Matt Salmon

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, in September Congress ratified H. Con. Res. 371, which resolves that Congress supports the goals and ideas of National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month. Clearly, each Member shares the commitment to keep America's youth drug-free, and return those who have used drugs to a drug-free life. I add these comments in an effort to help achieve this goal. First, H. Con. Res. 371 states that ``26 million Americans currently suffer the ravages of drug or alcohol addiction.'' This statistic is presumably based on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, which finds that roughly 26 million Americans are heavy drinkers or are casual-to-dependent users of one or more illicit drugs. The report does not state that these individuals are suffering from an addiction. The absence of this distinction could result in misdirected program development and misappropriated funding. Affected are those who direct public and private resources; to counselors and treatment professionals who develop protocols for assistance; to employers who strive to maintain drug-free work environments; to the criminal justice system which must be accountable to the public they serve; and to our Nation's families who rely on accurate information, accurately communicated. H. Con. Res. 371 also states that adolescents who undergo addiction treatment report less use of marijuana, less heavy drinking, and less criminal involvement. Let us hold ourselves and treatment outcomes to a higher standard. While interim goals can be applauded, the fact that youth who receive treatment continue to use drugs--albeit less often-- and continue to be involved in criminal activity--albeit less often-- cannot become our Nation's standard for success. Nelba Chavez, Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, spoke of the need to provide better focus of the treatment programs that serve young people, when she said that, ``few seek help, and those who do often receive treatment that is inappropriate. Many treatment programs are designed for adults and are ill-equipped to meet the needs of adolescents.'' Although abstinence from illicit drug use is the central goal of all drug abuse treatment, researchers and program staff involved with adult treatment commonly accept reductions in drug use and criminal behavior as realistic goals. Surprisingly, we are now advised by the National Institute on Drug Abuse that ``a good treatment outcome may be a sizable decrease in drug use and long periods of abstinence.'' Our Nation's policy goal regarding drugs is the creation of a drug- free America. Specifically, in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, drug abuse is to be curbed by preventing youth from using illegal drugs, reducing the number of users, and decreasing drug availability. Let us hold this vision of a drug-free America and hold ourselves to this standard. Anything less is a disservice to ourselves, to the adults who currently use drugs and, most certainly, to our most precious resource--America's youth.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the author of the bill here on the House, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for all of his support for Aimee's Law. I would like to thank him for putting together such a wonderful piece of legislation in the first place, because this is all about victims. It is about victims who are slave traded. It is about victims, women who are harmed across the country in many, many different ways. It is about little children who are victims. I would like to speak specifically about Aimee's Law. I would like to go back down to memory lane 3 years ago when I introduced this bill. I had a dinner with several victims rights advocates: Fred Goldman whose son Ron was murdered, with Mary Vincent who was kidnapped when she was 15 years old while she was walking along the road. She was raped and had her arms chopped off. She walked for 2 miles to safety and survived to testify against her perpetrator who, by the way, was let out of prison and then killed a mother of 5. I remember Mika Moulton whose little boy was stabbed 66 times and left in a shallow grave; that in and of itself is heinous enough, but the fact that this boy, this young man that did this to her son was let out of prison for killing a 5-year-old girl and raping her with a stick ought to make your blood curdle. The fact is 14,000 rapes, murders and molestations occur every year, and they are 100 percent preventable. We heard some people on the other side of the aisle who have some heartburn about this. Let us make government be accountable. These are not just statistics. These are people who are dying. These are people being raped. These are children being molested. We have an opportunity to do something about it to make the States be accountable if they let someone out of prison who poses a threat to society, then there should be a price to pay, and that is what this is about.

