Matt Salmon

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to sponsor the House version of the resolution that will permit the organizers of Sunrayce 99 to sponsor a public event, with solar-powered cars, on the Capitol Grounds on June 20, 1999, or on such other dates as the speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate may jointly designate, to conduct opening ceremonies for Sunrayce 99. Senator Allard has introduced the Senate version (S. Con. Res. 13). As the Chairman and co-founder of the House Renewable Energy Caucus I appreciate the innovation necessary to identify and utilize alternative forms of energy. As we move into the 20th Century, one of the critical environmental challenges facing us is the need to discover the possibilities of sustainable energy development, so that our children, and their families will be able to enjoy the clean air and environment that is so important to the health of our nation. From June 20 to 29, 1999, the world will watch as up to 40 teams participate in Sunrayce 99 and demonstrate good-spirited competition and innovation at its best. The teams will race through five states, from the start in Washington, DC, to the finish at Epcot at Walt Disney World Resort near Orlando, FL in the nation's premier solar powered vehicle event. Sunrayce 99 showcases the imagination, ingenuity and teamwork of graduate and undergraduate teams from North America in the development of highly efficient vehicles powered solely by a viable, renewable and sustainable energy source--the sun. I am proud to note that the University of Arizona has registered a team. General Motors, Electronic Data Systems along with the U.S. Department of Energy are the sponsors of this biennial intercollegiate competition. The top three finishing teams will receive trophies and cash awards. Scholarship achievement awards will also be granted for technical innovation, engineering excellence, artistic talents, teamwork and good sportsmanship. Sunrayce 99 not only demonstrates the possibilities of sustainable energy development, but also the importance of public/private partnerships. This approach will allow companies to work hand in hand with government in successfully tackling the environmental challenges ahead. I applaud the participants of Sunrayce 99--sponsors, applicants, universities, and administrators--for making innovation a reality.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, Mo Udall used to call himself the one-eyed Mormon Democrat, and I guess I would be the wide-eyed Mormon Republican. I think that is one of the things that we had in common. Let me first of all say that Mo Udall came from good stock. It is no surprise that Mo Udall always won his elections with a very, very large margin. But then Mo Udall was related to over half of Arizona, so I do not think he really ever had too much of a challenge. In fact, I think if I tried to one-up the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), I would change that resolution and say, why should we stop there, let us just change the name of Arizona to Udall Country and we will all be Udallians. That would probably be a better suggestion. Then I got to thinking about it. A few months ago I made probably an avant- garde proposal to put Ronald Reagan's face on Mt. Rushmore. Maybe I should swap that and put Mo Udall's face on Mt. Rushmore. I think a lot of people would probably get behind that right here and now, because Mo Udall was the kind of guy that inspired us to become better. I look at the things we go through in life. Sometimes they are hard to bear. This last year it has not been a pleasant time being in the Congress. We have been through some very, very tough times. America has been through some very, very tough times. And I thought to myself over and over during the process, ``Where are you, Mo Udall? I wish you were here right now. We could use your humor, we could use your love, we could use your patriotism.'' Because one of the things that Mo Udall recognized, and I think all of us really need to stand back and remember, is that before we were Republicans, before we were Democrats, we were Americans first. Mo Udall understood that, and he understood that regardless of who gets the credit for it, we are going to do the right thing. I got to know very intimately Mo's sister, Inez Turley. She was my history teacher, and she had the most profound impact upon my life of any teacher I have ever had. She truly loved the subject of world history that she taught. She cared about her students and she oozed love and concern. I know there are family members here today, and I want them to know that their sister, their aunt, their cousin, whoever she might be to them, I loved her and she had a profound impact upon my life and I will never forget her. In her later years she also taught Sunday school, and my mom and dad and I were all members of her class, and she inspired us and made us want to be better people. The Udall legacy is one that, not just Mo Udall, but the entire Udall clan is something that I think has benefitted all of Arizona. I am proud to call them my friends, my neighbors, my brothers and my sisters, and God bless Mo Udall. We thank him for all he meant, not only to Arizona but to America. I hope, Mo, as we go forward, you will smile down on us with your wit and help us to remember not to take ourselves too seriously, but to remember that, above all, the most important thing that we can do is to serve.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I am reintroducing the K through 12 Education Excellence Now (KEEN) Act, which would offer tax credits to families and businesses of up to $250 annually for qualified K through 12 education expenses or activities. Senator Kyl has reintroduced the companion in the Senate, where it has been included in the Coverdell- Lott education reform bill (S. 277). Over the last 30 years, the Federal Government has steadily increased its monetary commitment to education. Unfortunately, we have not seen a corresponding improvement in the quality of the education our children receive. The results of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), released last year, revealed that U.S. 12th graders scored next to last in advanced math and dead last in physics. The Department of Education, which promised that the United States would lead the world in math and science by the year 2000, can't even claim bragging rights over war-torn Slovenia. As to reading, which was not measured by TIMSS, 40 percent of fourth graders can't read at the basic level. The legislation I am introducing addresses the problem of falling education scores by giving families and businesses a tax incentive to provide children with a higher quality education. Specifically, it offers every family or business a tax credit of up to $250 annually for any K through 12 education expense or activity. This tax credit could be applied to home schooling, public schools (including charter schools), or parochial schools. Allowable expenses would include tuition, books, supplies, tutors, and computer equipment. Further, the tax credit could be given to a ``school-tuition organization'' for distribution. To qualify as a school-tuition organization, the organization would have to devote at least 90 percent of its income per year to offering grants and scholarships for parents to use to send their children to the school of their choice. How would this work? A group of businesses in any community could join forces to send sums for which they received tax credits to charitable ``school- tuition organizations'' which would make scholarships and grants available to low-income parents of children in non-functional schools. Unlike the big government proposals being peddled by President Clinton and Vice-President Gore, KEEN credits would offer families control over the expenditure of these education dollars, not centralized bureaucrats. Moreover, the bill would provide an ``emergency blood transfusion'' to improve America's schools immediately. In Arizona, where a limited version of this operates, inner-city schools are already profiting from an infusion of contributions from area businesses. I encourage my colleagues to enact the K-12 tax credit proposal as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Senior Citizens Income Tax Relief Act. This legislation would repeal the Clinton Social Security tax increase of 1993. Millions of America's senior citizens depend on Social Security as a critical part of their retirement income. Having paid into the program throughout their working lives, retirees