Matt Salmon

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), who not only talks the talk, he walks the walk. He has a convertible so that he does not have to use his blow dryer in the morning and saves on energy that way.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, before I begin I would like to express my gratitude to the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) for graciously accepting this amendment. He and his staff have been more than generous with their ideas, their time; and thanks to their efforts, we have agreed to fund renewable energy programs well above this year's subcommittee mark and above final funding levels for the last 2 years. This is particularly notable given this year's limited House Energy and Water budget allocation. Again, I thank the gentleman. We will go golfing together when we get out of here. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to offer special thanks to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for his assistance and support of this amendment. His outstanding work is much appreciated by the renewable energy community, and myself, and the future of this planet. I thank the gentleman very much. The amendment that the gentleman from Colorado and I are proposing today is a timely and responsible effort to increase funding for renewable energy for research and development programs. The amendment adds $40 million to the renewable energy budget. This funding is necessary to ensure continued quality research and development that is so vital to our national security. The amendment is offset by a reduction in contractor travel. Though the committee cut funding for this program last year, abuses still persist. Additionally, given the choice between travel dollars for contractors and research dollars for the future of America, it is clear that we must choose the latter. Today, I urge my colleagues to join me in declaring that the time for renewable energy is now. Americans are paying more for fuel right now than at any time in our history. Dependency on foreign oil is at all- time highs. We fought a war less than 10 years ago over threats to our oil supply, and we agreed then we had to decrease our reliance on foreign oil. Domestic oil production is down 17 percent since the start of the current administration. Mr. Chairman, we must now work to diversify our energy portfolio and draw on domestic renewable energy resources that, given the funding and priority they deserve, will provide much- needed reliable, affordable energy to American homes, businesses, and industry, and free us from foreign control. The urgency of this situation is most clearly illustrated by the recent gas prices. Climbing fuel costs across the Nation have served as a painful reminder of our overdependence on foreign oil. For over a year, countries from the OPEC cartel and other oil-producing countries have conspired to steal from Americans by artificially inflating the price of oil. These hikes have had a dramatic effect on the life of every American and threaten the state of our economy. Clearly, we rely too heavily on unreliable foreign oil supply from the world's most volatile region. We must lessen our dependence on foreign oil and recognize renewable energy as a vitally important and, I believe, undervalued component of responsible energy. This morning, Secretary Richardson spoke before the Committee on International Relations and commented that our increased technology and renewable energy will be one of the factors that will bring oil prices back down and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Despite exciting advances and promising advantages, renewable energy has been underfunded in comparison to competing energy programs. From 1973, when Federal funding for renewable energy technologies started in earnest, through fiscal year 1996, in real 1977 dollars, the Federal Government has spent $42 billion for research and development in nuclear and $19 billion for fossil fuels. Contrast those figures with the $11 billion spent for renewable energy research and development and $7 billion for energy efficiency. Clearly, renewable energy technologies need and deserve more comparable support, particularly in light of the fact that we are losing the technology race to other countries, causing an even greater imbalance in trade. Countries like Germany and Japan are placing much higher priority on funding renewable energy research and development, posing the risk of U.S. technology advancement being lost to overseas competition. Despite the financial inequity of research and development funding, renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies have made impressive progress. Take, for example, the advances being made in my home State of Arizona. Arizona recently became the first State to require that a certain percentage of our electricity come from solar sources and one of 27 States to require derivation of energy from renewable sources, including landfill gas, wind and biomass generators. These renewable energy technologies are steadily gaining acceptance and are just beginning to deliver on the promise of clean, abundant, reliable and increasingly competitive renewable energy. I am confident that with consistent, healthy funding, renewable energy technologies will continue to faithfully deliver on that promise. As my colleagues know, or many of them know and probably are happy about this, this is my final term, and the close of my service as chairman of the House Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus. I am very pleased at the progress that renewables have made during my stewardship. House caucus membership is at an all-time high of 160 Members. Senate caucus membership has grown to an impressive 26 Members. Nationwide support for renewable energy is strong and growing, and funding levels are back on the rise. I am optimistic about this year's House and Senate funding levels and hope that, as more funds become available, the conference bill will further boost appropriations for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. I urge my colleagues to support renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development. Together, we can ensure a secure, abundant, clean and promising renewable energy future. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

