get back to the concept of personal responsibility.

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

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is very straightforward. It applies to the Office of Administration and the White House itself. However, in the unanimous-consent request, it simply stipulates that it must relate to the White House Travel Office which is a subcategory of the Office of Administration. What I am trying to accomplish, I am trying not to be redundant. Since there is already a proposal within the legislation itself to compensate the Travelgate victims, I am simply reducing the amount from the Office of Administration and the White House. They have full purview to go to the Office of Travel and take the money from there if they so desire. I see no inconsistency with the unanimous-consent request.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I would just simply like to say that we tried to accommodate all sides on this. Obviously, we did not want to be redundant. I believe that we have made a good-faith effort to make sure that we were consistent with the amendment that we offered yesterday that was adopted under unanimous consent. I believe that we have made every effort to do that. As the gentleman stipulated, it was completely in good faith. I would just appeal to the Chair.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I do not think this phrase was ever more appropriate than it is now: So much to say, so little time. This is probably the most gut-wrenching issue that I have faced since I have been in Congress just a short tenure of almost 2 years. When I served a mission in Taiwan from 1977 to 1979, I got to know and to love the Chinese people deeply. I got to know several people who had escaped from China and escaped the persecution there several decades ago. When the Chinese started launching missiles in the Taiwan Strait earlier this year, there was nobody in this Congress that was more angry than me, that wanted to stand by Taiwan's side more than me, because I have loved ones and friends there that I was deeply concerned about and fearful for their lives. Clearly, the impassioned messages against human suffering and misery are heartfelt and sincere, and the leaders in the opposition to MFN, the gentleman from California, Dana Rohrabacher, the gentlewoman from California, Nancy Pelosi, the gentleman from New York, Jerry Solomon, and on and on, they really care deeply about the issues they talk about. Nobody will question that. We all want the evil to stop. But let us not confuse our tactics with our objectives. It is for precisely the same reasons that they care about these issues that we have to preserve MFN. Let us think about it. If we cut off MFN, what is the next likely thing that will happen? Trade relations will deteriorate. We will have trade wars. Diplomatic ties are severed. What is the end result? A cold war. Then what kind of influence do we have? Do we think those countries like France, Germany, Japan, that will jump in and fill that niche, do we think they will be raising those objectives, those issues? They never have before. If we really care about the human suffering and misery, we will continue engagement. But we are not silent about the things we care so deeply about. Let us continue to use every other sanction we possibly can. Let us continue to look for other opportunities, but let us not completely take ourselves away from the table. Let us be smart about this. That is why the people that really understand this, people like Martin Li, are saying we have to keep it. Talk to the people who have much more of an axe to grind than we do. We are righteously indignant about what is happening there, rightly so, but how about the people who stand to lose a lot more, their lives and freedom and everything they hold dearly? What about people like Martin Li, who have led the opposition to the violation of human rights in Hong Kong, and who was the father of the Bill of Rights for Hong Kong? He wrote us a letter yesterday and said the absolute worst thing we could do would be to revoke MFN. Listen to what the dissidents said, listen to what people like Teng- hui Li, the President of Taiwan said; he has more of a stake in this than anybody. It would be foolish to revoke MFN. It will hurt the things that we care about.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving me this opportunity. This is something that every one of us has struggled with. I know I have probably spent more time on this issue in the last 6 months than I have any other issue, because it really cuts to the core of our values. Of course we decry the human rights abuses that have happened in China. They are terrible, they are vile. Of course we are very sick and saddened by the nonproliferation issues that continue to be violated in China. Of course we are saddened and we are upset by the fact that they are pirating our software and our music and we are losing billions of dollars because of that. Of course we are sickened and saddened, me especially; having served a mission for my church in Taiwan, nobody was angrier than I to see friends and loved ones over there that I worked so long with for the 2 years, that I was there being threatened by missiles in the Taiwan Strait when that occurred. When we look at all of these terrible, terrible atrocities that are being committed in China, I think the gut instinct is let us come down hard, let us show them that we mean business. Let us get back to what John Wayne would do and be tough with these guys and make them learn a lesson. But I fear that throwing the baby out with the bath water is the worst thing that we could possibly do. Think about it. Has there ever been any relationship in your life that you have improved upon