Matt Salmon

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Thank you very much. First of all, I want to say what an honor it is to be sharing the dais with two such distinguished gentlemen who have given up their careers and sacrificed countless hours with their families to come to this body and not, as has been done before, be willing to ``kick the can down the road''; coming to make real change; coming to try to get our arms around the real problems that are confronting our society and us as a Nation. I would like to say that it is just a debt crisis, that it is just funding for our government. But I think we all know it is much more than that. It is about the freedoms that we hold. It is about everything that we hold dear--everything that every military person for the last 240 years has fought to defend--and that is the freedoms that our Founding Fathers envisioned when they started this great experiment. We don't want to let that experiment die. I am so honored to be able to serve with two gentlemen that take this seriously and are willing to do more than be politicians and risk those political careers to actually do what is right. What a novel idea for Washington, D.C. I would like to talk just a little bit about the genesis of the President's health care law when we talk about the constitutionality. They cooked this thing up at a time when they knew that time was running short. A new Senator had just been elected from Massachusetts, so they had to act very, very quickly, or they wouldn't be able to get by the cloture vote. That is why Nancy Pelosi ended up saying, we have to pass it before we know what is in it and then we can read it afterwards, because virtually none of those Senators actually read it. That is why I understand Wolf Blitzer just came on today and said: Mr. President, why don't you postpone ObamaCare for a year? Why? Because we have seen over the last week it is a failure. Its roll-out has been catastrophic. We want to stop the hemorrhage and help the American people. How did the bill eventually become a law? It happened because they did a ``strike all'' on a bill that was originated in the House. But they did a ``strike all'' with language that had nothing to do with the original language. Why is that important? Because in the Constitution there is a provision called the origination clause. That stipulates that any revenue bill has to originate in the House of Representatives. It has to. That is a requirement for the Constitution, but this bill actually started in the Senate-- ObamaCare started in the Senate. So constitutionally from day one it started out on shaky footing. They violated the Constitution right out of the shoot. Now, let's fast-forward to where we are today. Congressman DeSantis, you have done a marvelous job describing some of the inconsistencies and the breaches of the Constitution that this President has done in actually changing his own law. We say it is his own law--it is Congress' law. It is a law that a President can't enact in and of itself and he can't change in and of himself. We don't have a line-item veto anywhere. The President can only change the law if it goes through Congress first. So like you said, Congressman DeSantis, he arbitrarily changed the date in the law from one year to the next, and you can't do that. I have heard from the Democratic Party time and time again--the folks on the other side--that they can't support this pathway that we have been going through in the last week of putting bills up on funding various aspects of government, like funding for NIH and kids with cancer or funding our veterans or funding our national parks. They say that that is a process of creating winners and losers, and they can't have any part of that. Well, what is President Obama doing when he is giving breaks to Big Business and to Congress, but he is not giving them to every other American when it comes to ObamaCare? Isn't that creating winners and losers? I think it is a tad hypocritical of them to even raise that specter. But I want to talk for a little bit about what has happened in the last week and a half. Because while the President is very willing to exceed his constitutional authority to do certain things, when he does have the constitutional authority to do something, he doesn't do it. What am I talking about? I am talking about what has happened over the last few days with the bill that we passed last Saturday before the shutdown funding our military, the Pay Our Military Act. It was clear in that bill, that very succinct bill, that they had the power to pay all of our military folks, including all of our civilians, and that they could go ahead and take care of the death benefits for these widows who have lost their loved ones in war. That was very, very clear. They had that ability all along. So what does the President do? He wants to use this for political leverage and make this as painful as he possibly can. So what do they do? They furlough several hundred thousand civilian workers within the military, just so they could ratchet up the pain and make it a little bit tougher on the Republicans. Then what happens? About a week later Chuck Hagel, the Secretary of Defense, comes out and says, Oops, my bad. I guess we had the power all along. Wasn't that what we have been telling them all along? You have the power to go ahead and keep these people at work and not disrupt, but they did that for political gain so that he could make it as painful as possible. One other example: in my own State, in Arizona, we have one of the greatest national parks, the Grand Canyon. It is not only a wonder for the entire world, but it is also a wonder for our economy. We have folks that are doing river raft trips, folks that do excursions and hikes down through the Grand Canyon; but they run into a closed park. Well, let me tell you something: I was here during 1995 when we had that last government shutdown. And guess what? We had a Democratic President. His name was Bill Clinton. We had a Republican Governor, just like we do in Arizona right now. His name was Fife Symington. What happened with the government shutdown? President Clinton worked with our Republican Governor, Fife Symington, to allow them to use private and State resources to keep the park open. So our Governor, Governor Brewer, writes a letter to President Obama thinking that he might be somewhat similar in nature to President Clinton as far as being willing to negotiate. I mean, these are people's lives on the line. What did they get? A big fat zero--no way, you can't open it. We have seen that time and time again. We have seen it on the National Mall that when certain groups of people want to come and take a look at the monuments or go into the National Mall that, no, the government is shut down, you can't come in, everything is shut. But yesterday, what happened in the National Mall? Fifteen thousand people came for a protest on immigration reform, and they opened up the National Mall. It is a disturbing pattern. If you agree with the President and his policies, we are going to do everything within our power to use government to help you get where you need to be. If you disagree with me, we are going to use our government to bludgeon you and use it as a tool to further our political agenda. That has happened with the IRS when it comes to the nonprofit status of various organizations. It happened with our Capital Mall and our Capital monuments. All I am saying is that I find it so incredulous that the President is willing to overstep his boundaries and unconstitutionally do things through executive order, and yet when he has the power and we have given him the power he is not willing to do it. I find those inconsistencies extremely disturbing and a little bit Machiavellian. I would hope that the President would look at what we are trying to do through this process. We have a responsibility to the people that elected us to make the laws as good as we possibly can. The last proposal that we put on the table was that we would delay the individual mandate so that every American--as you said, Mr. DeSantis--every American could get the same deal that Big Business with their great lobbyists here in Washington, D.C., got and that Members of Congress got. They would get the same consideration. The other part was that we would make sure that Congress lived under the same laws everybody else has to. A pretty commonsense approach, so much so that multiple Democrats agreed with us and voted with us to pass that and send it to the President. But what did Harry Reid do? He shoved it in his draw at the behest of President Obama. It is time to stop these reckless games. Mr. President, you have already shown that you are very willing to use your executive powers far beyond your scope of authority given you in the Constitution. Is it unreasonable for us to ask you to use your powers when you are given them to do the right thing?