count on the government to meet its obligations under the Social Security contract. For many, the security provided by this supplemental pension plan is the difference between a happy and healthy retirement and one marked by uncertainty and apprehension, particularly for the vast majority of seniors on fixed incomes. As part of his massive 1993 tax hike, President Clinton imposed a tax increase on senior citizens, subjecting to taxation up to 85 percent of the Social Security received by seniors with annual incomes of over $34,000 and couples with over $44,000 in annual income. This represents a 70 percent increase in the marginal tax rate for these seniors. Factor in the government's Social Security Earnings Limitation and a senior's marginal tax rate can reach 88 percent--twice the rape paid by millionaires. An analysis of government-provided figures on the 1993 Social Security tax increase finds that, at the end of 1998, America's seniors have paid an extra $25 billion because of this tax hike, including $380 million from senior citizens in Arizona alone. Older Americans are just as willing as the rest of the country to pay their fair share, but the President and other big spenders in Congress should not take that as a license to finance their big government agenda on the backs of Social Security beneficiaries. Our nation's seniors have worked too hard to have their golden years tarnished by the government reneging on its promises. In an era of budget surpluses, surely we can find a way to provide America's seniors with relief from this burdensome tax.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, the Resolution I have introduced today expresses bipartisan, bicameral congressional opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and urges the President to do the same and promise that such a declaration would not be recognized by the United States. Before I discuss the merits of the bill, I would like to thank Majority Whip DeLay, as well as Representatives Saxton and Engel for all of their work in crafting the resolution. I would also like to thank Senators Brownback and Wyden for introducing the companion resolution in the other chamber. The United States owes Chairman Arafat no favors. At least eleven American citizens have been killed in Israel by Palestinian terrorists since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993. Of the 15 Palestinians identified by Israel as participants in these attacks, most are free men, and four are reportedly serving in the PA police force. The Palestinian Authority harbors more terrorists who have murdered Americans than Libya. The introduction of the resolution could not be more timely. Today, President Clinton is expected to meet with Chairman Arafat at the congressional prayer breakfast. His conversation with Chairman Arafat should make at least one point clear: The United States will NEVER recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state--whether the state is declared in this manner on May 4, 1999--the date the Oslo accords expire--January 1, 2000, or any date thereafter. It has been reported that Chairman Arafat may use the issue of statehood at the meeting to leverage the United States to place pressure on Israel to withdraw from additional land. President Clinton must not succumb to these tactics. As our resolution states, at the heart of the Oslo process lies the basic, irrevocable commitment made by Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat that, in his words, ``all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.'' Resolving the political status of the territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority while ensuring Israel's security is one of the central issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Therefore, a declaration of statehood outside the framework of negotiations would constitute a fundamental violation of the accords. In mid-July, Chairman Arafat stated that ``there is a transition period of five years and after five years we have the right to declare an independent Palestinian state.'' On September 24th, Chairman Arafat's cabinet threatened to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state that would encompass a portion of Jerusalem. The cabinet announced that ``At the end of the interim period, [the Palestinian Authority] shall declare the establishment of a Palestinian state on all Palestinian land occupied since 1967, with Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the Palestinian state.'' Jerusalem is the undivided, eternal capital of Israel, and U.S. law-- the Jerusalem Embassy Act--recognizes that this should be U.S. policy. Palestinian threats to declare a state on land they do not have any territorial control over--particularly Jerusalem--at the very least amounts to a renunciation of the Oslo process, and could legitimately be interpreted by Israel as an act of war. The Administration has not effectively dampened the dangerous proclamations issued by the Palestinian Authority on statehood, and as May 4th rapidly approaches, if U.S. policy remains murky, hostilities could occur. The most recent statements by Palestinian leaders have been confusing and somewhat contradictory. A number of reports indicate that plans for a unilateral declaration of statehood may be delayed--at least until after Israel holds elections on May 17th. However, some of the comments suggest that the Palestinians are still intent on declaring a state on May 4th. On January 24th, a senior Palestinian official told the Voice of Palestine that May 4th ``is a day [which has] international legitimacy'' and that ``the Palestinian leadership can not postpone this date for even an hour in announcing an independent Palestinian state.'' The day before, another senior official said that May 4th is ``a historic and vital day,'' suggesting that the Palestinians will indeed declare a state on this day. The Clinton Administration has done little to discourage Palestinian aspirations of having a unilaterally declared state recognized by the United States. On several occasions over the past year, the Clinton administration has refused to express U.S. opposition to the unilateral declaration of an independent Palestinian state, and has left it as an open question as to whether the United States will recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. As a case in point, during President Clinton's visit to Gaza, in December, Chairman Arafat reaffirmed his intention of establishing a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem. Unfortunately, the President might have only encouraged this course when he said: ``[T]he Palestinian people and their elected representatives now have a chance to determine their own destiny on their own land.'' Recently, however, the President has issued more appropriate comments on the issue of statehood. In an interview for a London-based Saudi newspaper in mid-January, President Clinton said that: ``[We] oppose the declaration of a state or any other unilateral action by any party outside the negotiation process in a manner that could pre-empt the negotiations.'' He also said that, ``We are making maximum efforts to strengthen negotiations on the final status (of the Palestinian territories) and believe that those who think they can adopt unilateral measures during the transitory period are opening up a path to catastrophe.'' President Clinton's latest remarks on this issue are welcome but do not go far enough. A careful reading of his comments suggests that the United States may oppose a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, but has left open the possibility of recognition. It is critical for the President privately to inform Chairman Arafat and publicly tell the world that a unilateral declaration of statehood is a grievous violation of Oslo and will be firmly opposed, and never recognized by the United States. I am encouraged that Congress is working in a bipartisan basis to head off this destabilizing threat to peace in the Middle East. It is essential that the United States speak loudly and clearly in advance of May 4th, to prevent a terrible miscalculation by Chairman Arafat.