or imparted your values to by walking away from that relationship? Severing MFN with China would be tantamount to a declaration of war, I believe, and would lead, I think, ultimately to a cold war, because relationships would quickly deteriorate and ultimately most sides would end up not communicating. We in our Western understanding of things believe that we know that the right thing to do is to be tough with these people, but let us look at the idea of saving face that is so important to the Chinese culture. I believe that the freedoms that we enjoy, the values that we hold dearly, will only come to pass in China when the people in China rise up and make it so. A great philosopher once said, more powerful than any invading army or any tactic is an idea whose time has come. I believe the idea of freedom is an idea whose time has come in China, as it was in Taiwan about 20 years ago. When I lived in Taiwan, it was an oppressive regime. You could not speak out against the government. Freedom of the press was nonexistent. But economic reform spurred political reform, and the same thing will happen in China. But we have got to be articulate in our values. I think the administration can do a better job, a much better job articulating our values, but we will not improve anything if we walk away from the table, and the very things that we care so deeply about will be harmed irreparably if we walk away from this relationship.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, tonight I would like to talk about a very crucial issue that I think probably most of us campaigned on the last election cycle, the issue of health care and the health care dilemma in our country. Most estimate that there are probably about 40 million to 50 million Americans out there that have a lack of health insurance to take care of the needs of their family. As the father of 4 children, my heart goes out to those people, because frankly when your child is sick, there is nothing in the world that you would not do, nothing that you would not give up on the planet to pursue an effective remedy for that child's health malady. Or if a parent were sick or a wife or a husband, you would give up everything that you had to pursue the most state-of- the-art medical technologies available to try to rescue that individual. I have some friends back home in Arizona that have a child with cystic fibrosis. Let me just tell a little about their story. They are both self-employed, have had health insurance for years and then they had a child with a serious health malady, cystic fibrosis. I think as most know, cystic fibrosis is a disorder that can be very, very debilitating, requires a lot of medical care, a lot of money to be expended, a lot of time, love, and patience, and most people with cystic fibrosis do not live past their teenage years. If you have a child with cystic fibrosis that lives on into their twenties, you count yourself lucky to have had that time available to spend with them. My own child, Jacob, when he was a young boy, had several health problems and there was a fear that he might have cystic fibrosis. They did a little medical test on him and they determined that he did not have it, but I remember in the 3 days that we were waiting for that diagnosis to come about after they had done the testing, I remember the agony that we went through, the fear that we went through as parents wondering whether or not our child had this debilitating illness. But, then, this is not about my problem, it is back to my friends in Arizona and their child. Because after their child was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis, their insurance rates skyrocketed. In fact, they went up about 5 or 6 times. The premiums went up exorbitantly. They could not afford it anymore. And so they had to drop their insurance. The answer in today's society under our current administrative policies and State governments and Federal Government, at least in the State of Arizona, is they have to spend down all of their assets to qualify for Medicaid so that that child could get the kind of care that she needed to preserve her frail young life. That is not right. We ought to be addressing the issue of preexisting conditions. We ought to be addressing the issue of portability. These things are not just campaign slogans, they are not rhetoric. They are real-life situations with people, with situations that would tug at your heart strings. Most of us that have children and recognize again that you would do anything for a child that was in harm's way, such as this child is, you would do anything, you would give up everything. There is no price too great to pay. But why should they have to? Should we not hear, as representatives of our Nation's Government, the people that sent us back here to carve solutions? Should we not address the problem? Well, about 57 days ago, the House passed a measure, a health care reform bill that would do just that. It addressed the issue of preexisting conditions. For those people that are not self-employed, like my friends, but they work for a larger employer, they are not necessarily canceled from their insurance but they are job locked. They cannot ever change or go into a different job because they know that if they have to get another job that the likelihood that the insurance company from the new employer will pick them up is slim to none. So for years and years and years, people have been locked into these jobs because they have no alternative if they want that kind of care for their little one, or for their mom and dad, or for their spouse, or whatever the case may be. But we passed a measure that would deal with that 57 days ago, but it is still stuck because the President has an aversion to one of the components in the bill