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, it's with great emotion that I rise today. First of all, we're right in the midst of a government shutdown, and this is a terrible time. Second of all, this is my greatest hero's birthday; it was my father's birthday, October 1. My dad passed away about 5 years ago. He was part of the Greatest Generation, as denoted by Tom Brokaw. He fought bravely in New Guinea during World War II, and he represented his country proudly. My son-in-law is a captain in the Army. He's the father of my four grandchildren in Stuttgart, Germany. My nephew is an Army Ranger who has fought proudly in Afghanistan. It is for them that I rise today. Make no mistake, the other side today says that they want to support these things, but they don't. Why? Because it's political posturing. They don't want to mitigate the pain because that might somehow hurt their ability to try to extract whatever they can politically. Our constituents don't live in political rhetoric land. They live in the land where the rubber meets the road. Let's be really clear: You have an opportunity on the other side of the aisle to fund the veteran programs, and you're going to be held accountable for that. If you vote ``no,'' that's where the rubber meets the road. You'll be responsible for denying them these benefits.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, you've already heard that this is a very bipartisan measure that is supported by people on both sides of the aisle. In fact, I would like to point out a little story that I think is kind of interesting. I think Mr. Gosar might be a little embarrassed, and his partner on the other side of the aisle in getting this through, Ann Kirkpatrick. But I think it's really interesting to note that Mr. Gosar beat Mrs. Kirkpatrick in a campaign a few years ago, yet they were able to put all differences aside to come together for what's best for the State and what's best ultimately for the Nation. We are talking about 3,700 jobs. Every town hall meeting that I've held this year--and I think the same thing could be said for most folks in this body on both sides of the aisle--the number one issue that keeps coming up is jobs, jobs, jobs. People want to get back to work again. Arizona was hit really hard by this Great Recession, and the prospect of getting 3,700 jobs in our State for this great project that's going to provide 25 percent of the copper for this country is phenomenal. That's why The Arizona Republic, our State's largest newspaper, came out and editorialized for it. That's why you see all these different entities that really are on both sides of the aisle coming out in support of this idea. I really find it incredible that as we try to balance the budget, we try to start whittling down the deficit, stop having to pay a third of our debt to China, that we have folks on the other side of the aisle that are not willing to either cut spending or create jobs. I find that incredible. This is a phenomenal opportunity. It's a win-win all the way across the board and what I think a lot of our young people would call a ``no- brainer.'' I would like to really commend the other gentleman from Arizona, Representative Paul Gosar, for his undying support and his incredible hard work to get this done, and I commend his colleague on the other side of the aisle, Ann Kirkpatrick, for her great work on this. I also want to just say in closing that this is extremely important to the folks in Arizona. It's been going on since I left Congress the first time, and that was 12 years ago. It's time to put this to bed. It has passed the House on several occasions and it gets all caught up in the Senate. I think we have the opportunity to get it done this year, I think common sense will prevail, and I would like to again compliment the gentleman from Arizona for his great work.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the Student Success Act. This is the first real glimmer of sanity and common sense on Federal education policy probably in the last 20 or 30 years. I congratulate the chairman. As one of the speakers said before me, in the last 30 years, our international standing on STEM classes and math and science has gone from first place--I believe we're somewhere between 10th and 15th place on the international test scores. I used to listen to an adage from my father where he said if you keep doing what you're doing, you're going to keep getting what you're getting. We've had this encroachment of Federal Government time and time again in education policy. It doesn't work. This gives the flexibility to put the decisions back into the local governments-- teachers, parents, classrooms, and school boards--and that's where it needs to be. One size does not fit all and Washington is not the font of all knowledge. We can do better and we will do better, and this will do much better I have two letters from people in my local community, education leaders that have come out in strong support of this bill, and they're hard to please. So I will enter them in the Record. July 17, 2013. Hon. Matt Salmon, Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC. Representative Salmon: Reading a bill with ``common'' sense reform (no pun intended) for a broken education system is finally giving a voice to the frustration of millions of Americans witnessing the results of an over-regulated, burdensome, inflexible, one size fits all government intrusion into the education of our most precious resource-- our children. Although this bill may not address all concerns for all citizens, HR5 is a breath of fresh air and a good start in the right direction. The long overdue ESEA Reauthorization asserts our 10th Amendment right by reducing the federal role in education and properly restoring that authority to the states and local communities. This bill limits the authority of DOE, eliminates overlapping programs, requires more transparency, and removes the ability of the secretary of education to coerce states to adopt National Common Core Standards and Assessments--standards that only Washington D.C. based trade associations (not parents, teachers, schools, or states) have the authority to change. The DOE states they do not control curriculum but with the assessments aligning to the standards, of course the curriculum will also need to align to the same standards. HR5 provides more school choice for parents. It strengthens schools and student's needs in targeted populations by giving more flexibility with streamlined funding. Teachers will be evaluated by a state run system based on their actual ability to teach rather than by their credentials. Valuable classroom time can be spent on the needs of individual students instead of worrying how test scores will affect teacher evaluations. Haven't we already played that song with the AIMS test? We should nurture and develop, rather than stifle our educators love and spirit of teaching our youth. HB5 will provide the mechanism to accomplish this. This bill gives states the opportunity to regain autonomy, not only in the classroom, but internationally. Prior to the creation of the DOE, we had an envious ranking when benchmarked with other countries. Contrary to DOE claims, there is no proof Common Core is ``internationally'' benchmarked. How can it be--it is a pilot program with our children being used as the guinea pigs. Our education system works best when government limits its role to aiding and supporting the states--not controlling them. HR5 doesn't cure all issues, but it takes a giant step forward. I urge the members of the House of Representatives to look into the eyes and minds of our children when debating this bill. Their education will play a vital role in their future and the future of this country. Please vote yes for them, and for us. Sincerely, Carol Clesceri, Local Education Advocate, Prominent Member, Education Advisory Committee.