Jennifer Dunn

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation, the Reforestation Tax Act, that will lower the tax burden on timber assets that are managed in a sustainable and environmentally sound fashion. Last year, Congress took a major step toward reducing the Federal tax burden on millions of Americans, eliminating the deficit, restoring greater fiscal integrity to the budget process and, in the process bringing a measure of greater equity to the tax code. Most importantly, we sought to encourage savings, to promote sustained, long-term growth, and to immediately reduce the tax burden of Americans by lowering the tax on capital gains. The Reforestation Tax Act recognizes the unique nature of growing trees by reducing the amount of gain subject to capital gains by 3 percent each year a timber asset is held up to a maximum of 50 percent. Most importantly, it would apply this tax rate to all taxpayers, individuals as well as corporations. In this manner, we would avoid the inequity we have today whereby neighboring tracks of the same timber are taxed at different rates simply because of the business form of their investments (i.e. one is owned by a small group of investors while another is owned by a larger group of public investors). Besides ensuring fairness, the Reforestation Tax Act will encourage sound forestry practices that keep our environment healthy for the future. Currently, industrial timberlands help reduce demand for timber from public lands while generally being managed according to principles of sustainable forestry. Moreover, by sequestering carbon, managed forests help to offset emissions that contribute to the ``greenhouse effect''. Unfortunately, today's high tax burden on forest assets runs counter to our commitment to preserving and investing in the environment. This bill would encourage reforestation--or reinvestment in the environment--by extending tax credits for all reforestation expenses and shortening the amortization period for reforestation costs. As we consider policies to counteract global warming and improve water quality, we need to encourage sound forestry practices. It is this kind of approach that assures our tax policies take into account the long-term risk of timber investments and rewards timber owners who responsibly sustain forest health over long periods of time. The Reforestation Tax Act represents the best of sound tax and environmental policy. I urge my colleagues to support and cosponsor this measure. Description of Reforestation Tax Act of 1998 Section 1--Proposal to increase incentives for investment in long-held timber assets Proposal: To reduce the negative interaction of tax rates and inflationary gain on investment in long-held timber assets. Section 1 would reduce the amount of gain on harvested timber subject to tax by 3 percent each year the asset is held, up to a maximum 50 percent reduction. The proposal would be available for all timber owners. Description of Current Law: Under current law, timber is considered a capital asset. However, the lower tax rate for capital assets was eliminated in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. This created a situation where timber owners, who must hold their trees for 20 to 60 years before harvesting, were paying taxes on inflationary gains. Congress partially corrected this problem last year when it restored lower capital gains rates--20% for individuals who held their capital assets for at least 18 months. However, corporate timber owners must still pay the higher regular tax rate of 35% on their timber gains. Reasons for the Change: The 1997 Taxpayer relief Act (TRA) significantly reduced the Federal tax bill on millions of Americans by reducing the burdensome tax rates on capital gains for individuals. The House passed version of TRA included a capital gains tax reduction for individuals and corporations. Unfortunately, the TRA as finally enacted contains provisions that have unintended consequences for the forest products industry. Because it ultimately excluded corporate assets, the 1997 TRA established a much higher capital gains tax threshold for all corporate assets, merely based on the form of ownership. Discriminating against taxpayers who make long-term investments, based solely on the business form of their investment, is a particularly unfair consequence for the forest products industry. Timber growing in any form is a long-term, high-risk venture, subject to the unpredictable threats of disease, fire, government intervention, and price in the marketplace. The TRA outcome creates a differential between those who invested in growing trees as a corporation and those who have invested as individuals. Many non-industrial timberland owners' assets are held in corporate form, based on considerations under current law (liability concerns, estate taxes, etc.), so a capital gains differential limited to individuals excludes coverage for much of the nation's privately held timberland. But no matter who pays the capital gains tax, the investments are equally risky, and the incentive to reinvest diminished. Private forest landowners-- corporate and non-corporate--furnish most of the nation's timber resources. In fact, less than 8 percent of the nation's timber harvest comes from public lands. There are currently 393 million acres of woodlands owned by 9.9 million private owners, ranging in size from small woodlot owners to large industrial concerns. How the Sales Price Adjustment Works: Upon the sale of timber, for purposes of determining capital gain, the gain would be reduced by 3 percent for every year the timber was held. This provision is restricted as that the reduction in sales price cannot reduce the gain by more than 50 percent. Environmental Benefits of the Section 1: U.S. Commercial timberlands are managed in accordance with some of the strictest environmental standards in the world. We need to support this industry as it competes in the global marketplace against international competitors, many of whom are not subject to the same standards as the U.S. industry. U.S. commercial