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, the results of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) released earlier this year, which revealed that U.S. 12th graders scored next to last in advanced math and dead last in physics, are a stunning rebuke to the aggressive efforts of the U.S. Department of Education to centralize the American education system. The Department of Education, which promised that the United States would lead the world in math and science by the year 2000, can't even claim bragging rights over war-torn Slovenia. As to reading, which was not measured by TIMSS, 40 percent of fourth graders can't read. Yet, in response to these epic failures, the education establishment in Washington has come back with demands for more power, more central control, more of the same--although with some new packaging. This is almost the equivalent of exhuming the Kremlin to institute democratic reforms in Russia. The answer to our educational woes cannot be found in Washington. Washington has spent 30 years and untold billions on a top-down approach to education with little if any success. Spending for education has increased on an annual basis. In fact, according to a report that I commissioned the Congressional Research Service to prepare on a variety of comparative statistics on education in the United States versus other nations participating in the TIMSS assessment, the United States is on the upper end of countries in terms of expenditures per pupil, expenditures per capita, and for average salaries for elementary school teachers. Clearly, our education woes are not for a lack of funding. To improve the educational performance of our children, I believe that we must open the education monopoly at both the federal and state levels, spend education resources more wisely, and return power to parents and communities. When it comes to returning power to parents and injecting competition and accountability into the public school system, Arizona is at the front of the class. Charter schools--innovative public schools financed by tax dollars but free of most regulations--have flourished. Arizona, which has two percent of the nation's population, is home to one- quarter of the charter schools in existence. (Congress just passed a bill that is designed to increase the number of charter schools.) These schools have fundamentally altered the Arizona education system; traditional public schools now compete with charters for students. The charter school movement has begun the process of having education dollars literally follow the student from school to school. The Arizona legislature also enacted education tax credits last year, which can be used by parents to cover a wide array of education expenses associated with primary and secondary education. The Arizona legislature also enacted education tax credits last year, which can be used by parents to cover a wide array of education expenses associated with primary and secondary education. The education reforms enacted in Arizona are designed to increase parental choice over their children's education and improve education quality. In Arizona, education reform is no longer a spectator sport. I have introduced two bills with Senator Jon Kyl that will compliment the new reforms in place in my state and should provide other states with similar opportunities for innovation. One bill, the ``K-12 Community Participation Education Act,'' was inspired by the new Arizona education tax credit and would encourage Americans to get involved personally and to participate in efforts to improve K-12 education. The other proposal, the ``Dollars Follow the Student Education Block Grant Act'' would block grant certain federal education dollars and permit states to distribute the funds in such a way that money would literally ``follow the child'' from school to school, which is the manner in which charter schools are funded in Arizona. K-12 Community Participation Education Act The ``K-12 Community Participation Act'' calls on parents, other members of the community, and businesses to invest in education. Phased in over four years, the legislation offers every family and business a tax credit of up to $500 for any K-12 education-related expense or activity. The tax credit could be used for expenses incurred at any public (including charter), private, or parochial institution. The credit could also be applied for home schooling. Permissible expenses include: books, tuition, fees, supplies, computers, tutors, or equipment required for courses of instruction. Additionally, the credit would be available for extracurricular activities. Moreover, the tax credit could be contributed to ``school tuition organizations''--charitable organizations that allocate at least ninety percent of their annual revenue for educational scholarships or tuition grants to children to allow them to attend any qualified school of their parents' choice. Imagine the possibilities. For example, concerned businesses in a particular community could band together, and direct tax credit contributions to a school tuition organization that provides scholarships to low income children in malfunctioning school districts. Rather than wait for governmental assistance, individuals and businesses would be deputized to act immediately to save children in dangerous or academically under-achieving schools. Unlike the big government proposals being pushed by the President, under the K-12 tax credit bill families control the expenditure of education dollars, not centralized bureaucrats. Additionally, the community participation tax credit would direct immediate assistance to our faltering K-12 system. Dollars Follow the Student Education Block Grant Act According to a report released by the Heritage Foundation, at least 20 percent of education tax dollars spent from Washington are lost to administrative costs. Moreover, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce report, Education at the Crossroads, disclosed this staggering statistic: The federal government accounts for only seven percent of the funding for K-12 education, but 50 percent of the paperwork burden for schools. Several important initiatives have been introduced in this Congress to ensure that more federal education dollars reach the classroom, without the staggering administrative burdens that currently accompany these funds. The Dollars Follow the Student Education Block Grant Act would give states the opportunity to have nearly all of a $13 billion pot of federal education dollars go directly to parents of children. The block grant is modeled after a proposal that has already passed in the House and Senate, but was stripped from an appropriations bill last year at the President's insistence. That proposal would have consolidated most federally funded K through 12 education programs, except for special education, and would have given states the ability to have federal funds sent directly to local school districts or to the state education authority minus federal regulations. States also would have been allowed to reject the block grant approach if they preferred to maintain the current system of allocating funds directly into specific programs, with very little flexibility. The bill I have introduced would permit each state opting to have a block grant to have the money ``follow the child.'' The states would be permitted to decide to allow parents of children in public schools (including charter), private schools, and parents of ``home schooled'' kids, to receive their ``per capita'' amount directly, rather than indirectly through the school district and school, thus creating an incentive for schools to provide quality education by competing for children. All schools would have an incentive to improve its overall performance, since if parents weren't satisfied, they could move their child to another school--along with the dollars that accompany their children. The proposal provides that if federal funding falls below the levels agreed to in the 1997 budget agreement, it will revert back to the current system of funding under federally-designated categories. My bill also requires that states adjust block grants to ensure that poorer districts receive an adequate level of funding. In a recent article, ``First, Do No Harm: The Federal Role in Education Reform,'' featured in American Outlook, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education Chester E. Finn identified as part of a new paradigm for education, child-centered funding: ``[U]ncle Sam should replace today's hundreds of separate ``categorical'' programs with a couple of block grants or voucher-style programs. When a child is deemed eligible for federal aid, for whatever reason, that aid should follow him to the school (or other vendor) of his and his family's choice. . . . Washington should also quit subsidizing state and local education bureaucracies.'' Under a child-centered approach, Dr. Finn argued that: ``No school will be guaranteed its budget (or jobs). No school will own its students. It will have to `earn' its revenue by doing what it is supposed to.'' Conclusion We need the courage to stand up to the powerful education bureaucrats and say you have failed our children and we will tolerate it no longer. No more five or ten year plans to nowhere. It's time to give the fabric of America, our families and communities, new tools to improve student performance. My hope is that Congress has the wisdom to follow the lead of the Arizona legislature, and pass a K-12 education tax credit bill, and the Dollars Follow the Student Education Block Grant Act.