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my continued concerns with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It seems that every day we learn a new way this law is negatively impacting the American middle class. Last week, three prominent unions sent a letter to the Senate majority leader and the House minority leader. In the letter, union leaders highlighted how ObamaCare is driving up the cost of small group insurance plans, causing employers to drop employees from their coverage or convert the employees to part-time status. In fact, that's exactly what happened in my district in Mesa, Arizona. The Maricopa Community College District announced that it will be cutting hours for adjunct faculty and student-service workers in order to convert them to part-time status and avoid onerous ObamaCare requirements and mandates. This is not only a financial hardship for these professors and their families, but the students suffer as well. Higher costs under ObamaCare are forcing employers to choose between keeping their doors open or cutting hours and staffing levels. These are the unintended consequences of a very, very bad law. It's time to repeal this law before it inflicts more harm on middle class America. We must take all necessary steps to repeal and replace this tragic legislation with true health care reform that relies on commonsense free-market policies and returns the power to patients and their doctors, not Washington bureaucrats.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following: Dear Leader Reid and Leader Pelosi: When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class. Like millions of other Americans, our members are front- line workers in the American economy. We have been strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision. Now this vision has come back to haunt us. Since the ACA was enacted, we have been bringing our deep concerns to the Administration, seeking reasonable regulatory interpretations to the statute that would help prevent the destruction of nonprofit health plans. As you both know first-hand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies. This is especially stinging because other stakeholders have repeatedly received successful interpretations for their respective grievances. Most disconcerting of course is last week's huge accommodation for the employer community--extending the statutorily mandated ``December 31, 2013'' deadline for the employer mandate and penalties. Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it. The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios: First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees' work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers' hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits. Second, millions of Americans are covered by non-profit health insurance plans like the ones in which most of our members participate. These non-profit plans are governed jointly by unions and companies under the Taft-Hartley Act. Our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance plans. And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won't receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they'll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies. On behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans. We believe that there are common-sense corrections that can be made within the existing statute that will allow our members to continue to keep their current health plans and benefits just as you and the President pledged. Unless changes are made, however, that promise is hollow. We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions. We are looking to you to make sure these changes are made. James P. Hoffa, General President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Joseph Hansen, International President, UFCW. D. Taylor, President, UNITE-HERE.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Conservation Trust Fund of Puerto Rico and specifically one of their renowned scientists, Lee An Rodriguez. Since it was established in 1971 with a Memorandum of Understanding between the Secretary of the Interior and the Governor of Puerto Rico, the Conservation Trust Fund of Puerto Rico has been dedicated to conservation efforts throughout the island. The Secretary and the Governor jointly appoint the trustees. Since that time they have become one of the preeminent conservation groups the Western Hemisphere and the leader in the Caribbean. Under the leadership of Fernanado Lloveras, the Trust Fund has continued the legacy started by the original Executive Director, Francisco Javier Blanco. On an island that is only 35 miles wide and 100 miles long and is home to over four million people they have been able to carve out some magnificent examples of both historical and ecological conservation. The Trust currently has over 18,000 acres under protection and collaborates on a number of projects with government agencies. The Las Cabezos de San Juan Nature Preserve near Fajardo is a wonderful example of both nature and historical preservation. The site has a bioluminescent lagoon as well as a mangrove forest that allows for visitors to walk through it on a series of boardwalks without disturbing the natural habitat. It also has one of the original Spanish lighthouses, which has been restored and serves as a museum and dormitory for visiting research students. The Hacienda Buena Vista outside of Ponce is a testament to man's imagination. Built in the 1850's as a coffee plantation it is run on hydropower where the water is drawn from the mountain stream, used to power the plantation, and returned to the stream. It contains a wonderful water turbine engine that was manufactured in West Point, NY and shipped to Puerto Rico. The Trust is currently restoring a sugar plantation near Manati. It totals 2300 acres and gives a glimpse into the past of Puerto Rico when the sugar industry was a vibrant part of the economy. Ms. Lee An Rodriguez has been a leader at the Trust in educating others on the importance of land preservation and particularly the importance of having clean water. She is being honored, along with three other scientists, for her leadership in developing citizen science groups under a program funded by the National Science Foundation. Both Ms. Rodriguez and the Conservation Trust Fund of Puerto Rico are to be commended for their exemplary work in the field of conservation. Mr. Speaker, I submit an article from the Caribbean Business noting this honor for Ms. Rodriguez. PR Scientist Honored at White House Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico development manager Lee Ann Rodriguez is among four scientists who lead citizen science groups funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) being honored in a White House ceremony on Tuesday. Rodriguez is currently training hundreds of residents of Puerto Rico to lead citizen groups that will study the impacts of urbanization on the biodiversity and cultural resources of the Manati River watershed. Ultimately, Rodriguez's trainees, who range in age from teenagers to retirees, will cumulatively lead thousands of other citizen scientists, many of whom would otherwise have minimal exposure to science. The data they produce will support long-term watershed monitoring and inform land use decision-making in Puerto Rico. Rodriguez, the other three NSF-funded Champions of Change, along with eight other Citizen Scientist Champions of Change will be recognized for their exemplary leadership in involving the broader, non-expert community in research on science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM). The Citizen Science Champions of Change are leaders in a field that is currently exploding in popularity--partly because the Internet and new applications afford quick and effective communication between citizen scientists and scientists. More than 600 citizen science groups are currently engaging more than 100,000 worldwide volunteers. In addition, data from citizen scientists has been incorporated into more than 1,000 scientific papers in peer reviewed journals. In fact, much of our current understanding about the distribution of plants and animals, the quality of water in streams and rivers, observed astronomy and the evidence of global climate changes was derived from data produced by citizen science projects. Operating as a private, nonprofit organization, the Conservation Trust manages a number of the island's environmentally sensitive areas, while promoting the concepts of conservation to schools and the general public through volunteer programs, reforestation projects and various community workshops and events. In this way, the Conservation Trust, founded more than 40 years ago, works toward its goal of protecting and enhancing the precious natural resources of Puerto Rico.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. What I said was that the language that we've agreed to here is the language that I believe embodies the spirit of the agreement between us and Mexico. I believe it's exactly what the President has been asking for.

Mr. SALMON. No, that's not what I just said. I don't appreciate having words put in my mouth. That's not what I said.