timberlands are managed not only for purposes of providing timber but also for promoting fish and wildlife habitat and other public purposes. In addition, trees are natural ``carbon sinks,'' sequestering carbon dioxide and giving off oxygen. In plain terms, the U.S. forest products industry is a major contributor toward reducing the accumulation of greenhouse gases through its management of timberlands. Section 2--Proposed to improve the tax credit and amortization period for reforestation expenditures Proposal: To remove the current dollar limitation ($10,000) on the amount of reforestation expenses that are eligible for the 10 percent tax credit and that are allowed to be amortized; secondly, to decrease the amortization period over which these expenses can be deducted from seven to five years. Description of Current Law: Current law provides a ten percent tax credit to timberland owners who spend up to $10,000 to reforest their land and allows the same amount ($10,000) of reforestation expenses to be amortized over a seven year period. What are Reforestation Expense: The initial expenses required to establish a new stand of trees often include items such as site preparation, the cost of the seedlings, the labor costs required to plant the seedlings and care for the trees in the first several years, and depreciation equipment used in reforestation. Example of How the Credit and Amortization Provisions Work: Today, if a timberland owner spends $10,000 on reforestation costs in a year, the taxpayers can take a ten percent credit, i.e., $1,000 off their tax bill for those expense. The basis is reduced by 50% of the credit (in this case $500) and the remaining $9500 of expenses are eligible to be amortized, i.e., deducted over a seven year period, generally in equal amounts of one-seventh each year. Reforestation expenses over $10,000 are not eligible for this incentive. Environmental Benefits of the Section 2: The provisions are intended to encourage reforestation, both on land that has been harvested and on land that was previously put to other uses, such as agriculture. Trees provide a tremendous benefit to the environment--they prevent soil erosion, cleanse streams and waterways, absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and provide habitat for a range of species. Tax incentives for planting on private lands also decrease the pressure to obtain timber from public lands, allowing more public land to remain untouched. Need for Tax Incentives to Encourage Reforestation: The decision to reforest, particularly after harvesting, can be a difficult one. The expenses are high and the eventual benefits quite remote since trees must grow 20 to 60 years until mature enough for harvesting again. During that long period of time, the trees are subject to numerous risks such as disease, forum insects, etc., as well as ordinary market risks. Reasons for Eliminating the $10,000 Cap: The arbitrary limit on eligible reforestation expenses restricts the number of acres that can be automatically reforested. With the ever decreasing availability of public timber, it is even more important to encourage the maximum amount of private reforestation possible. It is particularly essential that all landowners be eligible for such tax treatment so that they will have the resources to hire professional foresters, wildlife biologist, and other experts which allow for more environmentally sensitive forestry practices. Larger owners are penalized under current law because corporations are not eligible for lower capital gains rate on timber. If the tax law is not changed to benefit all timber owners who reforest, it could encourage owners who do not receive tax incentives to get out of the business of owning timber and this would ultimately be very harmful to both timber supply and the environment.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the Education Savings Act Conference Report. I encourage the adoption of this legislation for a number of reasons. It helps families choose the best schools possible at all levels of education by providing families with much needed education-related tax relief. Not only does this bill create opportunities for families to save their hard-earned dollars and receive interest tax-free for costs associated with K through 12 education, but it also makes higher education more affordable by offering favorable tax treatment for prepaid tuition plans. This bill encourages families to invest in their children's future. One of the provisions which the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) and I have worked on in this bill enables families with school-aged children to save money tax-free for future college expenses through plans established by private institutions. Today, more than 50 independent colleges and universities have joined together to offer families prepaid tuitions at numerous institutions. I hope my colleagues will look at this legislation and support it later today.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, after serving on the House Committee on Ways and Means for the past 3\1/2\ years, I am continuing to be amazed by the outrageous provisions that are involved in our current income Tax Code. In no small part, many of these provisions that are a function of the Tax Code have spiraled out of control. The irony is that while our Tax Code has just about 7 million words, it lacks two regular words, and those words, Mr. Speaker, are common sense. The current income tax system is far too complex and it is a source of utter frustration for millions of hardworking Americans and for their families. Over the past few years I have heard from thousands of constituents in my district alone and they have talked to me about hundreds of problems they have experienced with the system of taxation. A common theme, as we all know, has been the intrusive nature of the Internal Revenue Service. I believe it is time for this issue to be brought out of America's kitchen and on to the committee calendars of the Congress. Money magazine last year reported that not one of 45 professional