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

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, as it is currently drafted, that is my understanding, yes.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I would like to clarify my response to the colloquy I engaged in with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). The version of Aimee's Law contained in H.R. 3244 would apply only to individuals convicted of murders, rape, or child molestation for a second time after the law takes effect on January 1st, 2002. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding that I might have had or given. I would also like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his graciousness in including this legislation, which will make a real difference in people's lives. Because, Mr. Speaker, 14,000 rapes, murders, and molestations occur every year, and they are 100 percent preventable. Because if these monsters were not let out of prison, or if after let out of prison they had an adequate program for tracking these people through their parole program to make sure that the violence is not recommitted, lives would be spared, children's innocence would be preserved, and women's lives would not be ruined. This will make a difference. It will make a difference.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, though my colleague, Mr. Udall of Colorado, and I are from different states and opposite political parties, we join together today in saluting the Colorado Coalition for New Energy Technologies. This coalition, established early this year, brings together Colorado businesses and non-profit groups in support of environmentally responsible economic growth through the efficient use of Colorado's abundant and clean sources of energy. This new coalition has already accomplished several successes in its short tenure, but perhaps one of the most notable was to help key members of the Colorado state legislature establish the Colorado Renewables and Energy Efficiency Caucus. Modeled on the U.S. House Renewables and Energy Efficiency Caucus, of which we are co-chairs, this state caucus was founded in March 2000 by seven state Senators and Representatives of both parties. Within two months of its founding, this caucus more than doubled in size to 17 state legislators before the 2000 Colorado General Assembly adjourned. Like the U.S. House Caucus, the primary goal of the Colorado caucus is to educate legislators about cutting-edge advances in renewable energy and efficiency technologies, many of which are developed in Colorado at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden. Throughout its activities, the Colorado Coalition for New Energy Technologies seeks to emphasize how investment in new energy technologies helps sustain the economic prosperity of Colorado and of the United States. In its short existence, it has proven to be a resource for its members, as well as to Colorado state legislators seeking timely and accurate information on new energy technologies. We salute the Colorado Coalition for New Energy Technologies, its members and its leadership for the valuable contribution it is making to the formation of energy policy in Colorado.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Dignity for the Terminally Ill Act of 2000. The bill clarifies an ambiguity in Federal law which allows the Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA] to cut off Medicare funding to hospice patients after 6 months of treatment. The scope of this problem was detailed in a recent Wall Street Journal report which revealed that in early February 1997, several Hospice patients received letters from HCFA saying they were under investigation for Medicare fraud simply because they had lived longer than current Federal guidelines allow for reimbursement. In other words, HCFA officials were more concerned about being reimbursed than they were about caring for these dying patients. It seems strange that HCFA would begin cracking down on its 6-month rule given the fact that, for years, Medicare officials have encouraged the hospice industry to grow, primarily because it is less costly to care for the terminally ill at home than it is to treat these patients in a nursing home or hospital. Unfortunately, it seems the rise in hospice care during the 1990s brought about an increase in fraud and abuse of the Medicare system, which in turn sparked a misguided crackdown on terminally ill patients. HCFA officials discovered roughly $83 million in such abuse and began pushing their intermediaries to crack down on the problem. In 1997, the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services warned HCFA officials to do a better job enforcing their 6-month reimbursement guideline. While HCFA's plans may have been well-intentioned, its intermediaries' attempt to enforce the rule was disastrous. For example, the Wall Street Journal reported that UGS, a subsidiary of Blue Cross Blue Shield in Wisconsin and a Medicare intermediary, sent letters to five terminally ill patients which declared that they were not eligible for Medicare hospice and, adding insult to injury, requested these patients to pay $450,000 for the care they received. Outrage from several hospices and Federal legislators has led to a small change in HCFA's aggressive crackdown on its 6-month rule. Last week, HCFA's administrator, Nancy-Ann Min DeParle, wrote to thousands of hospices to explain that there has been a ``disturbing misperception'' about HCFA's efforts to enforce its 6-month regulation. However, she never specifically declared that reimbursement for care of hospice patients will continue for as long as they receive treatment. She only offered to create a ``voluntary'' case-by-case review of patients who remain in hospice care longer than 6 months. Regardless of Administrator DeParle's change in position, we must clarify the law so that there is no question about HCFA's responsibility to provide care for the terminally ill. It is the right and moral thing to do. More importantly, it will let hospice patients live out their final days in dignity. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor my bill and I submit the Wall Street Journal article of June 5th to be printed in the Record.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, first of all, thank the committee chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for working so tirelessly on getting this piece of legislation to the floor. I would also like to thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for all of his hard work and his commitment. As we can see from the poster board here, grandma pays a copayment when she seeks health care, but the criminals pictured here, John Gotti, Timothy McVeigh, Ramzi Yousef, and Aldrich Ames do not. Most law-abiding citizens like grandma pay a small fee every time they seek elective care. But the most despicable criminal element, terrorists, murderers and drug dealers face no such burden. Why should Federal prisoners be any different? The free health care currently enjoyed by Federal prisoners is an offense to every law- abiding, hard-working American taxpayer who struggles to make ends meet. It is time to end the free ride for Federal prisoners by requiring them to contribute to the costs of their own care. The Federal prisoner health care copayment act puts an end to the unfair policy that permits convicts totally free access to unlimited health care. Also, under the act, every time a convict pays to heal himself, he will pay to heal a victim. Most of the copayments collected will be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund. The support for this bill is bipartisan and bicameral. The Senate version passed earlier last year with the support of everyone from Jesse Helms to Tom Daschle. The Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Department of Justice have endorsed the bill. At least 38 States have enacted prisoner health care copayment plans. The bill reflects many of the features of the successful State copayment laws. The Federal Prisoner Health Copayment Act simply requires the Federal Bureau of Prisons to collect a copayment of at least $1 for elected health care visits covered by the bill. The legislation applies to both inmates in the Federal Bureau of Prisons and those in the Federal system housed in non-Federal facilities such as county jails. It is expected that the Bureau of Prisons will adopt a sliding scale of fees to reflect the financial status of the inmates. Indigent prisoners would not be denied care. The fee would not be assessed for preventive health care services or emergency services, prenatal care, diagnosis or treatment for chronic infectious diseases, mental health care, or substance abuse treatment. The fee does not take effect until inmates are given prior notice. As mentioned above, every time a prisoner pays to heal himself, he will help to pay a victim. Mr. Speaker, 75 percent of the funds collected go to the Crime Victims Fund, and the remainder covers administrative costs. If the experience of 38 States that have copayment programs up and running is any indicator, the Federal measure will accomplish several important objectives. Most importantly, frivolous visits will be reduced, perhaps dramatically. The Federal prisoner health care system is being overutilized, if not abused. The legislation will ensure that every prisoner receives the care they need without forcing the taxpayers to pay for red carpet treatment not available to most law-abiding Americans. Consider some of the examples of how well this program has worked on the Statewide level. This is a list of all of the States in our country, 38, that have passed a copayment piece of legislation like I am introducing here today. Arizona estimates a 40 to 60 percent reduction in medical utilization. Florida experienced a 16 to 29 percent reduction in health care visits. New Jersey inmates visits declined 60 percent. Kansas saw a 30 to 50 percent reduction. Nevada, a 50 percent reduction, and Maryland, a 40 percent drop. Mr. Speaker, CBO estimates that enactment of the Federal Health Prisoner Copayment Care Act would result in a reduction of medical visits that could be as low as 16 percent and as high as 50 percent. That is 50 percent, and that is significant. These reductions translate into a real cost savings. The bill would generate annual revenues of $500,000 through collection of a copayment fee, most of which would benefit crime victims. Additionally, $1 million to $2 million in cost savings in reduced health care visits would be realized and could be upwards of $5 million in subsequent years. According to CBO, the costs of administering this program would only cost about $170,000 annually. There