that he says he cannot support. So, thus, it has been held hostage for 56, 57 days, and the clock keeps ticking while these Americans keep waiting for health care reform. They keep waiting for us to cross partisan boundaries and be Americans first and do what is right by the American people, and it languishes because the President cannot support a particular component which I will get to later. Mr. Speaker, up to 25 million Americans would benefit from preexisting conditions reform, which eliminates the preexisting conditions exclusions for people with prior health coverage. That helps America's roughly 4 million job-locked workers by freeing them to job hunt since companies will be required by law to accept persons who had prior health insurance coverage, a very, very substantial reform. Instead of making these changes happen, this President holds the reform package hostage. This bill, this medical reform bill, also establishes a fraud and abuse hotline and, obviously, I think most of us know why we need that. There are those in the health care industry that would profit off of human misery and suffering. I think that probably the numbers of those people are probably relatively small, but just like any aspect of our society, lawyers, doctors, politicians, teachers, you name it, you will find fraud and abuse in virtually every aspect of our society. That is not to say all people are rotten. That is to say that fraud and abuse are two bad by-products of our society and things that we need to keep a lid on. Most of us see the problems when we go to the hospital. We see the $10 aspirin and we see the wooden throat stick that they use that we are charged $15 for, and we know that there is a major problem where we have been in for surgery and we know that possibly we have been charged for things that never happened to us or services that were never rendered. So there needs to be a fraud hotline and the laws need to be tightened up, and this bill does that, but it languishes. We cannot get by the filibuster rule in the Senate because the President holds it hostage because there are things in it that he says that he cannot stomach. Mr. Speaker, it increases access and it increases affordability. Our plan fights the discrimination that has been applied to small business for years. Why is it that a large company that employs thousands or maybe even tens of thousands of people, why is it that they can get full tax deductibility as a legitimate business expense for health care coverage that they provide to their employees, but yet a small employer that employs 50 or fewer or 100 or fewer, why is it that they do not enjoy the same kind of tax favorability that the large, big corporations do? Is it not known that in this country 80 percent to maybe 85 percent of all of the people that are employed in this country work in small business? Then we scratch our heads and we wonder aloud, I wonder why it is that these small businesses are not providing health care? Well, when you have a discriminatory tax policy which favors the big corporations that yield the tremendous profits but yet you won't give the same kind of a tax break to small businesses, you understand part and parcel the dilemma and the problem that we are now faced with in the health care arena. Yet our bill addresses that problem. Right now they only enjoy a 30 percent deduction, and that, again, only happened after the Republicans took Congress a year and a half ago. We are proposing to take it up to 80 percent. We would like to take it to 100, but the President has a problem with that, too. He does not want the people in small business to enjoy the same kind of tax favorability on their health care deductions as the large business people get, and yet it languishes because the President holds it hostage. Seniors and the terminally ill, two Contract With America provisions, are provided in our plan. The first allows tax deductions for long-term health care needs, such as nursing homes and home care; home care, something that has not been provided ever by this body. The second allows terminally ill patients and their families to receive tax-free accelerated death benefits from their insurance companies. These provisions will provide greater financial security to families struggling with terminal and catastrophic illnesses, but yet that is also included in our health care reform plan. It is still languishing, day 57. It is held hostage by the President. On cutting red tape, now, how many people out there think that we do not need to cut red tape when it comes to the health care bureaucracy? I think most people that have ever dealt with any kind of health care provider understand that probably 40 percent of a doctor or hospital's time is spent pushing paper, satisfying regulations of a State and Federal bureaucracy, as well as a big insurance company bureaucracy, and yet our plan has a measure that would cut through this red tape. In fact, it is one of the biggest measures, and this is the one that we want to talk about tonight, the thing that the President is so adamantly opposed to, and that is the concept of medical savings accounts. He would tell you that this is just another way that we are rewarding our rich friends. Well, let me talk to you about this commonsense solution, and you decide for yourselves if this is something that would help people or it would hurt people. The concept is easy. It is like an IRA fund where people can set aside or your employer can set aside for you pre-tax dollars with no taxation whatsoever, and it would be in your own account for you to spend on your medical needs. Now, coupled with that, the employer, or if the individual purchases the medical savings account or establishes a medical savings account for themselves, would then