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say it is wonderful to be here today, but I like most of you on both sides of the aisle would much rather be home attending church with my family, but we cannot be there because we have got work to do. I am not going to stand here and say that this Congress has accomplished everything that I wanted it to accomplish. In fact there are a lot of things that it could have and should have done that it did not. But as far as the rhetoric is concerned, when I listened to some of the folks, especially those on the other side of the aisle flailing their arms around and squealing in high decibels much like Barney Fife on the Andy Griffith Show, I now know why people are disenfranchised, why they decide they do not want to go to the polls. They are sick and tired of these people back in Washington, D.C. acting like a bunch of juveniles. For the last 4 years since I have been in Congress, I think of all of the things that the Democrats have said about the Republicans. Number one, that the Republicans want to starve the children. Remember back with the school lunch program, that we just want to decimate all the programs for the kids because we do not love kids. We must be child haters. That we wanted to pollute the environment. Somehow that we who are Republicans have some different kind of biological system that is impervious to the pollutants and carcinogens in the atmosphere and in the water, that we somehow would like to pollute the water, that we get glee out of making people suffer, that we want people who are being covered by health care to die, to be sick, to be thrown out of the hospitals, that we do not want to educate the children. If you believe all of these things that the Democrats are saying, then you must believe that we are the worst kind of human beings, somewhat a combination of Jeffrey Dahmer and Charles Manson. You guys need to give it a rest. You get on the verge of being ridiculous. Nobody believes that there are people like that in this country that want to come back to Washington, D.C. and cause mayhem on the American public. It just sounds silly and you need to stop it. I came here as an American first, not as a Republican, as an American, to come here and get the job of the people done. I have four kids in the public schools. I am proud of the job that my public schools do for my children. But I juxtapose that with what I see the results of the American education system producing. Forty percent of our children are dropping out of school across America. Then I look at the TIMS report, and I see that we end up 20th in the math and sciences, scoring 20th, and we are beaten by war-torn Slovenia. Why is that? If you believe what the Democrats are saying, they want to just go ahead and give you more of what we have been getting. Keep dumping money into this bureaucracy back in Washington, D.C. Keep giving you more of what you are getting. Forty percent dropout rate, 20th on the international test scores in math and sciences. Enough is enough. What we are doing is not working. Let us give parents a little bit more say. Let us give the local school boards and the local teachers a little bit more say in how to handle the classrooms. I think it is a crime that teachers have to go to school worried for their lives. I think it is a crime that we have so tied their hands in the American political system that they cannot discipline children, that when children try to poison them or children try to hurt them, that they cannot really do anything for fear of lawsuit. We have a lot of work to do. I think it is a crime that a teacher can be a terrible teacher, can produce the most substandard of results and not be fired, that a teacher can be grossly incompetent and because of tenure, they are protected. I think there are a lot of things that are wrong with our system. I do agree, I think that we need to dedicate more resources when it comes to education. Again I am going to restate, I have four children in the public school system, two of them in high school, one in junior high and one in elementary school. I believe that we need to give our teachers more. But I want to give them 100 percent. I do not want to filter it through Washington, D.C. and send through a pittance of it back to the teachers and back to the classroom to help my children. We want to sit down at the table. We want to fix these problems. If the President were here in Washington, D.C. instead of off campaigning and raising money from special interest groups, if he were here, we could solve these problems. We would like to do that. Because there is so much at stake, so much more at stake than these elections that are going to happen in the next 3\1/2\ weeks. But you would think that Armageddon is about to happen, that we Republicans are back here like Simon Legree trying to figure out how to poison the water, how to fail the children, how to poison the senior citizens, kick them out of the hospitals, feed them dog food. Come on guys, you need to stop it, grow up and let us go on and solve the problems of the American people.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce with Representative Jim Saxton and Majority Whip Tom DeLay a resolution calling on President Clinton to publicly and unequivocally state that the United States will actively oppose a unilaterally declared Palestinian state and that any such action would have severe negative consequences for Palestinian relations with the United States. Though the United States has traditionally oppose a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, recent statements by the Administration have been ambiguous, and contradictory to its previous policy. This shift in the attitude by the U.S. government has been followed by recent announcements by the Palestinian Authority of their intention to declare a Palestinian state unilaterally. Such a declaration would be a violation of the Oslo Accords. It would also pose a threat to Israel, and it would have a destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. Therefore, it is urgent that the U.S. reaffirms its opposition to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. For decades U.S. policy has been to oppose steadfastly the creation of an independent Palestinian state irrespective of how it is declared. The Administration's evolving policy on Palestinian statehood is skillfully explored in Robert Satloff's piece ``New Nuances'' that appeared in the July 13th New Republic. The author points to four sets of comments by Administration officials that have called into doubt the longstanding U.S. policy. (1) On May 7th, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton advocated the establishment of a Palestinian state. (2) On May 18th, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Martin Indyk refused to express firm U.S. opposition to the unilateral declaration of an independent Palestinian state, but rather restated traditional U.S. policy as a preference. (3) Also on May 18th, Vice President Al Gore made similar comments. (4) And finally, at a May 28th White House briefing, spokesman Michael McCurry refused to rule out the possibility that the United States would refuse to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. Mr. Satloff summarized the comments as follows: ``The United States strongly prefers a negotiated outcome of final status issues between Israel and the Palestinians and will work to achieve that goal. However, if the two sides do not reach agreement by May 1999 and the Palestinians issue a unilateral declaration of statehood over Israeli objections, the U.S. may or may not recognize that state.'' Since these statements by the U.S. government, Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, his cabinet and the Palestinian legislature have repeatedly threatened to unilaterally proclaim the establishment of a Palestinian state when the Oslo Accords expire on May 4, 1999. In mid-July, Chairman Arafat stated that ``there is a transition period of 5 