is absolutely no doubt that enactment of the Federal Prisoner Health Care Copayment Act will save taxpayers money and provide victims of crime with a modest boost in funding. The bill will also improve prison safety and discipline, promote responsibility, and increase the resources available to truly sick inmates. In addition to reducing unnecessary visits to these facilities operated by the Bureau of Prisons, the bill would accomplish the same result for Federal inmates under the supervision of the U.S. Marshals Service. The U.S. Marshals Service supports the bill for three other reasons: Number one, equity. If those in a State criminal justice system must pay a copayment, so should the Federal inmates housed in the institution. Two, liability. With no Federal law on this matter governing, some Federal inmates have sued local facilities that have perhaps improperly charged them a copayment. Number three, friction. The exempt status of Federal inmates foster resentment amongst State inmates. As I mentioned, 38 States have passed this. Will it take 50 States before we finally get on board and follow the leaders? As a bonus that will interest local facilities that house Federal inmates, the bill will generate hundreds of thousands of dollars. The attacks on this bill have one element in common: They are all misplaced. Any constitutional concerns do not even pass the most liberal laugh test. Thirty-eight States have enacted the copayment laws. These States have survived court challenges in at least seven States, one being the State of Virginia. The bill does not deprive inmates of health care, rather it requires them, when they have sufficient funds in their accounts, to pay a modest copayment when seeking elective care. While it may be true that a majority of Federal inmates do not have an exorbitant amount of money in their prison accounts, what expenses do they use their discretionary funds for? Their meals are taken care of, their exercise is taken care of, their studies are taken care of. Prisoners are not paying for room and board. They are not paying for television or recreational services. So where do they spend their money? In the commissary on such items as cigarettes. The average cost of a pack of smokes is double that of the minimum in the Prisoner Copayment Act. If prisoners are left with less money to purchase products such as cigarettes, I think we could argue they might be better off. Those concerned that the copayment would hit poorer inmates harder than the richer ones, should be happy to know that the bill permits the director of the Bureau of Prisons to assess higher fees for more affluent inmates. We have been hearing so much about how terrible the rich are in this country, so we can stick it to the rich inmates. This is a good provision in this bill. As for cost effectiveness, a few members of the minority cite a California report on its copayment program. This report indicates that copayment fees collected may be less than the amount spent administering the program. Even if this is the case, the final figure as to the cost effectiveness of the California program, which I have read the report, it is dubious at best, because they have no kind of tracking mechanism to establish exactly where the money has gone or the money is collected or any of the cost-benefit analysis, but they are leaving out one critical factor: The dollar value of the frivolous visits eliminated by the copayment program. With this added to the equation, the California program would be a cost saver. But they have not had any tracking mechanism instituted to determine any real data on that. In any event, CBO has reviewed the legislation before us today and concluded that it could save up to $5 million a year in health care costs. Some argue this will endanger prisoner guards. That obviously is not the case, given the strong support of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. In fact, just the opposite is the case. Guards may be exposed to additional danger when they accompany prisoners en route to a health care visit. The final argument is the bill would lead to a decline in health care services for inmates. Wrong again. What the bill would do is to eliminate a significant percentage of frivolous visits. This should leave additional funds and resources for the generally infirm inmates. The vote today on the Federal Prison Health Care Copayment Act will place each Member on one of two sides: The side of convicts or the side of victims. I encourage my colleagues to side with the victims.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, the amended version of H.R. 894, which we are considering today does not include the section in the original bill that provided compensation to the victims of the crimes covered under this bill. This section, which would have transferred $100,000 to each victim of these crimes, was removed from the legislation over a year ago. In fact, the version of Aimee's Law that the House passed by a vote of 412 to 15 on June 16, 1999, as an amendment to the Juvenile Crime Bill (H.R. 1501), also did not contain the $100,000 transfer section. Although I believe strongly that victims of recidivist crime deserve compensation, out of deference to Members who raised concerns that this could complicate the administration of the act, the section was removed. Additionally, the comments