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

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

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume and would simply like to concur with the gentleman from Colorado. We have a very exciting opportunity right now. We are on the cusp of some things that are very great. We can stay at the leading edge on technology, or we can move to the back of the pack. I propose that we are doing the right thing tonight by moving one step closer on this commitment toward renewable energy. I thank the gentleman for his tireless commitment. It has been an honor and a privilege to work with him on this.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Goodling and Chairman McKeon and their staffs for all of their hard work on the Campus Protection Act, which will close a loophole in federal law that restricts the ability of colleges and universities to notify students of the presence of convicted sex offenders on campus. I am thrilled that the campus security legislation has been incorporated into H.R. 4504, the Higher Education Technical Amendments Act of 2000. What peaked my interest in this matter was a column Tamara Deitrich wrote for the East Valley Tribune on a sex offender roaming the campus of Arizona State University (ASU), which is located in my District. The sex offender secured a work furlough to study and do research at ASU, where about 23,000 young women attend classes. Campus law enforcement officials at ASU expressed concern that Federal law hampered their ability to adequately warn students about this threat. To me, it's unconscionable that women on campuses do not receive notification when a rapist or sex offender is enrolled. S. Daniel Carter of Security on Campus, an expert in campus security matters, carefully evaluated the Campus Protection Act. The following is an excerpt from his letter: For too long colleges and universities have used the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 USC Section 1232g) to withhold public safety information from their students and employees that any other citizen would be able to get freely. This is a situation that denies them equal protection under the law and unnecessarily puts their lives and safety at risk. The addition of a requirement to the campus security section of the Higher Education Act of 1965 that schools publicly disclose information about registered sex offenders who are either enrolled or employed by the institution should ensure that FERPA is not misinterpreted to preclude the release of this critically important information. The language included in H.R. 4504 is designed to clarify this point . . . I thank S. Daniel Carter for his contribution to this effort and am delighted that the founders of his organization and the family most responsible for the original campus security law--the Clery's--endorse the Campus Protection Act. The Campus Protection Act adds a new section to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act to clarify that sex offender information of all enrolled students and employees not only can be released, but when received, must be released. This will ensure that the same information about sex offenders available to other state citizens is available to college students. Additionally, the Act sensibly provides that universities develop a policy statement regarding the availability of this information as part of their annual crime statistics report. Without a clear statement that schools are obligated to release this information, questions will remain about the legality of releasing sex offender information. Schools that withhold information because of this uncertainty unnecessarily put their students at risk. Under the Campus Protection Act, colleges are only obligated to report information the state provides. This is not an undue burden or mandate, but authority that most campus security offices, such as the ASU unit, will welcome. The colleges maintain full discretion on how to disclose sex offender information. The Campus Protection Act will aid campus law enforcement agencies and, more importantly, increase campus safety. In her letter endorsing the bill, Detective Sally Miller of the Santa Rose Junior College District Police Department writes: ``I wish to indicate my full support of [your bill] which provides direction and legal tools for college and university law enforcement agencies to educate and inform our communities about sexual predators currently hidden within our communities. These amendments . . . are vitally important to allow college and university police departments to adequately provide for the safety of our students and staff from sexual predators.'' Passage of H.R. 4504 will close the sex offender campus loophole once and for all and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. (The gentleman from Arizona delivered the following speech in Chinese.) In the world today the single most important bilateral relationship is the relationship between the U.S. and China. Passage of PNTR not only benefits the economies of both countries, but it also advances the cause of freedom. Mr. Speaker, I just spoke to the Chinese people in their native tongue. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, it will probably be hard to translate. Mr. Speaker, I just spoke to the Chinese people in their native tongue about the benefits of PNTR to both our countries and how it will advance the cause of freedom. Unfortunately, to the majority of the Americans, this debate has been framed as a stark choice between free trade and human rights. In truth, increased trade with China is both. Many Americans understand the economic benefit of PNTR to the United States. First is the dramatic reduction of trade barriers imposed on U.S. exports of goods and services. Whether it is a car battery or a semiconductor, U.S. companies will enjoy the lowest tariffs on their products in the history of U.S. trade with China. But free trade will also improve the human rights situation. Even His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader who has suffered oppression at the hands of the Chinese Government, understands the importance of engaging China. In a recent interview, he said, I have always stressed that China should not be isolated. China must be brought into the mainstream of the world community. By saying no to isolationism and embracing engagement, we can spread the gospel of free trade, democracy, human rights, and religious freedom one worker, one village, one city, and one province at a time. Let us all know and take note the most important export that we have is our American values and democracy. Let us not be afraid. Let us have conviction in our ideals and know that they will move China.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Twenty-three years ago I was 19 years old and I was peddling a bike around in Taiwan. I was sent there as a missionary for the Mormon church. One of my responsibilities was to go around and knock on people's doors to try to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is interesting, this Friday I will be going back to Taiwan a lot less humble and lowly than I was 22 years ago. I will be meeting with the newly elected President, President Chen Shui-bian, who by the way is a strong advocate of permanent normal trade relations between China and the United States. I made these comments because I remember in the 1970s when I lived in Taiwan. We have had some examples of history. Let me tell my colleagues about the history of Taiwan. I know. I lived there. I speak the language. I know the people. In the 1970s, Taiwan was anything but the free democracy we see today. We just saw with this recent election, a free and democratic election in Taiwan, the second of its kind in 5,000 years. But it was not always that way. In fact, Taiwan had a very oppressive governmental regime. There was not freedom of speech. There was not freedom of the press. In fact, I remember talking with an individual in the park one day, he was being critical of the government, we never saw him again; and we were told that he went to prison. The fact is Taiwan was not a free society. But they engaged with the West, they adopted economic reforms. If we can use history, let us use the history of that region. The fact is, they adopted market reforms as China has and they moved to political reforms which go hand in hand with market reforms. I know we want changes now; we want them immediately. Let me tell my colleagues about the people, the Chinese employees of American companies who were in my office last week and talked about their conversion to Christianity and the conversions were made while they worked at American companies. In talking to their American counterparts who were Christians, they got an opportunity to believe. One of the Chinese employees talked to me about how she joined a house church 2 years ago, five people in that church, now over 200. She told me the fact that in 1994, China allowed to be printed 400,000 Bibles into the Chinese language. The number this year is 4 million. The fact is there are good changes. No, they are not perfect but there are good changes happening. Let us not abandon these people. Let us maintain our skeptical nature with the Chinese government and the oppressive regime, but let us not abandon the American people just to salve our own consciences.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, due to an unavoidable absence, I was unable to be present for House consideration of H.R. 4425, Military Construction Appropriations for FY 2001 (rollcall No. 184). Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, due to an illness, I was unable to be present for House consideration of the following bills. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: Roll Call Vote #76--H.R. 2412, a bill designating the E. Ross Adair Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse--I would have voted Yea. Roll Call Vote #77--H. Con. Res. 292, a resolution congratulating the people of Taiwan for the successful conclusion of presidential elections on March 18, 2000 and reaffirming United State policy toward Taiwan and the People's Republic of China--I would have voted Yea. Roll Call Vote #78--H. Con. Res. 269, a resolution commending the Library of Congress and its staff for 200 years of outstanding service to the Congress and the Nation--I would have voted Yea. Roll Call Vote #79--H.R. 5, the Senior Citizen's Freedom to Work Act--as I voted the previous time the House considered it, I would have voted Yea. Roll Call Vote #80--Approving the Day's Journal--I would have voted Yea. Roll Call Vote #81--H. Res. 450, the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3908; making emergency supplemental appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000--I would have voted Yea. Roll Call Vote #82--an amendment to H.R. 3908 to cut $1.631 billion from several programs in the bill and to strike all references to emergency designations, making the bill subject to spending caps--I would have voted Yea. Roll Call Vote #83--an amendment to H.R. 3908 to appropriate $4 billion in FY 2000 funds to reduce publicly-held debt--I would have voted Yea. Roll Call Vote #84--an amendment to H.R. 3908 to cut $552 million in Title I of the bill set aside for illegal drug interdiction and counter-drug programs--I would have voted Yea.