also purchase a higher deductible policy. Let us say they have in their medical savings account $2,000, so then they would purchase a policy with a deductible of $2,000. Now, the actuaries will tell you and common sense will also tell you that the higher the deductible, the lower the premium coverage. So for pennies on the dollar, you can get a policy that covers your needs but has a higher deductible. Then you pay cash out of your medical savings account when you go to see whatever provider you want to see, whether that is a DO, or a chiropractor, or a naturopath or your own allopathic physician, your gynecologist, your OB/GYN, your orthopedic doctor, whatever health care provider you choose for yourself to meet your needs, and not have some bureaucrat dictate to you what your needs are and how your needs should be resolved or addressed, you decide. It puts ultimate freedom in the hands of the patient, and it puts it back to the free market solution that has worked so well for other aspects of our economy. Let me tell you some of the reasons that medical savings account will work. When you are spending your own money, you are a little bit more cost conscious and probably a little bit better at detecting fraud and abuse than some of these big bureaucracies are. When you spend your own cash, you are going to be very frugal and you are going to be very cost conscious and you are going to shop around and get the best deal you can. Mr. Speaker, let me illustrate from my life. When our last child was born, Matthew, the cost paid for his delivery by my insurance company to the hospital and the doctor was $3,500. Two months later, my sister-in-law had a baby, but she did not have insurance, so she paid cash, $1,500; $2,000 difference by paying cash. The same thing will happen for all individuals out there, we who are able to shop around and get the best deal they possibly can. Also, when you do not have to worry about going through this big monstrous bureaucracy, be it an insurance bureaucracy or be it a Federal, local or State bureaucracy, you do not have all the paperwork to go through. So obviously you are going to get a better price, and the cost will come down. It puts ultimate freedom in the patient's hand. It cuts costs. At the end of the year, the other wonderful thing is that what you do you spend is yours. It does not revert to some insurance company's profits bottom line, and it does not go back to some wasteful bureaucracy in Washington, DC. It is your money to do with as you need to do. If you spent it on something other than health coverage, it will be taxed at the normal rate. But if you decide to roll it over the next year to grow the value of your medical savings account, then there is no taxation whatsoever. And a relatively healthy person of my age that started a medical savings account, kept rolling it over and did not have any serious health concerns to pay out of the medical savings account would be able to have a real healthy nest egg by the time they retire to deal with their own long-term care. Mr. Speaker, this is a wonderful plan. I cannot understand why the President would hold it hostage. He says that it is a benefit to the rich people. Well, common sense would tell you again that, if you gave a medical savings account to some individual, they would be able to make just as smart decisions as a rich person could if they did not have money. Common sense would also tell you that, when a person gets first- dollar coverage right out of their medical savings account provided to them by their employer in lieu of the traditional kind of health care coverage or forcing people into managed care, and giving them the ultimate freedom, that these individuals can make good decisions for themselves. The real answer for why I think some of the liberal people hate medical savings accounts is that they fundamentally believe that people, that the American people are too stupid to take care of their own health care needs, and they have more faith in bureaucrats and bureaucratic systems than they do a father or a mother taking care of the health care needs of their child, or a spouse taking care of the health care needs of his or her spouse. Well, we Republicans in Congress have a different idea. We agree with our Founding Fathers that the free market system indeed works. It works in the sale of cars. It works in the sale of food. It works in the sale of commodities. It also works in health care. It keeps everybody honest. It gets back to the idea that people are in charge, not bureaucrats. People are in charge of their health care destiny, and they can best determine what their needs are. Let me read just real quickly a couple of letters that were written that show the real hypocrisy in this debate. One is dated September 8, 1992, and it says: dear colleague, and it was sent to all the colleagues in the Senate at the time: The United States is faced with a crisis in health care on two fronts: access and cost control. So far most of the proposals before Congress attempt to deal with access but do not adequately address the more important factor, cost control. We have introduced legislation that will begin to get medical spending under control by giving individual consumers a larger stake in spending decisions. I do not need to keep reading the letter. I think you get the gist of it. But later on it says, in order to protect employees and their families from catastrophic health care expenses above the amount in medical care savings accounts, an employer could be required to purchase a high deductible catastrophic insurance policy, exactly the plan we are offering. In fact this is probably one of the most ringing endorsements for the concept of medical savings accounts coupled with the catastrophic care policy