provided by the Department of Justice [DOJ] on the transfer section apply to Aimee's Law as introduced, not the current version, and should also be discarded. The amended version of H.R. 894 simply provides additional funding to states that convict a murderer, rapist, or child molester, if that criminal had previously been convicted of one of those same crimes in a different state. The cost of prosecuting and incarcerating the criminal would be deducted from the Federal crime assistance funds intended to go to the first state, and instead be given to the second state that obtained the conviction. This is fair. Most would agree that a state that releases a violent predator who commits another murder, rape or sex offense in another state should be held responsible for their actions. As to the administration of Aimee's Law, if you can operate a calculator, you can perform the calculations required to implement the bill. DOJ conducts far more complicated calculations than those required under H.R. 894. Smartly, the bill provides DOJ with maximum flexibility in administering the act. DOJ may use different sources of Federal assistance to implement the transfer provision of the act. The burden on the states is minimal. The act requires DOJ to consult with the chief executive of the state affected to establish a payment schedule. In any event, states should seize the initiative and respond to this law by keeping dangerous rapists, murderers, and child molesters behind bars until they are no longer a threat to society. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following endorsements and editorials for the Congressional Record. Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police , Washington, DC, July 10, 2000. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing this letter to advise you of the strong support of the more than 290,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police for H.R. 894, ``Aimee's Law: No Second Chances for Murderers, Rapists or Child Molesters Act,'' which we understand will be brought to the House floor tomorrow under suspension of the rules. The F.O.P. has been working closely with the bill's sponsor, Congressman Matt Salmon (R-AZ), for several years now. The legislation passed the House as an amendment to H.R. 1501, the ``Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act of 1999,'' by a 412-15 vote and passed the Senate as an amendment to S. 254, the ``Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act'' by an 81-17 vote. Clearly, this is a bill for which there is broad bipartisan agreement. This bill as amended will provide additional funding to States that convict a murderer, rapist or child molester, if that criminal had previously been convicted of one of those crimes in a different State. The cost of prosecuting and incarcerating the criminal would be deducted from Federal crime funds received by the first State and instead be sent to the State that obtained the second conviction. If criminals are convicted in a ``truth-in-sentencing'' State and the criminal served at least eighty-five (85%) percent of his or her sentence, then there would be no transfer of funds. Criminals who get locked up and stay locked up no longer pose any danger or threat to public safety. Recidivist rates for murderers, rapists and child molesters are high--but the cost to the victims and the communities they terrorize is higher still. Congressman Salmon's bill takes the right step by encouraging States to employ the death penalty where available and appropriate, or at least keep our most heinous criminals behind bars for the rest of their lives. One of the most frustrating aspects of law enforcement is seeing the guilty go free and, once free, commit another heinous crime. Lives can be saved and tragedies averted if we have the will to keep these predators locked up. Congressman Salmon's bill addresses this issue smartly, without Federalizing crimes and without infringing on the State and local responsibilities of local law enforcement by providing accountability and responsibility to States who release their murderers, rapists, and child molesters to prey again on the innocent. On behalf of the membership of the Fraternal Order of Police, I urge the House to again adopt this bill and send it to the Senate. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me, or Executive Director Jim Pasco, at my Washington office, (202) 547-8189. Sincerely, Gilbert G. Gallegos, National President.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Mark Udall and I recently introduced, and ChairmanPackard accepted, an amendment to add $40 million to the FY 2001 Energy and Water budget. The following chart appropriates that $40 million in a manner agreed upon by Chairman Packard. I submit this chart for inclusion in the Record.

Mr. SALMON

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

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

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, we have several people on this side that would like to speak; therefore, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 20 minutes debate on H.R. 894, as amended, 10 minutes to be controlled by myself and 10 minutes to be controlled by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) who represents Aimee Willard's family. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).