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Rural Health Care Protection Act of 2000. Among other things, the bill mandates that Medicare+Choice enrollees cannot be held liable by contracted or non- contracted providers for any claims that are unpaid by a Medicare+Choice plan. It also allows the insurance commissioner of a state to apply to the Secretary of HHS for reimbursement for all valid, unpaid provider claims. And, the legislation establishes HCFA as a creditor for Medicare+Choice Amos that go bankrupt. The need for this legislation is clear. In Arizona, Premier HMO recently announced it was insolvent. Roughly 20,000 seniors have left Premier to return to traditional Medicare (which provides no prescription drug benefit) or have enrolled in an alternative Medicare HMO. Unfortunately, nine Arizona counties no longer have an HMO option. We need to make sure that Medicare+Choice enrollees are not held responsible when bankrupt HMOs fail to pay providers' claims. Under current law, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) has the discretion, but is not required, to provide direct reimbursement to health care providers when an HMO fails to make payments for providers' claims. Quite often HCFA makes payments only where Medicare+Choice HMOs continue to operate. If an HMO becomes insolvent, doctors, hospitals, and others are often left unpaid for services already rendered. In 1997 Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act which included a provision to expand choices for Medicare beneficiaries through the new Medicare+Choice program. It was anticipated that the program would lead to a wider variety of health plan choices for beneficiaries in all areas of the country--particularly in rural counties. Unfortunately, there was never a plan to deal with organizations who could not maintain financial solvency. And HCFA has not recognized the need to protect Medicare beneficiaries from defunct health plans--even though they are the financing arm for Medicare. Even worse, HCFA's regulations have added to the problem by making it more difficult for HMOs and other like organizations to enter the Medicare Choice program. They make it tough to get in the program and do little for beneficiaries once the HMOs leave. As of last year, there were only 262 health plans across the Nation that participated in the Medicare+Choice program, 84 less than 1998. According to the American Association of Health Plans, nearly 700,000 beneficiaries have had their Medicare+Choice coverage disrupted since the program's inception. Seniors shouldn't be left holding the bag when health plans go bankrupt. The Rural Health Care Protection Act would ensure that the government fulfills its promise to those seniors who have chosen to participate in the Medicare+Choice program. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, it is well known that, for close to a year, countries from the OPEC cartel and other oil-producing countries have conspired to steal from Americans by artificially inflating the price of oil. It has had a dramatic effect on the life of every American and threatens the state of our economy. It takes more to fill our gas tanks, it is more costly to fly, and even grocery prices have risen significantly. For example, we pay an extra $10 every time we go to a gas station to fill our tanks. This year, increased gas and oil prices will cost the average family an alarming $700. In my home state of Arizona, higher gas prices will cost the Paradise Valley Union School District up to $60,000 more to bus kids to and from school this year. Unfortunately, the President's response has been tepid at best. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson recently admitted, ``it is obvious that the federal government was not prepared. We were caught napping. We got complacent.'' The Administration, which seems to have no problem attacking American companies they suspect of being a monopoly, refuses to use its current legal arsenal to sanction foreign countries that collude in monopolistic alliances to fleece the American people. Last year, I requested that Congress look into OPEC's price fixing scheme. And last night, Congress took a small step towards helping American consumers by passing H.R. 3822, which encourages the President to use his current authority to stop OPEC from inflating gas prices. But, I believe we can, indeed we must, do more. First and foremost we should have included a mechanism in this legislation to penalize countries for gouging our constituents. Secondly, we should have repealed the 4.3 cent gas tax that President Clinton and Vice-President Gore included in their tax increase package of 1993. And finally, we should have examined cost effective ways to increase domestic oil production. Looking forward, we need to pursue the development of alternative energy sources that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. To that end, we should support tax credits for people who purchase environmentally friendly, energy efficient solar heating equipment. We should also support funding for research on solar, wind, biofuels, geothermal, and other environmentally friendly alternative forms of energy. Perhaps we will revisit this matter when our constituents are paying $2.50 for a gallon of gas. H.R. 3822 is a first step towards resolving the current crisis. But, Congress should have done more. Americans should not have to pay more at the gas pump, or for groceries, or to heat their homes, simply because we did not do enough to stop foreign nations from artificially increasing the price of oil. We've been far too passive for too long.