Mr. SALMON. Actually, that is not correct.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to address Congress today. I'm very pleased, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere for the Foreign Affairs Committee, that we held a hearing on this issue. Afterwards, we decided--after some extensive consultation with folks from the Obama State Department, we worked with the chairman of the Resources Committee and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan) to develop this language. There is an old axiom that says ``let no good deed go unpunished.'' Nowhere in America could that be more true. Actually, nowhere on Earth could that be more true than here in Washington, D.C. The fact is that this language reflects the agreement that the Obama administration signed almost a couple of years ago. Maybe there's some buyer's remorse and maybe there's an idea now that we don't like the fact that we agreed to this language a couple of years ago, but this reflects the agreement that was signed. One other thing I'd like to mention is another great axiom, and that is that ``the road to hell is paved with good intentions.'' Unfortunately, I didn't know that that road went smack-dab in the middle of Washington, D.C. The fact is, this is a good bill, and every American out there who is paying too much for their energy costs, paying too much every time you go to the pump and you fill up your car with gasoline or you go on a vacation and you curse those gasoline pumps, knows full well that we are trying to do everything we can on the Republican side of the aisle to lower your gas prices. We're trying to do that by forming this agreement with Mexico. A win- win. You've heard that term a lot today, because it is. It will create jobs both in Mexico and the United States. Pemex, the Mexican oil company, does not have the deepwater drilling capabilities that our oil companies do, and so Mexico reached out to us and asked us if we would agree to a treaty to work together with them so that we could jointly drill. And isn't it about time that America looks to its neighbors, its friends, its allies in the region, like Mexico, instead of having to rely on the thugs in the Middle East for our oil. I think it is about time that America and the Western Hemisphere become energy independent, that we produce our own oil in this country and in this continent. And when we do so, what's going to happen? We will reduce the likelihood that we will have to get into a war because of some oil issue. We reduce the likelihood that some of these despots from other countries, like Venezuela or other countries in the Middle East, literally hold us--excuse the pun--but hold us over the barrel, and ask us to commit to things that maybe we would rather not commit to, or play their silly games. Wouldn't you much rather rely on a country and a friend and a neighbor like Mexico to be able to jointly drill, develop that oil, lower gas prices, and create jobs for American and Mexican citizens. This is truly a win/win. Let's not let, in some minds, the perfect be the enemy of the good. The fact is this is the language that Mexico had asked us to agree to, and we're simply trying to move the ball ahead. We can do a lot of gamesmanship today and spout off about this or that, but this is the agreement that was signed almost a couple of years ago. And again, the administration dragged their feet for the last couple of years to get this ultimately to the floor. Thank goodness we have a chairman over here that took the bull by the horns and said, We're going to do this. We're going to do this for the American people because it's a no-brainer. So it's basically time, I agree, for us to do this in a bipartisan fashion, get off our dead derrieres, and get the job done.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, this little document here, the Constitution of the United States, is something that we all cherish, something when we were all sworn in we raised our right arm to the square and we said that we would uphold this document. It is the framework this Nation is built upon. There are certain unalienable rights that are created in that document that we just can't waive away. Some concerns about these rights are embedded in this bill. I have real concerns about American citizens being detained for an unspecified amount of time. I believe that this amendment goes a long way toward shedding the light, the light of transparency, on how these American citizens are handled. I think that's the very least that we can do as a body to make sure that our people's fundamental rights of freedom are protected. One of the great leaders and Founding Fathers of this Nation, Benjamin Franklin, once said: Those who are willing to trade their freedom for security deserve neither and shall probably lose both.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. I was just going to say, my interpretation of the law is exactly as it's stated in the law that we passed in 1996 and nothing more, nothing less.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I might add that this amendment was one that was offered by my colleague David Schweikert from Arizona last year, and it passed on a voice vote. Department of Homeland Security, DHS, has long viewed State and local governments as valuable partners that can help serve a helpful role in assisting DHS in fulfilling its responsibility with respect to immigration enforcement, and it continues to welcome that participation. In order to avoid complying with their obligation to share information with DHS, local governments have taken on a ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy known as ``sanctuary policies.'' With the implementation of sanctuary policies, State and local law enforcement officers are barred from asking people about their immigration status or reporting them to Federal immigration authorities. Sanctuary policies are bad public policy because States or cities that institute sanctuary policies become magnets for illegal immigration. Illegal immigration results in higher costs of living; reduced job availability; lower wages; higher crime rates; fiscal hardship on hospitals and substandard quality of care for residents; burdens on public services, increasing their costs and diminishing their availability; and a reduction of the overall quality of life. Sanctuary policies are expensive and shift the cost of illegal immigration onto citizens and legal immigrants. Because of the difficulty States have in collecting taxes from persons who are not lawfully present, many are utilizing State and local benefits and resources without contributing their fair share. Sanctuary policies serve as a perverse incentive for illegal alien families to move to those States or cities who institute such policies. Accommodating those who violate our immigration law encourages others to follow the same path and gives prospective immigrants little incentive to pursue the legal path of immigration when they can sidestep the process and gain the same benefits. Sanctuary policies also insult those legal immigrants who patiently waited for months and years for the U.S. State Department and DHS to approve their application and paid thousands of dollars in travel, legal, and medical fees to abide by the entry, employment, health, and processing laws and regulations. Sanctuary policies conflict with Federal law. Recognizing the adoption of sanctuary policies as a growing impediment to combating the wave of illegal aliens residing in the country, Congress adopted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 that barred State and local governments from prohibiting employees from providing, receiving, and sharing information on those here illegally with Federal Government immigration officials. Sanctuary policy denies U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement critical assistance to enable it to accomplish its statutorily mandated mission to identify and ultimately remove those here illegally who are currently in State or local custody. Sanctuary policies undermine national security efforts and create an environment in which terrorists and individuals of national security concern go unnoticed and uninterrupted. Sanctuary cities tell those who are here illegally that the laws of our country don't matter. Sanctuary city policies encourage illegal immigration and weaken our Nation's ability to secure our borders. They contribute to a flood of illegal immigrants in this country today. During the immigration reform debate, sanctuary cities should not be overlooked. This policy is creating an even bigger illegal immigration problem. With money so tight these days, cities which are purposely skirting Federal law should not benefit from Federal law enforcement funding. The funds should be used for those cities who are actively enforcing the law. So, in a nutshell, what this amendment would do is disallow any funds from this particular legislation to go to sanctuary cities. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SALMON. I would like to commend the gentleman from Ohio for standing so strong for an American patriot. I believe his motives are extremely noble and good, but I don't believe this is the right way to handle it. I am the chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs. Brazil comes under my purview. While we have points of trouble with all of our bilateral relationships, we don't necessarily throw the baby out with the bath water. This is an extreme measure. It would punish a lot of very innocent people who my colleague spoke of right before me, innocent people that are trying to immigrate or come work or study in the United States from Brazil. I want to commit to the gentleman from Ohio that, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, I will do everything within my power to work with him, if it requires hearings, whatever it takes. I want to help you bring justice. I do not believe that this is the right way to do it. In fact, I think it would be very counterproductive in our relationship with Brazil. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I'm driven today to rise because I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Max Baucus, that ObamaCare is a train wreck to our economy. As a proud cosponsor of H.R. 45, I unequivocally support a full repeal of this onerous law. Since the Supreme Court has delineated it as a tax, it's clear that obligations or commitments to not raise taxes on the middle class have gone by the wayside. In fact, this will be one of the largest tax increases on the middle class known to man. In fact, there's a hidden tax in this bill on medical devices, lifesaving medical devices. My mother, 90 years old, has a pacemaker, and that keeps her alive. The next time she gets one, she's going to have to pay a tax on that, and so is every other senior citizen who has a pacemaker. I think this is just flat out wrong. Also, the Maricopa Community College district just recently reclassified 700 professors from full-time status to part-time status so they don't have to pay this onerous tax. Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible bill. It needs to be repealed.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, balancing our budget goes way beyond taxes and spending. It will define who we are as a Nation and ensure prosperity and opportunity for all Americans going forward. According to two prominent Stanford University economists, John Cogan and John Taylor, the Ryan budget would raise gross domestic product by 1 percentage point by 2014. Well, just what does that mean? They explained it. It's equal to about $1,500 for every household in the United States--$1,500 for every household in the United States. By 2024, they estimated GDP would increase by 3 percentage points, to $4,000 per household. That growth, that kind of growth can't be ignored. Putting our budget, moreover, our economy, on a sustainable budget, is a moral imperative, and we owe it to the men and women retiring tomorrow, as well as my newest granddaughter, who will be born in April. The Ryan budget also recognizes that our current tax structure is holding our Nation's prosperity back. I applaud the goal of collapsing our Tax Code to just two lower rates of 10 and 25 percent. We need pro-growth policies that will grow our economy and create jobs. Tax reform is the answer. At the end of the day, we don't need more taxes; we need more taxpayers, and new jobs will do just that. Containing the size, scope, and cost of government has got to be a priority here. The more money siphoned from the economy to support government programs means less money in the economy to support private investment, innovation, job creation and wealth for all Americans. We've done this before and we can do it again. I listened with a little bit of incredibility as I listened to the gentleman from Maryland do a little bit of revisionist history. He talked about the late nineties, and gave the credit to the President for balancing the budget. Well, I was here in the Republican House of Representatives, the first Republican House of Representatives in 40 years, and I like to take a little bit of credit for that too. I think that the Republican Congress got the ball rolling. But at the end of the day, I don't care if the President takes the credit for that. In fact, after we passed welfare reform three times, finally, the President kind of came along, kicking and screaming, and he signed welfare reform into law. And 50 percent fewer families in America have to rely on welfare. They have jobs. I'd like to see us balance the budget, not just for my children, but for my grandchildren. And I'll tell you what: if President Obama's willing to do that with us, like President Clinton reached across the aisle to a Republican Congress, I will be happy to be the first in line to give him credit for that because I believe all America will benefit.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Bob Bondurant School of High Performance Driving in Phoenix, Arizona on their forty-fifth anniversary. After racing since a teenager, Bob Bondurant was in a tragic accident during a race flipping his car eight times, injuring his ribs, legs, feet, and back. Determined to help drivers of all levels avoid accidents like his own, Mr. Bondurant took his passion of racing and turned it into an opportunity to advise and instruct others. On February, 14, 1968, he opened the Bondurant Driving School with three cars and three students. From this small start, the Bondurant School grew and in 1990 opened their purpose-built driver training facility in Phoenix, Arizona--the Firebird Raceway. The world-famous Bondurant School established a name for themselves by sticking to their core principle and driving motivation to offer professional and everyday drivers with the best track-intensive training in the world. Throughout their 45 years in operation, the Bondurant School has trained more than four-hundred thousand people to become safe and effective drivers both on and off the racetrack. This milestone is a shining reminder of how core principles, hard- work, close friends, and a passion for your work produce lasting results. Today, I am pleased to call on my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Bondurant racing family on their impressive accomplishment and core ethos of driver safety.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Bob Bondurant School of High Performance Driving in Phoenix, Arizona on their forty-fifth anniversary. After racing since a teenager, Bob Bondurant was in a tragic accident during a race flipping his car eight times, injuring his ribs, legs, feet, and back. Determined to help drivers of all levels avoid accidents like his own, Mr. Bondurant took his passion of racing and turned it into an opportunity to advise and instruct others. On February, 13, 1968, he opened the Bondurant Driving School with three cars and three students. From this small start, the Bondurant School grew and in 1990 opened their purpose-built driver training facility in Phoenix, Arizona--the Firebird Raceway. The world-famous Bondurant School established a name for themselves by sticking to their core principle and driving motivation to offer professional and everyday drivers with the best track-intensive training in the world. Throughout their forty-five years in operation, the Bondurant School has trained more than four-hundred thousand people to become safe and effective drivers both on and off the racetrack. This milestone is a shining reminder of how core principles, hard- work, close friends, and a passion for your work produce lasting results. Today, I am pleased to call on my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Bondurant racing family on their impressive accomplishment and core ethos of driver safety.