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

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, every day of every week of every year, States release convicted murderers, rapists and child molesters back into our neighborhoods. Predictably, every day of every week of every year these criminals, America's most dangerous and perverted, revert to form and unleash new waves of terror. Two years ago, I introduced Aimee's Law, otherwise known as the No Second Chances for Rapists, Murderers and Molesters Act, to end the revolving door of justice that floods our cities and neighborhoods with convicted murderers, rapists, and child molesters. Gail Willard, mother of Aimee for whom the bill is named, Marc Klaas, Mary Vincent, Fred Goldman, Mika Moulton, Childhelp USA, and the National Fraternal Order of Police representing thousands and thousands of police officers nationwide as well as several other of my colleagues have decided to draw a line in the sand and say to criminals, If you commit murder, rape or molestation, you're finished. You don't get a second chance to destroy the lives of the innocent. The victims of these crimes do not get a second chance. Why should their attackers? I stress the narrow category of crimes that we are talking about here today: murder, rape and child molestation. We are not targeting jaywalkers, shoplifters, or even drug dealers. We are targeting the very 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 third and fourth chance? How about a rapist? Should they be given another chance to violate women? Do you believe that a murderer living next door to you would enhance the quality of your life or improve the safety of your community? Aimee's Law has tremendous bipartisan support. It passed last year as an amendment to the juvenile crime bill with 412 votes in this House and 81 votes in the Senate. On the House floor, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) referred to this bill in its current form as a terrific product, an extraordinary bill. Another supporter of Aimee's Law, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), said, ``It's tragic that we face on a daily basis the attack of our children by child molesters and murderers and rapists who go about our Nation and repeat their crimes.'' The gentlewoman from Texas is right. It is indeed tragic. Aimee Willard died at the hands of a convicted killer. This is a picture of Aimee. Arthur Bomar murdered her. He was released from prison after spending less than 12 years for killing a person over a parking lot spot. This guy was no model prisoner by any stretch of the imagination. While he was in prison, he also violated other prisoners and guards. If Bomar was simply kept in prison after his first murder, Aimee Willard would be alive today. What a needless waste. Aimee Willard's death is not an isolated incident but part of a totally preventable crime epidemic, recidivist attacks by released convicted murderers, rapists and child molesters. Politicians talk tough on crime, but here are statistics that you will not see in a campaign commercial. The average time served for rape is 5\1/2\ years; for child molestation, 4 years; and for murder, for murder, the worst crime that I can imagine, 8 years. As a direct result of this leniency, every year more than 14,000, let me say that again, every year more than 14,000 rapes, murders and molestations, crimes against children, are committed by previously convicted and released murderers and sex offenders; 14,000 crimes that by definition are 100 percent totally preventable. The toll on children is devastating. Each year over 80 children are murdered, 1,300 are raped, and 7,500 are sexually assaulted by released murderers, rapists and child molesters. It is not as if murderers, rapists and molesters become Boy Scouts after their release from prison. The recidivism rates for these 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 3 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 a sexual offense. Behind the statistics are grisly threats by sex offenders eligible for release. Here is a quote from one of them. This molester warned: ``I am doomed to eventually rape, then murder my poor little victims to keep them from telling on me. I might be walking the streets of your city, your community, your neighborhoods.'' The amended version of H.R. 894 would provide additional funding to States that convict a murderer, rapist or child molester if that criminal had previously been convicted of one of those same crimes in another State. The cost of prosecuting and incarcerating the criminal would be deducted from the Federal crime assistance funds intended to go to the first State, in other words, the State that lets them go, that is irresponsible, loses some of their Federal crime assistance funds and it goes to the new offended State. Aimee's Law would finally hold States accountable for mistakes that shatter lives. We have heard on this floor and in campaign stump speeches for many years that we need to get back to personal accountability, personal responsibility. How about a little bit of government accountability? How about a little bit of government responsibility? A safe harbor has been added to the bill which would not require the funds to transfer if the criminal has served 85 percent of his original sentence and if the first State was a truth-in-sentencing State with a higher than average