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, last year Senator Jon Kyl and I introduced the K-12 Education Excellence Now (KEEN) Act to provide tax relief for all Americans, including our Nation's teachers. This year we are introducing another much-needed avenue for teacher relief: the Apples for Three Million Teachers Act. The bill will offer America's 3,107,000 public and private school educators a $100 dollar-for-dollar tax credit for out-of-pocket classroom expenses. It also contains another provision--one included in the $792 billion tax relief package vetoed by the President last year--that will permit educators to claim a tax deduction for expenses above $100. I am pleased to report that the Apples for Teachers Act passed 98-0 in the Senate as an amendment offered by Senator Kyl and Senator Susan Collins to the Education Savings Accounts Bill (S. 1134). The House would be wise to incorporate this amendment into the education tax incentive package currently being crafted. The President has shown his tendency to deprive parents and grandparents of a tax-free way to save for education expenses in twice vetoing legislation expanding Education Savings Accounts to elementary and secondary educational expenses. He might hesitate if faced with the prospect of denying every K-12 teacher in America partial from classroom expenses Education funding tends to be rigid, with money distributed on a categorical basis leaving teachers with little flexibility to direct funds. The Apples for Teachers Act is desperately needed because teachers often have to dip into their own resources to provide their students with the resources they need when, as so often is the case, the provided materials are inadequate. The National Education Association estimates that teachers spend an average of $408 annually on out-of-pocket, non-reimbursable materials for their classrooms. A seven year veteran teacher who now serves on my staff reports that this estimate may be very low. While teaching in inner city schools, she spent $900 to $1,200 annually to subsidize her classroom. She believes this is below or within the norm of her colleagues. Further, in a letter endorsing the teacher tax relief contained in my broader KEEN Act, 53,000 educators of the National Science Teachers Association and 110,000 members of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics commented that the KEEN tax credit bill ``would alleviate a teacher's financial burden in getting needed materials for his or her classroom.'' Apples for Teachers furthers this same goal. Certainly, one of the most important factors in the academic success of a student is teacher quality. But to achieve quality, teachers need more than praise: They need the resources necessary to provide our children with the learning materials teaching requires. It's time for Congress to assist the men and women in American who not only dedicate their careers to educating our children, but continue to sacrifice financially for them as well. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Apples for Teachers Act and believe that this legislation should be included in any tax package devoted to improving K-12 education.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Illegal Alien Prosecution Act of 2000. The bill prohibits INS officials from deporting illegal immigrants accused of violent state crimes upon the request of local officials. Additionally, the bill would facilitate the apprehension and prosecution in the United States of criminal illegal aliens who attempt to re-enter the United States. The United States has become a consequence-free zone for criminal aliens. Flawed deportation policy, less than perfect communication between the INS and county prosecutors, and misguided efforts on the part of local prosecutors and judges to secure adequate bonds have created a climate where criminal aliens can engage in lawless behavior without the fear of prosecution or incarceration. The revolving door of illegal criminal aliens committing serious state crimes, being deported, then returning to the United States to commit even more serious crimes is the result of a loophole in the INS' voluntary deportation program. The program is intended to reduce administrative burden on the INS and the courts by expediting the deportation of aliens whose only offense is illegal entry into the United States. Unfortunately, illegal aliens charged with much more serious state crimes such as armed robbery, manslaughter, and drug trafficking are also being deported by this same process, often before they have even faced trial. After they have been returned to their native land these illegal aliens almost never face prosecution or incarceration. The scope of this epidemic was detailed in a report by the East Valley Tribune which revealed that from October 31, 1998, to July 31, 1999, the INS deported 3,361 illegal immigrants who either made bail or were released before trial. To make matters worse, many of these alien criminals illegally return to the United States and only face prosecution if they commit additional, even more serious crimes. The effect of this flawed policy has been devastating. In the last two years, two illegal immigrants have shot police officers in the Pacific Northwest after slipping through our immigration system. In one incident, an illegal alien with a vast criminal and deportation history killed an officer in Washington after being released from prison and deported to Mexico 5 months earlier. My home state of Arizona has experienced similar carnage. A deported defendant came back across the border illegally and is one of three men suspected of killing a Phoenix police officer. And let's not forget the high profile case of Rafael Resendez- Ramiriez, the railroad serial killer. INS officers detained him as he attempted to cross the border illegally. But, within 24 hours, they quickly deported him back to Mexico even though the FBI suspected him of being involved in four murders. As the previously mentioned incidents clearly illustrate, the INS must improve