tax preparers could accurately compute a hypothetical family's tax return. Fewer than one in four came within even $1,000 of the correct figure. How can we expect average citizens to comply with a code when licensed professionals, who have spent years studying the system, cannot even get it right. Not only this, but the cost of compliance for the average family is horrendous. Each year Americans devote 8 to 10 billion hours complying with our Tax Code. This amounts to over 5 million Americans working all year long, the equivalent of the entire work force of my State, Washington State, of Iowa and Maine. The cost of complying totals about $200 billion annually, or $700 for each, man, woman and child in America. These are just the numbers associated with following the law. The income tax system involves a number of other costs, including those associated with enforcement and collection, as well as the cost of tax litigation. Sunsetting the code will work. President Clinton described this plan as reckless or irresponsible. Actually, as the President should know, it is common practice. Major Federal Government programs, such as spending on highways, education and agriculture, regularly expire and are rewritten in 5-year increments. This is a strategy also used by the States, who understand that change will not occur unless they break through the gridlock. This is exactly how this legislation to sunset the Tax Code will work. There is a national debate going on outside the Congress, Mr. Speaker, on the direction of the Tax Code. We have a terrific opportunity here today to improve the Federal system of corporate and personal income taxation in a manner that will both significantly improve the economic performance of our Nation and substantially reduce the compliance and administrative burden on American families. By scrapping this code, we will bring this debate into focus and force ourselves to discuss this issue. I urge its support.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Bass amendment. This amendment would assist States in meeting the requirements of the sex offender registration and notification laws that my colleagues and I passed in previous Congresses. While the registration and notification programs in my home State of Washington are exceptional, because that is where the idea of Megan's Law began and that is where the specific community notification program began, the resources to implement the programs are very scarce. Mr. Chairman, during a recent trip home, I had the opportunity to meet with some police chiefs in my district. They are doing everything they can, Mr. Chairman, to ensure that released sexual predators are registered and that the communities into which they move are properly notified. But at the same time that I recognize their efforts, such as the recent two-week sweep where a special task force caught and arrested 23 unregistered sexual predators, I must also recognize that they need additional resources. That is why the Bass amendment is so important. I think with this amendment, States will be able to offset some of their costs with flexible grants. I support the Bass amendment.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and our ranking member the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for their very good work on this issue. Their continuing commitment to fighting sex crimes against children is very commendable. I rise today to speak in support of the Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act, a bill that is for families throughout the country who are doing everything they can to keep their children safe and innocent, but may not be aware of the pedophiles who are cruising the Internet. This legislation makes it crystal clear to the most heinous of criminals, those who would prey on innocent children, make no mistake, you will be punished, and you will be punished to the full extent of the law. As we approach the 21st century and an age of ever-expanding technology, Congress must continue to enact laws that are one step ahead of the criminals in a changing, constantly changing environment. When my two boys were growing up, I, like most mothers, worried about their safety and did everything within my power to protect them from harm. Whether I watched as they played outside in their earlier years or drove them to and from their soccer practice when they were a little older, I was always aware of the dangers of the outside world. I was like all the other moms who would tell my kids, do not talk to strangers, do not accept rides, do not accept candy from people you do not know. But I never had to say, be careful of strangers on the Internet. Back then it was a novelty to have a personal computer in the house, but times have changed, Mr. Chairman. Nowadays, many homes and most schools and libraries are equipped with computers and, therefore, with access to the information superhighway. That superhighway is a two-way street. Children can explore the world, and criminals unfortunately can get right into your house. Hailing from Washington State, which is home to a flourishing high- tech industry, I am not surprised that 20 million children will have access to the Internet by the year 2002. That is 20 million children who will have the opportunity to see images of Neil Armstrong's historic first steps on the moon, or to see the actual Titanic, or to communicate with other children who are halfway around the globe. That part is wonderful. But then I read about the 36-year-old Seattle man charged with second degree rape, accused of having sex with an 11-year-old girl he met in an Internet chat room. Just today in the National Journal there is a story about a team of psychologists who, based on a comprehensive poll, concluded that ``erotic pursuits are among the most frequent uses of the Internet'' and that sex is the most searched word on line. So while our children may experience all the wonders of the world with one click of the button, the sad truth is they may also eventually fall victim to the most horrifying of sex crimes. That is why the Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act is so critical to families across the country. This bill addresses a growing concern for parents whose children are growing up in the information age. By severely punishing those who use computers to target children for sexual acts or who knowingly send children obscenity over the Internet, this bill cracks down on cyber-predators and pedophiles. But the bill goes beyond punishing those who lure kids over the Internet for sex crimes. Over a dozen provisions increase Federal penalties for sex offenders and help facilitate Federal investigations of crimes committed against children. For example, a Federal child sex offender will not be released prior to his trial, and, by sentencing serial rapists to life in prison, the bill sends a signal that a civilized society cannot and will not tolerate rape. The McCollum-Dunn bill tells cyber-predators that the information superhighway is not a detour for deviant behavior, but, rather, a dead end. Our message is clear. We will not stop until every mother and father has the peace of mind that their children are safe from sexual predators. Again, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), for their thoughtful work. I encourage the support of my colleagues in enacting this important and timely bill.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Riley-Bachus amendment, because stopping the sexual exploitation of our children simply cannot be thoroughly achieved without it. As impossible and amazing as it seems, current law actually allows individuals to possess up to two items of child pornography. It means that somebody can own two magazines or two videotapes containing thousands of pictures depicting children engaged in explicit sexual conduct. I have no idea where this came from. I did not know it was part of the law. I think it is appalling. We have got the opportunity now and we must act now to ensure that possession of any child pornography be made illegal. That is why it is important for this amendment and it is so crucial. It is also time, Mr. Chairman, that we set the record straight with child pornographers and pedophiles. The sexual exploitation of our children will not be tolerated in any way, shape or form.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) for his work on the Volunteers for Children Act. In our ongoing war against sexual offenders and child abusers, one of our most powerful weapons is information. Empowering volunteer groups with information about would-be volunteers who have criminal histories is a crucial step in preventing an unforeseen incident. Volunteer groups should be able to benefit today's youth without fear that the children they serve may be harmed. As one of the many Members who worked on Megan's Law during the past few years, as well as sex offender registration laws, I realize how critical information is in helping to prevent crimes against children. The Volunteers for Children Act enables youth- serving volunteer organizations to help ensure the safety of those children they serve by providing them with access to FBI information on would-be volunteers. The Foley amendment allows, but it does not mandate, volunteer organizations to request FBI background checks on each of their volunteers. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment because individuals who volunteer their time to youth groups like the Boys and Girls Club of King County in Washington State, come in direct, often unsupervised contact with thousands of youngsters, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Although most volunteers offer their time and their assistance unselfishly and with great generosity, we can never be too careful when it comes to protecting our children. That is why I support the act proposed by the gentleman from Florida. I think he is offering a great amendment. I encourage him on this amendment, and I encourage each of my colleagues to support the Foley amendment.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, today I urge my colleagues to support the McCollum-Dunn Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act, which will be considered later today on the floor. This legislation is an integral component of our continuing effort to combat sex crimes against children. With both the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children Act and Megan's Law, we told sex offenders, ``You can run, but you cannot hide.'' These laws have given neighborhoods a greater sense of security by informing them when a sexual predator might be back living in their midst. But what about cyber-predators? They may live anywhere, in our neighborhoods, in another State, across the country, and still have access to our children. These predators think that they now can hide behind the faceless, voiceless world of the Internet. But make no mistake. They are wrong. Mr. Speaker, the McCollum-Dunn bill will ensure that cyber-predators become real-life prisoners by providing law enforcement with the tools it needs to bring justice to those who would prey on vulnerable children. A vote in support of McCollum-Dunn will affirm Congress's commitment to protecting our children. I urge the support of my colleagues.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the rule for today's consideration of the Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act. With the passage of this act, we will send a strong message to sexual predators and pedophiles all across this Nation: Make no mistake, sex crimes against children will not be tolerated. This rule makes in order several important amendments that will further strengthen an already strong bill, ensuring that we leave no doubt of Congress' desire to put a stop to Internet sex crimes. This important legislation, introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and myself, is for mothers and dads throughout this country who are doing everything they can to keep their children safe and innocent, but may not be aware of the pedophiles who are cruising the Internet. In an era where the boundaries of our communities are increasingly irrelevant, pedophiles are using the anonymity of the Internet to pose as minors and befriend vulnerable children who are unknowingly lured into very dangerous situations. That is why the McCollum-Dunn bill is so critical to families across America. This legislation helps law enforcement crack down on those who enter the safety of our homes to prey on our unsuspecting children. By creating new punishment for cyber predators, we will give our communities the tools they need to beat back those who use the Internet to satisfy their deviant behavior. I ask my colleagues to help stop cyber predators in their tracks. Support this rule and support the McCollum-Dunn bill.