as I have ever seen or heard of. Do you know who signed this ringing endorsement of medical savings account? Senators Tom Daschle, of all people, and John Breaux, two of the voices now that are echoing the President's concerns that this is only again tax breaks for the rich or medical care for the rich. Back then in 1992, when they were in control and when they were trying to approach it from a bipartisan instead of an extremely partisan approach, they said that medical savings accounts was an idea whose time had come and one of the best ways to control costs and provide ultimate freedom to people to make the health care decisions for their lives. But, oh, what a difference a day makes. Just a few years later right in the heat of a campaign for the Presidency, now they are taking the President's side and they are opposing medical savings accounts. Mr. Speaker, could it be that they do not want the Republican Congress to get credit for such a wonderful idea and so they want to stall it for that reason? Or could it be that some of the managed care institutions who have lobbied them so hard because they fear that they will substantially lose market share when we do not force people into managed care have lobbied them so hard and heavy that they are afraid of losing those friends who have helped them get into office? One last letter I would like to read to you and then I am going to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished majority whip in the House of Representatives. Just so you know that this is not a Republican approach, this is an idea whose time has come. By the way, there are about 25,000 companies out there who are offering medical savings accounts to their employees with phenomenal success. In fact, almost every one of them, to the company, have realized a decrease in their health care costs, happier and healthier employees controlling their own health care destiny and not having it mandated to them from either assurance bureaucracy or a Federal or State bureaucracy. Who else has realized this? There are some, I think, very, very reasonable folks on the other side who have recognized this is the way it goes. This is a letter to President Clinton. Dear President Clinton: As original cosponsors of medical savings account legislation in the House of Representatives, we urge your review of and your public support for this wonderfully innovative idea. The recent vote on the House Republican plan should not be used to judge the Democratic Party's position on medical savings accounts. As you know, medical savings accounts have been a major plank in Congressman Torricelli's health care platform in his Senate race. We cannot think of a more Democratic idea than MSA's. In fact, it was originally our idea. We want Democrats to get credit for it. In the Senate, Democrats John Breaux, Tom Daschle, Sam Nunn, and David Boren initiated the idea, an idea they are now saying is such a rotten terrible idea. Dick Gephardt included MSA's in the House Democratic Leadership bill in 1994, just 2 short years ago. It was a great idea to Dick Gephardt. There were 28 House Democrats who cosponsored our initial MSA legislation. There are currently three Democratic U.S. Senate candidates who have supported MSA legislation. You also should know that the current contract of the United Mine Workers provides its members with MSA's. We do not believe the UMW qualifies as healthier and wealthier than the general population--a charge leveled by uninformed MSA opponents. I could go on. Again, they are extolling the virtues of medical savings accounts. It is an idea whose time has come. Let us stop holding health care, innovative, life saving health care reform, hostage, because we owe some special interest a favor or because we do not want Republicans to get credit for a wonderful idea whose time has come. Let us do the right thing by the American people. President Clinton, I urge you, with every fiber of my being, to sign this into law, to stop holding this legislation hostage. If you really feel our pain, as I know you say you do, then realize that there are millions of people out there who would benefit dramatically. My friends back in Arizona who have the child with cystic fibrosis, they are counting on you, President Clinton, to not only talk the talk, but to begin to walk the walk.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, since the start of the Clinton administration, our President has taken American workers for a rollercoaster ride when it comes to fundamental health care reform. Two years ago we faced the scary plan called Clinton Health Care, which basically was a system of socialized medicine. Clinton Care completely rejected the idea that free market reforms, not big government, centralized control, might be the way to bring health care costs into line, and it would have forced people into managed care. Americans were confronted with this ridiculously complex plan that would have even further increased our citizens' dependence on the Federal Government and ultimately left our children with debt even worse than today's already unacceptable high levels. Today in Congress we have a plan, a good plan, for health care reform. It does not call on the Federal Government to take over anything. Instead, we propose to fix our problems in a manner that befits our free market economy by empowering Americans to have more, not less, control over their health care. Our plan will let Americans take their health care insurance with them when they change jobs, limit exclusions for preexisting conditions, and, perhaps most importantly, give Americans the option to choose medical savings accounts, MSA's. Our plan believes in giving people, not bureaucrats, the power to make personal health care choices, but this plan is