their communication with state authorities. In 1998, the Inspector General notified the INS that only 41 percent of deported illegal aliens were being processed by INS' new border patrol database system. In a letter to INS Commissioner Doris Meissner, he told her that ``this results in previously deported aliens (including aggravated felons) being released from INS custody when subsequently apprehended because INS is unaware of their immigration or criminal histories.'' Some progress has already been achieved in remedying this breakdown ofKyl and I have held with local prosecutors, magistrates, and INS officials, actions have been taken in my State to address this situation. Our meetings also prompted Judge Reinstein, the Associate Presiding Judge of Maricopa County, to issue a memo to his judges that directed them when determining bond to ``consider the factor whether the accused is an illegal alien and that they have a hold placed on them.'' He continued that ``if you don't give these factors consideration you are practically guaranteeing they will not appear in the future.'' Additionally, the INS and Maricopa County Attorney's office have agreed to change their procedures and communicate more regularly and efficiently so that, among other things, the county attorney's office will be armed with greater information when they fight for appropriate bail. More importantly, the new procedures should help ensure that no illegal immigrant (who commits a felony) is deported without the knowledge of all parties. These significant advances should help reduce the number of illegal aliens charged with violent crimes from being deported without facing justice. I commend all of the state, local, and federal officials I met with for implementing important changes on their own accord. However, legislative language is still necessary to close the loophole in current law which allows INS to deport criminal illegal aliens before they face justice. Under the Salmon bill, local or federal officials may request that INS not remove an individual accused of a state crime. And if the crime is a serious, violent felony as defined by 18 U.S.C. 3559, the Attorney General must detain the accused. For all other crimes, the Attorney General has the final say. The bill would only apply to individuals who have entered the United States illegally. This change in law will protect us all when, for whatever reason, an illegal alien accused of a serious state crime succeeds in posting bond. It is our safety net. Of course, performing these new responsibilities likely will require additional resources for INS and the states. To that end, I will work to help secure the appropriate funding needed to carry out these duties. In the meantime, my legislation will provide the authority to act now. It is an insult to victims and their families when an illegal alien accused of a violent crime in America is deported before he or she faces trial. The Illegal Alien Prosecution Act would close the loophole in current law which allows INS to remove illegal aliens accused of a serious state offense prior to trial. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor my bill.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, one of the most indefensible aspects of our current Tax Code is that 28 million working American couples--over 40 percent of married couples--pay more in taxes than they would if they were unmarried. Over 65,000 couples in my District suffer this penalty, which on average is $1,400. Just as indefensible as the marriage penalty is the notion that Congress should overturn the principle of fairness embedded in current law which dictates that different families with the same total income should be treated equally for tax purposes. The leading bill last Congress sought to fix the marriage penalty in a manner that would have inadvertently penalized families that chose to have one parent stay at home. I made this point when I testified before the Ways and Means Committee in support of a marriage tax proposal Representative Bob Riley and I developed, which doubled the standard deduction for married couples to twice that of singles. The legislation essentially also doubled the tax brackets of married couples to twice that of singles. One income families often have the toughest time making ends meet, particularly if they are raising children. I am gratified that the marriage penalty bill the House will pass today embraces the approach developed in the tax bill I proposed with Mr. Riley. The Marriage Tax Relief Act would eliminate or substantially reduce the penalty for virtually every couple currently burdened by the tax. Furthermore, marriage penalty relief would be targeted to primarily benefit low and middle-income families. Critics complain that this legislation is too expensive or would provide so-called bonuses to families in which one spouse stays at home to raise children. Indeed, it would require Washington to give back billions of dollars to America's families. and yes, the bill as drafted would lighten the tax burden for certain families sustained by a single income. However, the preservation and security of the smallest, yet most important unit of government--the family--is too important to shortchange with more economical, but less effective proposals. Additionally, it simply isn't fair to require married couples who prefer parent-care over day-care to pay more in taxes. For years, the Tax Code has been used to penalize the creation and maintenance of cohesive family units. This is foolish and unfair. The Marriage Tax Relief Act of 2000 will put an end to this discrimination and I urge the Senate to immediately pass this legislation and send it on to the President.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 76) recognizing the social problem of child abuse and neglect, and supporting efforts to enhance public awareness of it.