typical sentence for the crime. Of course, States have the right to release these convicted murderers, rapists and child molesters into our cities and neighborhoods; and this bill does not force them to do otherwise. However, the question is, who should pay when one of these violent predators commits another 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 another killer, Arthur Bomar? Or should Nevada, which knew that Arthur Bomar was a vicious killer but decided to release him anyway? They said he was safe. Obviously they thought he was safe, or they would not have released him on society. So who should pay for these carnage costs? The State who let the guy loose, the irresponsible State, or the State that is now a victim as well? I think the answer is obvious. The law enforcement community in particular understands the importance of this legislation. The Nation's largest police union, the National Fraternal Order of Police, strongly backs this bill. Their president wrote in a letter, an endorsement letter to me yesterday, and I am quoting: ``One of the most frustrating aspects of law enforcement is seeing the guilty go free and, once free, commit another heinous crime. Lives can be saved and tragedies can be averted if we have the will to keep these violent, terrible predators locked up. Aimee's Law addresses this issue smartly, without federalizing crimes and without infringing on State and local responsibilities of local law enforcement by providing accountability and responsibility to States who release their murderers, their rapists and child molesters to prey yet again on the innocent.'' The revolving door of our criminal justice system can be more than frustrating to law enforcement officers. It can be fatal. A New Jersey police officer, Ippolito Lee Gonzalez, was killed by a released convicted killer, Robert Simon. Simon spent 12 years in a Pennsylvania prison for killing his girlfriend for refusing to engage in sexual relations with his motorcycle gang. The judge who sentenced Simon in Pennsylvania on his first murder conviction had written to the State parole board that Simon should never, never see the light of day in Pennsylvania or any other place in the free world. But he got out. Officer Gonzalez's brother testified at a congressional hearing on Aimee's Law that if this bill had been in effect previously, my brother would still be alive today. Victims rights and child advocacy groups also strongly endorse this bill. Childhelp USA, Klaas Kids Foundation, Kids Safe, Mothers Outraged at Molesters, and the list goes on and on and on. Editorial boards across America have called for the passage of Aimee's Law. The Delaware County Times, for example, recently offered in an editorial, ``Time for the House to enact Aimee's Law'': ``We see this consideration of Aimee's Law as a step in the right direction as it puts a victim's face on the problem of repeat offenders and the need to place responsibility on the shoulders of our State prisons.'' A paper from my home State, the Arizona Republic, asserted that ``Congress should pass Aimee's Law for the men, women and children whose lives are shattered, sometimes extinguished by violent criminals who should have never been released from prison. Aimee's Law creates a strong financial incentive for States to impose stiff sentences on violent offenders. And it deftly does it without imposing Federal regulations.'' Another paper, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, used the following rationale to support Aimee's Law: ``Giving a one-way bus ticket to a sex offender might improve the community he leaves but it is equivalent to the shipping of toxic waste to unsuspecting States. Aimee's Law would make States bear the cost of such a repugnant practice. It is good legislation that the House should pass and the President should sign into law.'' Of course, no bill satisfies everyone. Some argue that Aimee's Law responds to a problem that does not really exist. Does not exist? Once again, I refer to the Justice Department's own statistics: 8 years for murder, 5\1/2\ for rape, 4 years for molestation of a child. And 13 percent of men convicted of rape serve absolutely no prison time at all. Thirteen percent of rapists do not even spend one day in prison. I thank all of those who have worked tirelessly to pass Aimee's Law. Particularly, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) for their long-term commitment and bipartisan support on this project. I also appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader; and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip for their assistance in advancing the legislation. I also owe the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) a debt of gratitude for discharging the bill from the Committee on the Judiciary and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for convening two hearings on this bill. Aimee's Law will finally bring some accountability to the States who choose to be irresponsible and release convicted murderers, rapists and child molesters back into society. Enactment of the bill will spare families from the needless tragedy experienced by Aimee Willard's family and thousands and thousands of countless other families across the Nation. Whose side do you come down on? The 40 or so law enforcement, child advocacy and victims rights groups that have endorsed Aimee's Law enthusiastically, or the convicted murderers, rapists and molesters and their apologists? Please do the right thing and vote for Aimee's Law.