years and after 5 years we have the right to declare an independent Palestinian state.'' Even more recently, on September 24th, Chairman Arafat's cabinet threatened to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state that would encompass a portion of Jerusalem: ``At the end of the interim period, it (the Palestinian government) shall declare the establishment of a Palestinian state on all Palestinian land occupied since 1967, with Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the Palestinian state.'' (The Columbian, Mark Lavie, Associated Press, September 25, 1998.) Chairman Arafat continued his push for statehood on September 28th in a speech before the United Nations, calling upon world leaders to support an independent Palestinian state: I would like to call upon all of you from this place--the source of international legitimacy and peacemaking, the guardian of freedom, security and stability, and the source for the achievement of justice and prosperity for humankind-- to stand by our people, especially as the five-year transitional period provided for in the Palestinian-Israeli agreements will end on the 4th of May, 1999 and our people demand of us to shoulder our responsibilities, and they await the establishment of their independent state. A unilateral declaration of statehood would be a renouncement of the Oslo Accords and could ignite hostilities. The Oslo Accords make no provision for the creation of a Palestinian state and, in fact, prohibit the Palestinian Authority from taking any actions that would affect the sovereignty of the Israeli-administered territories. Earlier this week Assistant Secretary of State Indyk said that a declaration of statehood ``becomes a recipe for an almost immediate confrontation . . .'' (Hillel Kuttler, Jerusalem Post, October 4, 1998). The threat of designating Jerusalem as the capital of a unilaterally declared Palestinian state is particularly offensive. It is also an affront to official U.S. policy. The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 codified that ``Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel.'' In light of Chairman Arafat's repeated threats to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state, and due to the lack of clarity in the Administration's position on this issue, it is important that Congress urge the President to state explicitly that a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood is in contravention to long-standing U.S. policy and is a violation of the Oslo Accords, and the United States will oppose and refuse to recognize such as action.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I extend my best wishes and greetings to the Republic of China on Taiwan on the 87th anniversary of the founding of their nation. Under President Lee Teng-hui and Vice President Lien Chan's leadership, the Republic of China continues its excellent record of economic growth and its historic democratization. Since I lived in Taiwan in the 1970's, we have seen a different Republic of China emerge. It is now a major trading nation, and its GNP is one of the world's largest. Its growth in per capita income has improved the lives of the 21 million hardworking men and women of Taiwan. Furthermore, the rapid democratization and constitutional reforms on Taiwan in recent years have made Taiwan a model for many nations. I also applaud President Lee for resuming bilateral discussions between Taiwan and the Chinese mainland. Happy Birthday to Taiwan.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during consideration of several amendments to the Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act (H.R. 2183). If I had been present, I would have voted: Yes on rollcall vote 367, an amendment by Mr. Barr to prohibit the use of bilingual ballots. Yes on rollcall vote 368, an amendment by Mr. McIntosh to prohibit congressional communications regarding legislative positions of members from being interpreted as ``coordination with a candidate.'' No on rollcall vote 369, an amendment by Mr. Horn to allow the principle campaign committee for a House or Senate candidate to send campaign mailings at the reduced postal rate now provided to party committees with a limit of two mailings per household in the candidate's district or state. Yes on rollcall vote 370, an amendment by Mr. Shaw to prohibit candidates for the House of Representatives from raising more than 50 percent of campaign funds out of the state in which the candidate is running. Yes on rollcall vote 371, an amendment by Ms. Kaptur to prohibit contributions by multicandidate political committees or separate funds sponsored by foreign-controlled corporations and associations. Yes on rollcall vote 372, an amendment by Mr. Stearns to prohibit presidential candidates who receive federal funding from soliciting soft money. Yes on rollcall vote 373, an amendment by Mr. Stearns to permit permanent residents who served in the Armed Forces to make contributions to political campaigns and committees.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. According to my understanding, not necessarily so, and not necessarily in a timely manner. I am asking that, through my amendment, that it be done within 30 days, just like we do in our campaigns. When we get contributions from special interests, we have to publish that information and fully disclose it to the public. I am simply asking that the White House live by the same standards when it comes to possible perks for contributors.

Mr. SALMON. That would be determined by members on the Committee on National Security. As I mentioned, they would be required to submit in writing to the chairman of the committee, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the ranking member. If they concur there is a national security reason for not disclosing that information, then it is not disclosed.

Mr. SALMON. I am sure that they would work in tandem with those members. If they feel that there is a valid concern, absolutely, their input would be, I am sure, paramount, as it always is. If they feel that there is a literal reason that national security might be compromised by disclosing those names, that would be a compelling reason enough to not have to disclose that information, and that is included in the amendment.

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

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentlemen.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Air Force One and related aircraft have a noble history. These special aircraft were first put into service for President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944. In 1961, the designation Air Force One was first used on behalf of President John F. Kennedy. President Lyndon Johnson took the oath of office on Air Force One in 1963. Air Force One also provides all presidents with the security and the communications equipment they would need in case of an international crisis, a noble history now sullied. President Clinton and Vice President Gore created a new use for Air Force One and Air Force Two, taxpayer-funded boondoggles for fat-cat contributors and toys for special interests. According to the Boston Globe, President Clinton flew aboard Air Force One with 56 major contributors during 1996 and 1997, often with government picking up the tab. Donors who gave $5,000 or raised at least $25,000 for the Clinton-Gore campaign accompanied Clinton aboard the presidential aircraft. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It requires the President to make available via the Internet the name of any nongovernment person who is a passenger on an aircraft designated as Air Force One or Air Force Two no later than 30 days after that person is a passenger. An exception is made if there are national security concerns. In such cases, the President shall submit to the chairman and ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House and Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate the name of the person and the justification for not making the name available through the Internet. It is time the American people, our constituents, know which special interests are flying on taxpayer-funded aircraft. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, the intent of the amendment is simply disclosure. It is not just for this administration, for any administration in the future. I have a concern that there are possibly people who are contributors to either of the parties or to candidates who may be rewarded by flying on Air Force One. I am simply wanting to make sure that any nongovernmental person that flies aboard Air Force One or Air Force Two, those are the two specified in the amendment, would be disclosed via the Internet so that we would have full disclosure of who those people might be. If there is a national security concern which would preclude them from disclosing that information, then that would be granted. That would waive them from that requirement.