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. `` . . . forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.'' Amendment XXVI: Section 1: ``The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.'' Section 2: ``The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, after years of work, and several Congressional Hearings, Aimee's Law passed both the House and Senate overwhelmingly, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 2000. The bill will take effect on January 1, 2002, giving us more than a year to be sure it is implemented properly. It is essential that we do so, because too many lives are shattered each year at the hands of dangerous predators. Using a mechanism that is workable, constitutional and respectful of states' rights, Aimee's Law will help to reduce repeat attacks perpetrated by released murderers, rapists, and child molesters that account for over 14,000 crimes of this nature each year. These crimes share one characteristic: they are all preventable. If we simply keep murderers, rapists, and child molesters behind bars or, at a minimum, properly monitor them upon release, thousands of serious crimes would be prevented. Aimee Willard, the young woman for whom this legislation is named, died with every pint of blood drained from her body because Nevada recklessly released a murderer who reoffended in Pennsylvania. Aimee was a most extraordinary young woman; loved by her family and friends, an All American Athlete, an individual some of her peers believed could one day serve in the United States Congress, or as a teacher to our children. If this law is diminished in any respect it will be an assault on her memory. I acknowledge that the mechanism used in Aimee's Law is novel--and is now, in some respects, more complex than originally drafted, due to revisions we made at the request of the States--but it is certainly workable. Of course, if those who had opposed Aimee's Law had instead joined us in working for the most straight-forward solution to the crisis we face with dangerous recidivists, application of the legislation would be even easier. If opponents now point to the provisions that were added to address their concerns, and argue that those provisions now make the law unworkable, then Congress should remove the safe-harbor provisions and hold states fully accountable for their errors in releasing murderers and sexual predators, the way the bill was originally introduced. Let's address the concerns of the bill's critics in further detail. The small band of congressional opponents to the bill, and the state advocacy groups that opposed it, lodge three main arguments against the legislation: (1) the bill is unworkable; (2) the bill runs afoul of the Constitution; and (3) the bill would pressure states to rachet up penalties on murder, rape and child molestation offenses. I will address the last charge first. Shouldn't we celebrate a law that incentivizes states to increase penalties for violent crimes? We have in the past. The truth in sentencing reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s are at least partially responsible for the dip in violent crime we have seen over the past several years. Keeping violent criminals behind bars reduces crime. The trend of reduced crime is welcome, but more, much more, needs to be done. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report released last month, one violent crime occurs every 22 seconds. A forcible rape occurs every 6 minutes and a murder every 34 minutes. The success enjoyed in reducing crime over the past several years does make further reductions challenging. Targeting recidivist crime among the most dangerous criminals--murderers and rapists--as well as pedophiles, who are most likely to reoffend if given the opportunity, is smart public policy. The time served for these crimes is outrageously low. The average time served by a rapist released from state prison is just 5\1/ 2\ years. For molesting a child it is about 4 years. And for homicide it is 8 years. My constituents and I consider those figures to be shockingly low, and I have no doubt most Americans would agree. Reasonable people can quibble about the technical operation of the law, but to argue that one of Aimee's Law defects is that it will encourage states to increase these murderously low sentences misses the point--this is one of the central purposes of the legislation. The following comments were offered by opponents of Aimee's Law, and while I do not agree with everything contained within them, they deserve repetition here because they point to the value of the law. It will rachet up sentences. Senator Joe Biden: ``As a practical matter, this bill can only promote a `race to the top' as States feel compelled to rachet up their sentences. . . .'' Senator Russ Feingold: ``Here, of course, we are not preparing to pass a new federal murder, rape, or sexual offense statute. But we might as well do that because in Aimee's Law we are forcing the states through the use of federal law enforcement assistance funds to increase their penalties for these offenses. . . . Basically, this policy could force states to either enact the death penalty or never release a person convicted of murder on parole.'' Senator Fred Thompson: ``If you remember what I said a while ago, the name of the game is for the States to keep ratcheting up their incarceration time so they are within the national average. . . . The safest thing for it to do would be to give life sentences without parole. . . . For some people, I think that is a good idea anyway.'' Representative Jerrold Nadler: ``Here we are telling them, you had better keep ratcheting up your terms of imprisonment, no matter what you think is right, to match everybody It's not as if murderers, rapists and child molesters become Boy Scouts after their release from prison. The recidivism rates for sex offenders are especially high. As the best experts who have studied this issue will tell you, ``Once a molester, always a molester.'' The Department of Justice found in 1997 that, within just three years of release from prison, an estimated 52 percent of discharged rapists and 48 percent of other sexual offenders were rearrested for a new crime, often another sex offense. Of course, states have the right to release convicted murderers, rapists and child molesters into their cities and neighborhoods. However, the question is, who should pay when one of these violent predators commits another murder, rape or sex offense in a different state? Should Pennsylvania, which has already paid a huge human cost with the loss of Aimee Willard, have to pay for the prosecution and incarceration of her killer, Arthur Bomar? Or should Nevada, which knew that Bomar was a vicious killer but decided to release him anyway, pay for the costs wrongfully inflicted on the state of Pennsylvania? The answer is obvious. And it is not merely a question of fairness. Aimee's Law will also lead to more sensible decisions by states on which criminals to release, and which to keep behind bars. Previously, when a state released a murderer or sexual predator, it actually received at least a perceived economic benefit in the form of reduced incarceration costs. Moreover, since these criminals sometimes left the state, the state was rid of its problem. By reducing this perverse financial incentive, it may focus the decision purely where it should be, on the community safety issue: will release of this prisoner pose a danger to the community? As to the concern that the bill is unworkable, I ask the critics this: what effort did you make to smooth out the edges you claim are rough? If half the effort spent trying to derail this legislation had been spent on perfecting the bill, I have no doubt a cleaner product would have emerged. But, the perfect should never be the enemy of the good. The bodies continue to pile up and some of the states' groups-- the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the Council of State Governments--aggressively tried to kill a bill that will protect their citizens. But they failed, in part, because it is clear to the Congress that the states need to do more to protect the public from second attacks committed by convicted murderers, rapists and child molesters. I will now address the operational and constitutional concerns raised about the bill. I will first begin with the premise behind Aimee's Law. Aimee's Law targets an extremely narrow category of crimes: murder, rape, and child molestation. We're not targeting jaywalkers, shoplifters, or even drug dealers. We're targeting the worst of the worst. Any opponent of this bill must answer the following: ``Should a pedophile have a second chance to live in your neighborhood?'' Or, as so often is the case, a The definitions attached to murder, rape and dangerous sexual offenses could not be clearer. For murder and rape we use the definition of these crimes found in the FBI's Uniform Crime Report. All 50 states are familiar and comfortable with these definitions. Out of recognition that states have varying laws when it comes to child molestation offenses, Aimee's Law adopts the definition for dangerous sexual offense found in chapter 109A of title 18. Given that the U.S. Department of Justice is tasked with administrating the law, using federal definitions for the crimes covered is sensible. The next issue is when Aimee's Law applies. It was my intent, and is my interpretation, that the law applies to all second convictions that occur after the law takes effect on January 1, 2002. If this is judged not the case I would support the broadest possible reach that respects constitutional boundaries. Applying the law to all second convictions has at least four salutary effects: (1) From this day forward, states will begin the process of reforming their systems to end the revolving door for these most heinous crimes; (2) States will be encouraged to adopt