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to send a strong message to those who would prey on innocent children over the Internet. Make no mistake, these sex crimes against children will not be tolerated. This week the House will consider the Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and myself. This legislation is for moms and dads throughout the country who are doing everything they can to keep their children safe and innocent but cannot control the pedophiles cruising the Internet. In this age of ever expanding technology, pedophiles are increasingly using the anonymity of the Internet to pose as minors and befriend vulnerable children who are unknowingly lured into very dangerous situations. That is why the McCollum-Dunn bill is so critical to families across America. This legislation helps law enforcement crack down on pedophiles who no longer offer candy to unsuspecting children on the playground but now offer companionship to children through the Internet chat room. This bill tells sexual predators that the Information Superhighway is not a detour for deviant behavior, it is a dead end. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, today I want to urge my colleagues to support the 1999 budget resolution. Building on our success in balancing the budget, this plan outlines the next steps to empower families so that they can keep more of their hard-earned money. By reducing government spending by one penny over 5 years, that is just one-fifth of a penny each year for 5 years out of each dollar, we can improve the quality of life in America in three important ways. First, we can continue to pay down the national debt so that our constituents pay less in interest for loans, and our economy remains strong. Secondly, we can lower taxes so that Americans keep more of their money to support their families or plan for the future. Today our citizens pay nearly 40 percent from their paycheck each month to support the government. I think that is a very unfair tax burden. Third, we can protect and modernize the Social Security system that gives Americans from every generation the peace of mind about their retirement years. The Republican approach is a good approach. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, this chamber voted on an amendment, offered by Reps. Jane Harman and Nita Lowey, to the Defense Authorization bill which would have repealed a provision of law that prohibits women from using their personal funds to obtain abortions in U.S. military hospitals overseas. Mr. Speaker, I have a long-standing record of supporting such amendments to overturn the present prohibition on privately-funded abortions on U.S. bases in foreign countries. I believe that U.S. servicewomen abroad should be given the same options as women who live in the United States. As such, I would like the record to reflect that I had intended to vote ``yes'' on the Harman/Lowey amendment.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to preserve the institutional integrity of the federal courts. This bill will clarify the 1922 anti-nepotism law (section 458 of Title 28 of the United States Code) which prohibits the appointment or employment in any court of individuals who are related within the degree of first cousin to any justice or judge of that court. Currently, there is disagreement about whether this anti-nepotism law applies simply to judges' personnel decisions or whether it includes presidential appointments to judicial offices in federal courts. I believe that the law must apply to both if courts are to remain unbiased. It is the duty of Congress to ensure that the credibility of our judicial branch is not compromised. That is why I am introducing the Judicial Anti-nepotism Act. This legislation clarifies the intent of the original law to preclude the appointment of a judge to a court if that person is related within the degree of first cousin to any judge, including a judge retired in senior status, of that same court. If the law were not to apply to the familial relationship of judges, close family members would be able to serve concurrently on the same court, causing litigants to lose confidence in a system clearly designed to be objective and impartial. We simply cannot afford to let this happen. We must assure that federal judges are independent from any outside influence in order for their decisions to be completely impartial and based only on the laws and facts of the cases. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and help uphold the just character and composition of one of our most revered institutions.