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, more than 14,000 murders, rapes, and sexual assaults on children are committed each year by individuals who have been released into our neighborhoods after serving a prison sentence for rape, murder, or child molestation. Think about it: every one of these crimes is preventable. These perpetrators were behind bars, convicted of heinous crimes, yet were released to prey on the population again. This is unconscionable, indefensible, and must stop. I am committed to seeing that it stops, which is why today I am introducing the ``No Second Chances For Murderers, Rapists, or Child Molesters Act.'' The legislation will encourage States to keep the most violent offenders off of the streets. Public safety demands that we keep these people behind bars. Second chances may be fine for a petty thief. However, I don't believe that individuals who have murdered, raped, or molested a child, should have the opportunity to repeat their criminal behavior. We can prevent the repeat carnage if we simply have the will to keep these offenders in prison for life. It may be stating the obvious, but the fact is that last year, not a single murderer, rapist, or child molester in prison victimized an innocent person in the community. Unfortunately, all too many who were released went on to commit these brutal crimes again. Among the crimes committed by released recidivists were these senseless tragedies: In 1997, Arthur J. Bomar Jr. was charged in Pennsylvania with the rape and murder of George Mason University star athlete, Aimee Willard. Bomar had been paroled in 1990 from a Nevada prison, following an eleven year stint in prison for murder. Even in prison he had a record of violence. Bomar is also being investigated for involvement in at least two other homicides that followed his release. Laurence Singleton raped and physically mutilated Mary Vincent in California. She showed extraordinary courage and perseverance by surviving the attack and working for his conviction. He was sent to jail, where he should have stayed. Yet because of weaknesses in our criminal justice system, he was later released, and he murdered Roxanne Hayes in Florida. Again in large measure because of Ms. Vincent's efforts, Singleton was recently sentenced to death in Florida. Robert Simon killed his girlfriend for refusing to engage in sexual relations with his motorcycle gang. For this crime, Simon spent 12 years in a Pennsylvania prison. Eleven weeks after he was paroled, he was arrested for killing a New Jersey police officer, Ippolito ``Lee'' Gonzalez. A New Jersey jury would later sentence Simon to death for this crime. The judge who had sentenced Simon in Pennsylvania on his first murder conviction, had written to the state parole board that Simon ``should never see the light of day in Pennsylvania or any other place in the free world.'' Reginald McFadden killed an elderly women in Philadelphia by binding her face with tape and suffocating her. After 25 years in prison he was paroled. three weeks after his parole, McFadden went on a crime spree in New York. McFadden murdered three people, and raped, assaulted, and held hostage a fourth. The survivor of the one man crime wave, Ms. Jeremy Brown, offered courageous testimony that helped to convince jurors to convict McFadden. After the conviction, Ms. Brown said: ``McFadden was given a second chance, for some inexplicable reason, and now we have to pay for it.'' Gregory Bolin was convicted in Colorado for raping two women. Paroled once, he returned to prison after armed assault. Then, two weeks after being released prematurely for the second time, he moved to Nevada and kidnapped, raped, beat, and finally murdered a 21-year-old woman, Brooklyn Ricks. The prosecution argued that the one lesson Bolin learned during his incarceration was not to leave witnesses to his sex crimes. A Nevada jury sentenced Bolin to death for the murder of Ricks. Released murderers, rapists, and child molesters are more likely to re-commit the same offense than the general prison population. Released murderers are almost five times more likely than other ex-convicts to be rearrested for murder. Released rapists are 10.5 times more likely than non-rapist offenders to have a subsequent arrest for rape. Astonishingly, a recent Department of Justice study revealed that 134,300 convicted child molesters and other sex offenders are currently living in our neighborhoods across America. Sentences for these crimes, particularly sex crimes against women and children, are incredibly weak. The average actual time served by men after conviction for rape is just 4 years, 9 months. For sexual assault (including molestation, forcible sodomy, lewd acts with children, etc.), it is just 2 years 9 months. Moreover, fully 13% of convicted rapists receive no jail time. Following the tragic death of nine-year- old Megan Kanka, who was killed by a released, convicted child molester, Congress and state legislatures have recognized the rights of families to be aware of child molesters in their midst. Through Megan's Law and its policies of sex offender registration and community notification, citizens have been empowered to take measures to protect themselves. Now we should build on Megan's Law by keeping these dangerous criminals out of our neighborhoods entirely. Ten years ago, a parent had no right to be notified that a convicted child molester lived next door. Now, many want more than notification that dangerous child molesters are in their neighborhoods and near their schools. They want to live free from convicted sex offenders. Let's keep every molester behind bars so we don't have to have more tears, more memorial services, and more child victims. I repeat: every crime committed by a released child molester is preventable. And to those who disagree, a simple challenge: you explain to the victims of pedophilia why imprisoned child molesters, who have the highest rates of recidivism, should ever be set free to victimize innocent children again. Given that criminals with electronic monitors have raped while wearing the tracking devices, it is foolhardy to hope that registration alone can prevent subsequent depraved acts. I want to change the nature of the debate. To encourage states to keep sex offenders and murderers in prison where they belong, I am introducing the ``No Second Chances for Murderers, Rapists, or Child Molesters Act of 1998.'' The legislation would enact a simple process: if a state releases a murderer, rapist, or child molester and that criminal goes on to commit one of those crimes in another state, the state that released the criminal will compensate the second state and the victim of the later crime. Specifically, the Attorney General, using federal law enforcement funds, would transfer the second state's cost of apprehension, prosecution, and incarceration of the criminal from the state that released the criminal to the second state. Half of the amounts transferred would be deposited in the state's crime victims' fund, and half would be deposited in the state account that collects federal law enforcement funds. Additionally, the proposal provides $100,000 to the victims of the subsequent attack. The No Second Chances bill is an appropriate exercise of federal authority. It specifically leaves to the states those cases in which a recidivist strikes again in the same state. But states are helpless in preventing many crimes that occur because other states, with weaker laws, allow their released criminals to return to the streets to commit more crimes. This bill alerts states that they will assume a financial risk when they release the most violent felons back into society. Only states that do not take measurers to eliminate interstate recidivism among killers, rapists, and child sex predators will suffer. States that have enacted tough criminal laws should not have to pay for the costs of another state's failure to keep a dangerous offender behind bars. States can reverse the misguided policy of releasing dangerous sex offenders today. (Some notorious child molesters have publicly admitted that they will terrorize young children again if released into society.) The Supreme Court has ruled that a dangerous