Stephanie's Law, which has been constitutionally upheld as a way for states to keep dangerous sexual predators off of the streets after their prison sentences have expired; (3) States will find it useful to tighten dangerous loopholes in the Interstate Compact for Parole and Probation; for example, including changes consistent with the proposal submitted by the National Institute of Corrections; and (4) States will have a powerful incentive to work with the Department of Justice to better account for and monitor the thousands of murderers and sex predators already roaming the streets. America has been lax for far too long. Delay in implementing the law fully will cost additional lives. This is how Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch explained the operation of Aimee's Law during Floor debate: Aimee's Law operates as follows: In cases in which a State convicts a person of murder, rape, or a dangerous sexual offense, and that person has a prior conviction for any one of those offenses in a designated State, the designated State must pay, from Federal law enforcement assistance funds, the incarceration and prosecution cost of the other State. In such cases, the Attorney General would transfer the Federal law enforcement funds from the designated State to the subsequent State. A State is a designated State and is subject to penalty under Aimee's Law if (1) the average term of imprisonment imposed by the State on persons convicted of the offense for which that person was convicted is less than the average term of imprisonment imposed for that offense in all States; or (2) that person had served less than 85 percent of the prison term to which he was sentenced for the prior offense. Senator Hatch also offered this observation: ``The purpose of Aimee's Law is toHatch adds that the effect of truth-in-sentencing and sentencing reform is a more than 12 percent increase in the average time served by violent criminals in state prisons. That, I submit, is a positive development. All that is needed in determining the expenses involved in a fund transfer is a handheld calculator. The calculations required to determine if a state is exempt from the fund transfer in Aimee's Law is more complicated, but certainly within the grasp of the professionals at the Department of Justice. The state organizations' claim that the safe harbor provision makes Aimee's Law unworkable rings hollow given their intense lobbying for such protection. The FBI already collects detailed statistics on rape and murder, which make a national average easy to identify. As for dangerous sex offenses against children, this will take additional work, but it's worth it to protect kids from the lifetime devastation caused by molestation. I suspect that nearly all Americans would desire annual reporting of statistics that measure where their state ranks in comparison with other states for the specific crimes covered in Aimee's Law. I expect that DOJ will annually compile a national average for the crimes of murder, rape and child molestation. DOJ will also compile the average term of imprisonment for those crimes in each state. If a state is above the national average for a particular crime it will be exempt in cases in which the released offender served 85 percent of his sentence. The numbers that DOJ produces for any given year will be the number used for all convictions that occur during that year. Remember, this section was added at the insistence of the states to protect states that are doing at least an average job of protecting their citizens and neighboring citizens. The original bill contained no such language. There is no need or desire on the part of the author of Aimee's Law to make this section any more complicated than necessary. As an example, let's say Offender 1 commits a covered offense in state A in 1999 and then is released in 2003 and commits a covered offense in state B in 2005 and is convicted in that same year. DOJ should authorize a fund transfer if State A's term of imprisonment for the covered offense was less than the national average, using the latest sentencing data (probably from 2004). I do not expect DOJ to search back to 1999 to determine whether state A was behind the national average. Again, the national average is simply a benchmark to provide some relief to states, that do at least an average job of keeping certain violent offenders behind bars. Even if this state is average or better on sentences imposed, Aimee's Law would apply in this case if the criminal had failed to serve 85 percent of his sentence for his prior offense in 1999. I'm more interested in murderers, rapists and child molesters serving appropriately long sentences than serving any particular percentage of their term. Most can agree, however, that a murderer, rapist, or child molester released before 85 percent of the expiration of a (minimum) As to payment schedule, the Attorney General and the state affected have great latitude in arranging the transfer. Any federal crime funds (excluding funds designated to victims) can be used so long as the funds have not already been distributed. There is also flexibility as to the term of the payment. As has been the case for administering the truth-in-sentencing grant program and other DOJ programs, the agency will presumably need to issue guidelines. I am confident that the U.S. Department of Justice can implement the law in a manner consistent with congressional intent that is both workable and fair. Unable to defeat Aimee's Law in the court of public opinion or in Congress, some critics are girding for a constitutional challenge. Again, I would implore them not to spend their time on an effort, that if successful, would be welcomed by the child molester community. In any event, a careful review of Supreme Court decisions suggest that a challenge would be futile. Some critics contend that Aimee's Law could run afoul of the spending clause because it coerces states, is not unambiguous and could induce the states to take action that is unconstitutional. The suggestion has also been raised that there could be a violation of the ex post facto clause. In upholding the spending power of Congress in South Dakota v. Dole, the Supreme Court did, indeed, place limits on this power: (1) the requirement must be related to the purpose of the funding; (2) the condition can pressure but not coerce; (3) the condition cannot induce unconstitutional behavior; and (4) the condition must be unambiguous. A careful review exonerates Aimee's Law of all raised constitutional issues. Aimee's Law is clearly related to the source of funding, dollars to fight crime. No one even contests this point. While Aimee's Law certainly provides encouragement to states to increase sentences and improve post-incarceration policies, it does not rise to the level of coercion. Some opponents of the measure suggest that Aimee's Law does not create a large enough penalty to encourage states to take this action, since roughly seven out of eight repeat offenses occur in the same state as the first offense. I do believe that the transfer mechanism will result in increased public safety efforts on the part of the states, but the bill does so in a fair and reasonable manner. Aimee's Law does not pressure states to adopt unconditional means to protect public safety, only reasonable ones. There are several constitutional steps states can take to reduce their potential liability under Aimee's Law. The law will provide a powerful incentive for states to better communicate with each other concerning each other's convicts. It should also provide increased incentive for the states to amend the Interstate Compact to give states the right to reject dangerous out-of-state offenders. States can also do a better job of monitoring their own released prisoners. They may also civilly commit certain offenders. I have never suggested nor would I condone a state that took action that exceeded constitutional boundaries. Finally, Aimee's Law unambiguously imposes a condition on Federal money that passes constitutional muster. The language only affects federal money not yet distributed. The expectations are clear: A state will lose future federal crime dollars if it fails to protect other states from certain released criminals. The mechanism Aimee's Law uses may be novel. But, it is not constitutionally prohibited. The leading Supreme Court case on this matter, Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1 (1981) states: ``[L]egislation enacted pursuant to the spending power is much in the nature of a contract: in return for federal funds, the States agree to comply with federally imposed conditions. The legitimacy of Congress' power to legislate under the spending power thus rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the `contract.' '' Again, Aimee's Law only involves federal crime funds not yet distributed. Ex post facto concerns are similarly