held hostage, day 57. MSA's, which is a component of our health care reform plan, provide free market solutions to our health care problems. Because of the fundamental good sense MSA's make, we have more and more Democrat converts to this economically sound reform option. While I would prefer to give the MSA option to all Americans, I recognize slow progress is better than no progress. Such is the nature of compromise. All in all, however, we in Congress have a solid reform plan, and I am proud of the spirit of bipartisanship that many have brought to this cause. However, one more Democrat still has not joined us in this compromise, and that is President Clinton. His refusal to take it up has brought this reform to a halt. I call on the President in the spirit of bipartisan, working together for Americans on crucial, crucial health care reform, for all Americans, to stop this hostage taking of the health care reform plan, come on board, and do what is right for America.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I did listen when I was back home in the district over the last couple of weeks. I listened to people who said they were tired of the liberals with their fingerprints on their wallets and their footprints on their backs, and that they are sick and tired of paying $1 out of every $4 of their income in taxes. They are sick and tired of having to have both spouses in a family work, one of those spouses just to pay the tax bill for the family. I do not know if any of the Members have read the recent article in Readers Digest where it talked about the poll they did among Americans, an equally divided poll among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, some that called themselves conservatives, many that called themselves liberals. One thing they all agreed on across all classes of our society here in these United States was that they felt no family should be paying more than 25 percent of their income in their total tax burden. But what is the average family of four's tax burden? It is at 39 percent, when you include the 24 percent of their income that goes to the Federal Government, with little to show for it. In fact, in 1950, middle-class couples with two children sent $1 out of every $50 to Washington. Today they send $1 out of $4. What more do they have to show for it? Of the last 16 major votes to increase taxes, only half of them would have passed by the two-thirds vote. In the 1980's alone, we would have saved the taxpayer $666 billion, had this measure been in effect. If this is some cruel joke being perpetrated upon the American public, then I fail to see the humor in it. The cruel joke is Americans are working more and they are taking home less. More is coming here to spend, spend on whatever. But they do not have anything to show for it. I remember I heard a respondent that listened to President Clinton talking about the 4 million jobs he took credit for. His comment was, ``That's great. I have three of them.'' The fact is, maybe Americans are making more, but they are taking home less. It is time we stand up for them. This cruel joke has been perpetrated on the American taxpayer for long enough. Let us stand up for them and get rid of this smokescreen of doublespeak for ``Let's stick it to the taxpayer one more time.''

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly endorse this rule. I would like to talk about one particular component of the piece of legislation that is exposed in the rule, and that is medical savings accounts. It truly is an idea whose time has come. Let us face the facts. Those on the other side had more confidence in bureaucracy and the heavy-handed government than they do in individuals. In fact, they do not want to give individuals these kinds of choices because they believe that Washington knows better what their needs are than they know what their own needs are for themselves. Medical savings accounts are being demanded by people out there. In fact, there are some 3,000 companies who are already offering medical savings accounts. Mr. Speaker, the only problem is our tax policy is discriminatory. It does not give the same kind of tax advantage to people wanting to establish medical savings accounts as it does to those companies providing premium coverage for traditional health care. Despite the charges of the opponents, MSA's are great for sick people and for the less well off. Why? Because you get first-dollar coverage. It astounds me the arguments that the other side has used against medical savings accounts saying that only healthy people would flock to them. Why? When you have a high deductible health care policy that kicks in when your medical savings account ends, you are going to get first-dollar coverage, and sick people would want it as well as healthy people. Finally, I would just like to say that they will work, by cutting out the bureaucracy, the redtape and the paperwork and replacing it with a free market. Individuals will be able to shop around and get the best deal that they can. When my last child was born, we had a traditional health care policy that paid $3,500 for the delivery. Two months later my sister-in-law had a baby at the same hospital, same doctor, yet they negotiated a cash payment of $1,500. They work. Let us talk about special interests, let us talk about the fact that the biggest interest group against this is managed care. Why? Because they would rather see the savings go into the managed care, the HMO programs, than they would back in the individual's pockets. Let us get rid of the heavy-handed government and let us really think about special interests and who is in whose pocket.