sex offender may be kept in custody past the expiration of his sentence. A permanent solution would be for the states to pass laws that mandate lifetime incarceration (or the death penalty) for murderers, rapists and child molesters. Finally, to ensure that Federal law is consistent with the changes we are encouraging the States to make, the legislation instructs the United States Sentencing Commission to amend the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to provide that whoever is guilty of murder, rape, or unwanted sexual acts against a child shall be punished by imprisonment for life (or by the death penalty, in the case of murder). We know that the one sure-fire way to prevent crime is to keep criminals in jail. The investment in prisons during the 1980s may be the most important factor in the declining crime rate Americans have experienced during much of the 1990s. We spend about $102 per person annually--27 cents a day--on federal, state, and local correction facilities, less than we spend on cable television. What is a couple of additional cents compared to a life taken too early, the permanent damage to a woman raped or a child molested? And let's not forget that society has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars in investigating, prosecuting, and incarcerating these criminals in the first place (not to mention the cost to the original victims). Before I close, I would like to dedicate this bill to all of those who participated in today's bill introduction ceremony and the memory of those they lost. I am touched that people would come from all across the country to express support for the No Second Chances Bill. Gail Willard from Pennsylvania, mother of Aimee, has galvanized support for the recidivism measure, which I also refer to as ``Aimee's Law.'' The assistance of one of the truly courageous people on this planet, Mary Vincent, as well as that of her attorney, Mark Edwards, has been instrumental in putting together the No Second Chances bill. Jeremy Brown from New York, the rape survivor whose attacker murdered three others and raped her after being released from a murder sentence in Pennsylvania, has also been active in the process of crafting the legislation. Louis Gonzales from New Jersey, brother of Ippolito, has been a tremendous help in convincing others to support this effort. Marc Klaas, whose daughter Polly was molested and murdered by a released molester, has been successful in lobbying for the passage of important criminal justice reforms on the state and federal level. His participation in this effort is very much appreciated. Fred Goldman, whose son Ron was murdered, has been a leader in the victims' rights movement. He has helped us gather support for the bill. Mika Moulten from Illinois, mother of a beautiful boy Christopher, a 10 year-old molested and murdered by a released child molester and killer, has inspired me with her dedication to improve our nation's criminal justice system. And Carol and Roger Fornoff from my state of Arizona, parents of Christy Ann, a 13-year-old girl who was raped and murdered while she was delivering newspapers, have generously offered their help to pass the No Second Changes Bill. Carol and Roger led a successful crusade in Arizona to increase sentences for those who attack children. I also thank Officer Lou Cannon from the Fraternal Order of Police; and Sara O'Meara, Yvonne Fedderson, and Mariam Bell, the founders of Childhelp USA, for their support. It is a great honor to have the support of the nation's preeminent law enforcement organization and the leading child abuse and prevention organization. Finally, I want to offer my thanks to Steve Twist of Arizona for all of his assistance in drafting the No Second Chances Act. There are few people in the country that have Steve's grasp of the state and federal criminal code. The most important function of government is to protect the public safety. It is immoral for criminals convicted of the most serious crimes, and already behind bars, ever to be given a second chance to prey upon the innocent. The enactment of the No Second Chances measure would help government meet its fundamental obligation to every man, woman and child in America.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support this resolution, which could not have come at a more poignant time. Nine years ago today thousands of young Chinese men and women lost their lives while demonstrating support for freedom and democracy. This peaceful demonstration came to a violent end when Chinese soldiers of the People's Republic of China were ordered to fire machine guns and tanks on these innocent unarmed civilians. Many of the survivors remain incarcerated today. I realize I have a somewhat different point of view than many of my colleagues. In fact, I urged the President to go to China. There was a letter circulated recently asking him not to go. I think that would be a tragic mistake. I think he should go. I think there are a lot of valuable things he could accomplish. I think he can reaffirm the moral values of the American people in terms of human rights, nonproliferation, and on and on. He should have gone long ago, in fact, not for just some kind of a photo opportunity, but to discuss the serious issues facing our Nation today. However, he should not go to Tiananmen Square. In fact, just 3 days ago I sent a letter to President Clinton, and I will quote it: I must urge you in the strongest terms to avoid any official activities in Tiananmen Square. No American President should appear at Tiananmen Square, at a minimum, until Chinese officials acknowledge young Chinese men and women whose blood was shed 9 years ago this week. Your visit there would set back the Chinese struggle for human rights, and would be an insult to those heroic students who gave their lives for the cause of freedom. Mr. Speaker, Chinese officials must acknowledge the bloodshed that occurred in Tiananmen Square if they expect to advance a constructive relationship with the United States. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution. It is not about trying to dictate to the President where he should go or where he should not go, it is simply about common sense. It is simply about reaffirming our values. That is a great opportunity to build constructively this relationship. A lot of folks who have said that MFN does not work, they say so because I do not think we have been constructively engaged. We do not take the opportunities to use the bully pulpit to speak plainly with our colleagues on another continent.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I commend Representatives McIntosh, Weller, Herger and Riley for reintroducing the Marriage Penalty Elimination Act. One of the most indefensible aspects of our current tax code is that over 40 percent of married couples pay more in taxes filing jointly than they would if husband and wife each filed individually. This long-overdue legislation will end this discriminatory practice. While I cosponsored the previous version of this legislation, I did not believe it was the best way to eliminate the marriage penalty. Although it eliminated the marriage penalty for the 40 percent of couples who pay more filing jointly than they would separately, it upset the important principle, embedded in current law, that different families with the same total income should be treated equally for tax purposes. Moreover, it did not treat families in which one parent either stays at home or works part-time the same as families in which both parents work full time. At a time when the President is proposing billions of dollars for commercial day care we should be offering credible alternatives that make it easier for working families to keep one parent at home. That's why Representative Riley and I introduced H.R. 3104, the Marriage Protection and Fairness Act. This legislation would permit married couples to use ``income splitting'' on their returns, and would increase the standard deduction for married couples. These changes would: offer almost all married couples a tax cut; eliminate the tax penalty on marriage that exists under current law; and continue the current policy that different families with the same total income should be treated equally for tax purposes. Not surprisingly, this legislation quickly garnered 85 cosponsors. I am pleased to see that the concerns addressed in our legislation have been addressed in H.R. 3734. By doubling the standard deduction for married couples and doubling the income thresholds for married couples in all tax brackets, this