misplaced, since the clause applies to laws criminalizing behavior after that behavior has already taken place. The Supreme Court recently ruled in Johnson v. United States, 120 S. Ct. 1795 (2000) that for a law to have problems with this clause it must apply to conduct completed before its enactment and raise the penalty from whatever the law provided when he acted. Aimee's Law will have no effect on any particular criminal sentence already meted out. Aimee's Law does create an incentive for states to properly monitor those out of prison still under its jurisdiction. The bill should also spur states to develop laws similar to Stephanie's Law that provide for the post-incarceration civil confinement of certain dangerous sexual predators. Additionally, Aimee's Law should encourage states to increase penalties for crimes not yet committed, which is proper, constitutional, and necessary given the outrageously low sentences currently served by the average murderer, rapist, and child molester. In conclusion, Aimee's Law will make America safer. While the safe harbor provision--added at the insistence of the states--has added complexity to the legislation, Aimee's Law is still a workable, constitutional effort to protect innocent citizens from a completely preventable type of interstate crime. The safe harbor was added as a way to offer relief to states with an above average criminal sanctioning system. If their is concern about its applicability, it could easily be removed. But perhaps we should watch this law in action before we begin tinkering with it. And for those who would seek to undermine, weaken, or repeal it, be warned that victims from around the country, the National Fraternal Order of Police, and the supermajorities in the House and Senate who support the bill stand ready to expose and block any effort to undo the benefits of Aimee's Law.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Computer Crime Enforcement Act of 2000. 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 crimes; 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. A recent poll conducted by the Information Technology Association of America (who endorse my bill) found that 61 percent of consumers questioned are less likely to shop over the Internet as a result of the rise in cybercrimes. Clearly, e-commerce and e-crime cannot co-exist. The FBI refers many of these cases to local law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, local law enforcement agents have not had the necessary equipment or training to protect the public from hi-tech thieves. At a cybercrime summit I hosted in Phoenix this summer, many local law enforcement officials told me that they do not have the necessary equipment nor have they received adequate training to protect the public from hi-tech thieves. As a follow-up to my cybercrime summit, I asked several law enforcement agencies from Arizona to respond to a questionnaire regarding computer crime. Forty-three percent of the agencies do not have funds specifically set aside for computer crime investigations even though 50 percent of the agencies investigate more than 10 cases a month. More frightening is the fact that 43 percent of the agencies have personnel who are only moderately trained in computer crime investigation. Computer crime has been on the rise for some time. 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 attack'' by hackers, up 37.5 percent from three 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 criminals 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. To have a successful, national cybercrime strategy, the FBI's expertise in fighting hi-tech crimes will need to filter down to the states. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I thought I would be at home with my family at this time, preparing for the holidays, but we are here, and we have work to do. One of the areas that we should address before we adjourn is the disgraceful treatment of our overseas military personnel by partisan political operatives. At the behest of political operatives, lawyers spread out across Florida with a specific goal in mind--to disenfranchise the men and women of our Armed Forces who are living abroad. So they distributed a 5-page primer on how to kill these votes, and they challenged every absentee ballot they could from our servicemen and servicewomen, managing to block more than 1,400 votes from being counted. They didn't block these votes from being counted a second, third, or fourth time--they blocked them from being counted even once. These votes now sit in the trash, and barring congressional action this year, those votes will never be counted. Along with my friend Curt Weldon, I am today introducing the Armed Services Vote Rescue Act, which will count those ballots cast by our military personnel stationed overseas. And it will not just make sure they are counted in future elections, it will make sure that they are counted in Florida this year. Legal scholars assure us the bill is entirely constitutional. The bill essentially adopts the standard articulated by Senator Zell Miller in the Washington Post of November 20th: Any ballot from a man or women in the military who is serving this country should be counted--period. I don't care when it's dated, whether it's witnessed or anything else. If it is from someone serving this country and they made the effort to vote, count it and salute them when you do it. I was in Kosovo earlier this year and let me tell you--obtaining a postmark is not the first thing on our soldiers minds, nor should it be. Or imagine those on aircraft carriers--they don't wait around to find a postmark--they get the mail off the carrier the first chance they get. Those who defend our Nation should not be mistreated the way they have been wronged this year in Florida, and no man who would be Commander-in-Chief should seek to exclude the votes of the men and women he would command. You know, at the same time Florida officials were dismissing valid military ballots, these same Florida counties, according to the Miami Herald, accepted the illegal votes of as many as 5,000 felons, including at least 45 killers and 16 rapists. So rapists' votes were counted, but soldiers' votes were trashed. The Congress cannot let that stand. We have more than 30 original cosponsors on the bill and endorsements from a growing list of veterans groups. So be fore we adjourn, let's give each and every Member the opportunity to cast a simply vote, so there can be no mistake: Do we stand without military men and women, or do we stand with partisan lawyers out to obstruct their votes? Let's pass the Armed Services Vote Rescue Act and do right by our military personnel. I submitted into the Congressional Record the following letters from various veterans groups who have endorsed this legislation as well as a copy of the memo that was used to exclude these military ballots. Non commissioned Officers Association of the United States of America, Alexandria, VA, December 1, 2000. Hon. Matt Salmon, U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Salmon: The Non Commissioned Officers Association of the USA (NCOA) is writing to state our strong, unequivocal support for the Armed Services Vote Rescue Act. The sacred oath of all military personnel, officers and enlisted alike, is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Incredibly, military personnel sworn to preserve the Constitution, at great personal risk, were in more than 40% of the cases in Florida denied their most basic right to have their vote counted in the November 2000 general election. The outright rejection of armed services absentee ballots, as appears to be the case, because of some discriminatory pre-conceived notion that military votes might favor one side versus the other, is unacceptable and should not be allowed to stand. Military members give up many rights while serving in the Armed Forces. Restrictions are placed on their political activities and Armed Forces members understand and abide by those limits. The right to vote is the only form of political speech that a military member can exercise freely and without restriction. Denying the vote of military personnel and their eligible family members, who have complied with all applicable registration and voting requirements, is unconscionable. The very thought of it should chill the spine of all freedom loving people. NCOA salutes your effort to reverse this recent travesty and thereby re-enfranchise Florida's military absentee voters. The fact that any individual, group, political party or candidate for national office would systematically seek to marginalize military absentee ballots is appalling. The call to arms has been issued. Fix bayonets. Count on NCOA'S full support for swift consideration and enactment of the Armed Services Vote Rescue Act. Sincerely, David W. Sommers, President/CEO. Larry D. Rhea, Director of Legislative Affairs.