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following material for inclusion in the Record: American Medical News, Published by the AMA, Chicago, IL, July 11, 1995. Hon. Charles T. Canady, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, DC Dear Representative Canady: We have received your July 7 letter outlining allegations of inaccuracies in a July 5, 1993, story in American Medical News, ``Shock-tactic ads target late-term abortion procedure.'' You noted that in public testimony before your committee, AMNews is alleged to have quoted physicians out of context. You also noted that one such physician submitted testimony contending that AMNews misrepresented his statements. We appreciate your offer of the opportunity to respond to these accusations, which now are part of the permanent subcommittee record. AMNews stands behind the accuracy of the report cited in the testimony. The report was complete, fair, and balanced. The comments and positions expressed by those interviewed and quoted were reported accurately and in context. The report was based on extensive research and interviews with experts on both sides of the abortion debate, including interviews with two physicians who perform the procedure in questions. We have full documentation of these interviews, including tape recordings and transcripts. Enclosed is a transcript of the contested quotes that relate to the allegations of inaccuracies made against AMNews. Let me also note that in the two years since publication of our story, neither the organization nor the physician who complained about the report in testimony to your committee has contacted the reporter or any editor at AMNews to complain about it. AMNews has a longstanding reputation for balance, fairness and accuracy in reporting, including reporting on abortion, an issue that is as divisive within medicine as it is within society in general. We believe that the story in question comports entirely with that reputation. Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to clarify this matter. Respectfully yours, Barbara Bolsen, Editor. Attachment.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, let us get down to brass tacks. What is this debate really about? There are those of us that really want to solve illegal immigration problems, and there are those that would like to keep it watered down and make sure that we do not have the resources to deal with illegal aliens. They would rather put their head in the sand than confront this vital issue to America. We have been passing the costs on for illegal immigration down to State and local governments for years and years and years through our Federal mandates in requiring that certain services be provided for illegal aliens. Now that they have an opportunity to help us to get our hands, our arms around the problem, they want to say no. We are not mandating on to the States or the local community. We are simply giving them the opportunity. Mr. Chairman, what this gets down to is that the other side would rather put its confidence in the Federal arm of law enforcement rather than the local arm, because they do not have confidence in the local arm of law enforcement. They believe that they are incompetent, that they cannot get the job done. We believe that local governments do a much more effective job. We would rather have them than those that brought us Ruby Ridge and Waco handling these types of affairs rather than the Federal Government ultimately. I think it would be a good idea. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow the State and local government officials to apprehend and detain illegal aliens who are caught violating deportation orders. Currently these officials are allowed to notify the INS but not anything else. INS just does not have the manpower to apprehend the illegals that are flooding the border States, like Arizona, and would welcome the help from local law enforcement. I have a citizen's task force composed of the chiefs of police from all over our valley of Phoenix, and they wholeheartedly endorse this measure. They believe they are competent law enforcement officials, and this would not run rampant over people's rights, as I think the other side who has no confidence in local law enforcement would allege.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to address the House. Let us make no mistake. A lot has been said about this side and that side, the freshman this, the freshman that. Let me make one point perfectly clear. As a freshman, I am perfectly willing to be here and to work as long as there is work worth doing, but this President has made a mockery of this negotiation process. One day he makes an agreement; the next day before the ink is dry on the agreement the previous day, they change their story. It is like playing ping-pong with a person that hides the ball in their pocket or quick-serves while you are not looking. Frankly, the American people are frustrated. We kept our part of the bargain. The President signed an agreement, a law, 30 days ago that he should abide by a 7-year budget as scored by CBO. Now, the Speaker and the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Kasich, and the gentleman from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, have been in negotiations with the President day in and day out, and it changes every day. He agrees to one thing one day and the next day he says, no, I did not say that yesterday. What does it do to us? We are wasting away precious time when we could be with our families and we are wasting it for a deal that is not going to happen.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, just an alternative thought on the schedule. I know the President and others on the other side have been critical of our not getting out the appropriations bills. Maybe we should just keep going right on up to Thanksgiving to get those appropriations bills out.