legislation ensures that one-earner families will not be treated unfairly as a result of efforts to eliminate the marriage penalty. In addition, this legislation respects the principle that all married couples with the same income should be treated equally by the IRS. One income families often have the toughest time making ends meet, particularly if they are raising children. This latest version of the Marriage Penalty Elimination Act will allow us to eliminate the marriage penalty without penalizing stay-at-home parents. I encourage all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, this important resolution expresses the sense of the Congress that the United States should demand that Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Yasser Arafat transfer the United Stats for prosecution the terrorists who have murdered American citizens. The refusal by the PA to assist American in the fight against terrorism, calls into question its commitment to peace. At least 10 U.S. citizens have been killed in Israel by Palestinian terrorists since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993. About 20 Palestinians have been implicated in the attacks. Not a single terrorist implicated in the attacks has been transferred to Israel to stand trial as the Oslo Accords require. And in spite of sufficient evidence to do so, the U.S. Department of Justice has not indicted any of the terrorist involved in the spilling of American blood. The majority of the terrorists are believed to be living freely in territories controlled by Chairman Arafat. In a twist of irony, one terrorist, according to reports, is employed as a jailer at a Palestinian detention facility. The Resolution continues the bi-partisan congressional effort to secure justice for the murdered Americans. I would briefly note some of the other attempts to prod the Administration to do its job and pressure Chairman Arafat to transfer the Palestinian murders. On January 20, I drafted a letter with Representative Jim Saxton, signed by 29 other Members of the House and four Senators, which called on Secretary of State Albright to direct U.S. efforts to obtain the transfer of those who have murdered American citizens. The State Department's response of February 25 was woefully inadequate. The State Department responded that it would be permissible for the PA to prosecute the murderers of Americans. For the State Department to refer these cases back to the PA is a sad joke. The PA criminal justice system is a circuit of kangaroo courts. Everybody knows it's a revolving door of justice. The Secretary of State has in the past admitted as much. Representative Saxton and I followed-up the State Department's non-response with a March 25 letter to Secretary Albright. In the letter, we demanded action, noting that: ``That failure of the United States to do everything in its power to prosecute Palestinian killers of Americans puts other Americans at risk, and is contrary to longstanding U.S. policy to pursue territories most aggressively. The time has come for results.'' We also questioned why the U.S. continues to provide aid for the Palestinian Authority, and is not willing to impose economic sanctions against the PA, as it does in the case of Libya for its refusal to transfer the terrorists suspected of bombing Pan Am flight 103. The State Department's letter was useful, however, in pointing out the role the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI play in capturing terrorists. U.S. law makes it a capital offense to kill a national of the United States anywhere in the world. On April 28, Representative Jim Saxton and I sent a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno that has been signed by a group of over 60 Members of the House, including Speaker Newt Gingrich (Senator Alfonse D'Amato also signed the letter), which states that: ``The DOJ should pursue these killers of American citizens abroad with the same vigor it has pursued the murderers of Americans killed in terrorism attacks here in the U.S. Americans traveling or living abroad have often been desirable targets for terrorist attacks. If we are to deter such attacks in the future, it is essential that our law enforcement agencies pursue these cases aggressively and to the fullest extent of the law. It is our view that the DOJ must investigate, indict and prosecute these individuals without further delay.'' I will conclude my remarks with an excerpt from a letter that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sent to me in February on the importance of punishing terrorists. ``That murderers are allowed to go free and live without fear of prosecution in areas ruled by the Palestinian Authority is particularly worrisome. This is not just a travesty of justice but a very strong message to potential terrorists.'' The blood of the victims cries from the dust for justice. Killers of Americans must be brought to justice. I commend Representative Fox for his sponsorship of the Resolution, and Chairman Gilman's leadership in speedily bringing it to the floor.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I have got a news flash for the American people, and that is the American two-party system we have loved for so long. It is clear with today's goings on it is dead and gone. The Republicans and the Democrats have been replaced by one big mammoth party called the ``republicrats'', and they have one interest, and that is business as usual. My support for the Kasich amendment is typified by this story. It appears there was a young boy who wrote a letter to God asking for $10 because he wanted to buy something. The post office did not know where else to send it, so they sent it to the White House. The President got a kick out of that. He put a dollar in the mail back to the boy. The boy quickly wrote another letter back to God. He said, God, thank you so much for the money that you sent me, but it went by way of Washington, D.C., and they took out $9 and only gave me $1. Could you please send it to me directly next time? I think that is what we are after. We just want to make sure that the money stays in the States, and we cut out the Federal middleman, and all of the money goes to transportation, the needs appropriated by the citizens of the States we live in.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, when I came here 3 years ago, I came, I think, full of fire in the belly ready to make some major changes in this place. I, too, am very disappointed tonight. There are a lot of reformers on both sides. The gentleman that just spoke is a true hero of mine, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel). I think he is a great guy and somebody that stands for the right thing time and time again. Hopefully, he sees there are some of us on the other side that try to do the same thing. We get a little tired of the games between the leadership on both sides. Frankly, we stand here tonight, and I am ashamed, I really am ashamed to see how this is coming up tonight, that it is in the same manner as that of the leadership who ran the House for 40 years under the Democrats. It is wrong. It is wrong when they did it, and it is wrong if we do it, and I don't think this is a service to the American people. Let me say something. We are here to talk about a very sensitive issue, special interest influence on Washington. I come from a State that passed the most comprehensive campaign finance reform in the Nation. You can only give $300 to a candidate in the State of Arizona, yet scandals still persist, problems still occur, because people do break the law. Let us stop telling lies to the American people. Everybody knows that the Republicans want to preserve the ability for big corporations to give bucks on the side through soft money to the ones in charge. By the way, if the Democrats were in charge, they would be giving to you, because, frankly, I do not think they have a soul. They give to whoever is in charge of the place so they can get what they need. But the Democrats do not want the unions to be restricted in any way. They do not want union employees to know where their money is going. So there is this perpetration on both sides. I think it is wrong. Frankly, I think that until we have a real debate, and I hope we do, we are never going to get this resolved. Let us finally realize what will really make a difference. It is not about stopping PACs or stopping this or that. What is going to stop it is full disclosure.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Madam Speaker, I request unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1415.