Mr. SALMON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 76, a Sense of Congress recognizing the problem of child abuse and neglect. Specifically, my resolution expresses the sense of Congress that, number one, all Americans should keep abused and victimized children in their thoughts and prayers. Number two, all Americans should seek to break the cycle of abuse and neglect. And number three, that the faith community, nonprofit organizations, and volunteers across America should recommit themselves and mobilize their resources to assist abused and neglected children. In addition, the resolution states that Congress supports the goals and ideas with a Day of Hope to be observed on the first Wednesday in April and commence Child Help, USA, for its efforts on behalf of abused and neglected children everywhere. The need for this resolution is clear. It is estimated that more than 3 million American children are reported as suspected victims of child abuse and neglect annually. More than 500,000 children, American children, are unable to live safely within their families and are placed in foster care or other institutions. Furthermore, it is estimated that more than 1,000 children, 78 percent under the age of 5 and 38 percent under the age of 1, die as a direct result of abuse and neglect every year in America. At times, the statistics can be overwhelming, even desensitizing. But all one has to do is look into the eyes of a victim of child abuse to see the misery that they have endured. Their suffering is a painful reminder of our failure as a society to provide them with the loving care that they need and deserve. It also reminds us of the heavy price that we pay for abuse and neglected children that occurs in our midst every day. Countless studies have documented the strong correlation that exists between child abuse and crime, delinquency, domestic violence, substance abuse, and welfare dependency. Of course, we can never put a price on the countless dreams and aspirations of the innocent youth that are extinguished every year at the hands of a child abuser. Since 1959, Childhelp USA has led the charge against child abuse and neglect. Started in Scotsdale, Arizona, Childhelp USA provides critical social, medical, and educational services to abused and neglected children. Over the years, they have helped literally thousands of abused and neglected children escape abusive situations. Childhelp USA's commitment to children does not end there. When I introduced legislation to keep murderers, rapists, and child molesters locked up in prison, also known as Aimee's Law, I turned to Childhelp USA for support and help. I have to tell the Members that their hard work and dedication were vital to the successful effort to pass Aimee's Law, both in the House and Senate. Although Aimee's Law has been held up as part of the juvenile justice bill, I am confident that I can rely on Childhelp USA's support as I join with other advocates of victims' rights to enact this legislation. Aimee's Law will finally put a stop to the parade of murderers and sex offenders that march out of our prisons every year, only to brutalize innocent people one more time. By doing so, it will protect literally thousands of people every year, many of them children, from being victimized by a repeat offender. Therefore, as we approach the month of April, which is Child Abuse Prevention Month, it is only fitting that we recognize Childhelp USA for their caring efforts to end child abuse. Hopefully, their shining example will inspire more Americans to fight to end this terrible scourge. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SALMON. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett).

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

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

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Concurrent Resolution 76.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, since I lived in Taiwan in the 1970s, I have seen the Republic of China emerge as a leading economic and political force throughout the world. The people of Taiwan have experienced unprecedented prosperity and freedom, liberties that we as Americans hold so dear. However, I am strongly opposed to this legislation. I just led a congressional delegation to China with five of my colleagues, a bipartisan delegation, where we personally met with President Jiang Zemin and President Lee Teng-hui. I discussed the importance of constructive engagement between the United States and China and also stressed the significance of continued dialogue between Mainland China and Taiwan. Specifically, I raised the issue of Mr. Song Yongyi, a Dickinson College librarian who was detained last August for allegedly trying to smuggle secret documents out of China. After discussing very openly and honestly the facts surrounding Mr. Song's case, I appealed to President Jiang for his release. On Friday, Mr. Song was released and returned to Pennsylvania where he was reunited with his wife. I greeted him Saturday at the airport in Philadelphia. I believe this gesture by the Chinese government speaks volumes. Mr. Song's release is testimony that engagement, not isolationism, is the best course of action for U.S.