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I might respond to the gentleman's comments. He said no one seriously believes. I take umbrage with that. There are many people who believe that, 412 who voted in the House, 80-some in the Senate, the National Fraternal Order of Police, representing thousands and thousands of police officers across the country, and all the victims' rights groups that we mentioned. So obviously someone believes that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just a quick response to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). Apparently, he has called this dumb, stupid, shame on everybody who supported it, I guess the gentleman is talking to the 180 of your Democrat colleagues who voted for this last year as well. A clear majority, supermajority of your colleagues voted for it as well. I guess, the gentleman does not value their intelligence very much. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I respect very much the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). I know that the gentleman believes just as strongly as I do in the importance of keeping violent offenders off the street. The gentleman cited some letters and communiques from some of the bureaucrats that would be affected by this legislation. Mr. Speaker, you know something, I really do not care if we offend these bureaucrats. We saw the statistics, 14,000 rapes, murders, molestations every year and we saw the numbers. The small sentences that these people are being given. Of course, these bureaucrats who stand to possibly lose Federal funding because of their irresponsibility and their lack of care for keeping these criminals behind bars and protecting neighborhoods, they will be affected. They will be affected. The States that are doing a poor job keeping violent rapists, murderers and molesters off the streets, they will be affected. And, of course, their bureaucrats do not like that. They do not want to have any kind of comeuppance. They do not want to be responsible. At the end of the day, though, we have a responsibility to protect our neighborhoods. This will make a difference. I know that I have heard from the other side that they believe this is stupid, this is dumb. Frankly, I think that brings this debate into a new low level. The fact is, this will change lives, the Fraternal Order of Police, the 40-some victims rights groups across America, the 412 Members of the House that voted for it last year all believe this will make a difference. If it makes a difference in one person's life, it was worth it.

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

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to comment on H.R. 1304, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act--Representative Campbell's bill which the House passed on June 29. While I had some reservations about this bill, I supported the legislation because I believe that it ultimately will level the playing field for health care providers when they negotiate patient-care agreements with managed care companies. I believe that we should do all we can to restore the relationship between patient and physician. Too often, managed care companies negotiate with providers on a ``take it or leave it'' basis. And because many independent physicians have little leverage over third party payers, they must take what is offered for their services or lose patients. We improve the quality of patient care when we give physicians a greater role in determining care. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the bill would give physicians and other health care providers the same collective bargaining options (under the Clayton and Sherman Acts) accorded to labor organizations under the National Labor Relations Act. Smartly, the negotiating authority granted by H.R. 1304 sunsets in three years. At that point, the General Accounting Office will study the impact of the legislation and make recommendations on how to improve it. Opponents of the bill argue that it will allow physicians to form monopolies. Nothing in this legislation preempts the FTC or anti-trust department at DOJ from overseeing the business practices of groups formed by doctors. And the bill specifically states that physicians must negotiate in ``good faith'' with managed care companies. I encourage the FTC and the DOJ to continue to pay close attention to any activity that would adversely affect patients. Ironically, it is the HMOs which seem to exhibit monopolistic behavior. Over the last decade, third party payers have increasingly exercised their market power over both patients and doctors. As I mentioned before, I have some reservations about the bill. For example, I am concerned that the legislation might create agreements where HMOs will pass any increase in health care costs to patients. I am also concerned that any shift in cost to patients will increase the number of uninsured. But, that argument is used every time Congress tries to reform the current health care system and it is the reason we cannot break the stranglehold that HMOs have on our health care decisions. At some point, we must return the health care market back to patients and doctors. I believe that this bill is a small step toward restoring the patient-physician relationship.