-Sino relations. While I know the intention of this legislation is to ease tensions and lessen ambiguity, I believe it will have the exact opposite effect. I believe the Taiwan relations Act has effectively communicated the position of the United States regarding Taiwan. Furthermore, I have reiterated our position to the Chinese Government that provocation of Taiwan is something we take very seriously and our support of Taiwan is unequivocal. If they attack Taiwan, we would defend her. In fact, on my recent visit to China, I expressed my concern about China's position toward Taiwan to the chairman of the Association for Cross Strait Relations, Mr. Wang Daohan. He assured me that a one-China policy could mean many things and that they were very flexible on how to get there. I can understand the rationale for bringing this legislation to the floor but there are far more productive ways to promote peace and security in the nation. In summation, I would just like to say I think this will have the opposite of the intended effect. It will stifle dialogue between Taiwan and China. It will hurt Taiwan. I am pro-Taiwan. I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) is pro-Taiwan, but we believe this is wrong.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, the severe treatment of Japanese Americans and aliens during World War II has been extensively detailed. Not as chronicled is the less pervasive, but still serious discrimination on the basis of ethnicity suffered by Americans or aliens of Italian and German descent. To this end, Congressman Rick Lazio's Wartime Violation of Italian Americans Civil Liberties Act, which passed the House last week, would provide Americans with a sharper account of the discrimination suffered by Italian Americans during World War II. But, history would still lack a clear picture of the German-American experience. It's clear that certain Americans of German descent experienced injustices similar to other ethnic groups during World War II. For example, consider the case of Arthur D. Jacobs, an American of German descent, who now lives in my district. Mr. Jacobs published a book earlier in the year, The Prison Called Hohenasperg that details his account of internment in the United States and Germany. Mr. Jacobs and his family spent time at Ellis Island, Crystal City, TX, and finally a prison camp in Germany. The event that put Mr. Jacobs ordeal in motion was the leveling of unsubstantiated, anonymous charges against his father. The book has generated national interest. The November 1st edition of the American Library Association's Booklist offered the following review of the book: There has been very little written about the terrible punishment that was meted out to thousands of German Americans during World War II. That's why Jacob's book is an important one. This modest tome opens up a hidden and disgraceful chapter in our history for all to see. The internment of Mr. Jacobs and his family was not an isolated case. Arnold Kramer, a Texas A&M professor specializing in European history and author of Undue Process: The Untold Story of America's German Alien Internees, observed in his book that about 15 percent of the 10,905 German aliens and Americans interned were committed Nazis, while the rest ``were ordinary American citizens.'' In the 48 hours following the bombing of Pearl Harbor President Franklin Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2525, 2526, and 2527, which authorized restrictive rules for aliens of Japanese, German, and Italian descent, respectively. These proclamations coupled with Executive Order 9066, which authorized the War Department to exclude certain persons from designated military areas, resulted in hardships and the deprivation of certain fundamental rights for the targeted populations. A 1980 Congressional Research Service Report, The Internment of German and Italian Aliens Compared With the Internment of Japanese Aliens in the United States During World War II: A Brief History and Analysis, revealed that the War Department would not support the ``collective evacuation of German and Italian aliens from the West Coast or from anywhere else in the United States'' but would authorize individual exclusion orders ``against both aliens and citizens under the authority of Executive Order 9066.'' In other words, German and Italian Americans and aliens could still be denied basic civil liberties because of their heritage. Ideally, Congress would address both the Italian American and German American experience during World War II. On a per capita basis, it appears that significantly more Americans or aliens of German descent were interned than Italian Americans. According to personal Justice Denied, a report of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians issued in 1982, the Justice Department had interned 1,393 Germans and 264 Italians by February 16, 1942. Moreover, the Commission's report contains evidence that German Americans were considered to be more of a threat than Italian Americans. For instance, the Secretary of War in 1942 instructed the military commander in charge of implementing Executive Order 9066 to consider plans for excluding German aliens, but to ignore the Italians. And later in the year, the Attorney General announced that Italians would no longer be considered ``aliens of enemy nationality.'' No such clarification was ever issued for German Americans. Finally, President Franklin Roosevelt dismissed the threat of those of Italian descent living in America, referring to them as ``a lot of opera singers.'' As we reach the end of the century, I urge my colleagues to pursue a full historical accounting of the experiences of all Americans who suffered discrimination during the Second World War as expeditiously as possible.