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, it's been said that only with our government are you given a ``certificate at birth, a license at marriage and a bill at death.'' Today I am introducing the Estate and Gift Tax Rate Reduction Act which seeks to phase-down the onerous death tax. Each death tax rate will be reduced by five percentage points every year, until the highest rate bracket--55%--reaches zero in 2009. As these rates are lowered to zero, more and more families will no longer be forced to give the family savings to Uncle Sam and the family business will be saved. One of the most compelling aspects of the American dream is to make life better for your children and loved ones. Yet, the current tax treatment of individuals and families and families at death is so onerous that when one dies, their children are many times forced to sell and turn over more than half of their inheritance just to pay the taxes. It takes place at an agonizing time for the family; when families should be grieving for a loved one, with friends and relatives, rather than spending painful hours with lawyers and bureaucrats. By confiscating between 37% and 55%, the estate tax punishes life- long habits of savings, discourages entrepreneurship and capital formation, penalizes families, and has an enormous negative effect on other tax revenues. Americans today are living longer and enjoying their retirement. At a time when this Congress is discussing the future of Social Security, and how to personalize and modernize the system, we also need to encourage private investment. We should be encouraging people to plan for their future with retirement plans and IRAs, rather than encouraging reckless spending and a me-first attitude. This country was born on the promise of hope and opportunity, and by taxing families and businesses at their most agonizing time, we destroy their hope for the future. By today's tax system, it is easier and cheaper to sell a business before death rather than try to pass it on after. More than 70% of family business and farms do not survive through the second generation. 9 out of 10 successors whose family-owned businesses failed within three years of the principal owner's death said trouble paying estate taxes contributed to the company's demise. For family owned business, this is a tax just because the business is changing ownership due to the death of an owner. Aside from being a source of revenue, another express purpose of the estate tax was to break up large concentrations of wealth. 75 years later, however, reality suggests that rather than being an important means for promoting equal economic opportunity, the estate tax is in fact a barrier to economic advancement for people of all economic circumstances. It unduly burdens individual sacrifice to gain savings and investment, compared with consumptive uses of income. It impedes the upward mobility of labor by stifling productivity, wage growth, and employment opportunities. In effect, the death tax, which was established to redistribute wealth, hurts those it was meant to help-- namely, America's working men and women. When small businesses close their doors, loyal employees lose their jobs. The saying goes that death and taxes are the only certainties in life. I believe it is ridiculous that the government force the American people to deal with both on the same day. Families should be allowed-- and encouraged--to save for future generations. I invite my colleagues to join John Tanner and me in our bi-partisan effort to reduce this detrimental and cruel tax.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the other side, some questions that I believe need to be asked, given that so many witnesses, 92 at last count, have either fled the country or taken the Fifth Amendment in order to avoid testifying to Congressional committees. Does the other side really believe that the President is above the law? Does the other side really believe that the White House should not have to tell the truth about how it ended up with 900 FBI files of Republicans? Does the other side really believe that it does not matter whether or not the President lied under oath or encouraged others to lie under oath about a personal matter? Does the other side really believe that how women are treated in the workplace is not relevant, if the economy is doing great and the Dow is over 9,000 points? Does the other side really, truly, actually believe that how women are treated in the workplace matters only when it comes to Republicans? I wonder.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, while I missed rollcall vote 125, I would have voted in support of House Concurrent Resolution 220. This sense of the Congress demanding that Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority transfer to the United States, for prosecution, those residents of its territory who are suspected in the killings of American citizens is sensible and just. The harboring of suspected terrorists who attack Americans at home and abroad is deplorable, and measures to punish these terrorist must be taken. Again, for the record, I join my colleagues in support of this sense of the Congress regarding American victims of terrorism.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, without question the national dialogue to save social security is under way. But what good is a national dialogue if the participants do not have all the information they need to participate in an informed and meaningful debate? Today I am offering legislation to help foster a genuine dialogue about Social Security. As we thoughtfully look at ways of personalizing and modernizing our current system, we need to ensure that the discussion is a careful one, and we need to include those most affected by the program--current beneficiaries. My legislation will help educate seniors about their status in the current system by providing them information about their current benefits. As the Ways and Means Committee today holds a hearing on a proposal to conduct a National Dialogue on Social Security in 1998, my legislation is designed to build on this idea by helping Americans understand the problem this system faces and design a long-range program to modernize Social Security. This legislation is a sunshine bill, much like my pilot program enacted into law in the 104th Congress. It is designed to assist seniors better understand their contributions and benefits under the social security system. Beginning January 1, 1999, beneficiaries of Social Security will receive two annual statements detailing: (1) The total wages and self-employment income the individual has earned; (2) the total contributions of the employer, employee and self-employment from wages; (3) the total amount paid to the individual as benefits, and; (4) an explanation of the statement in easily understood terms. Numerous seniors in my district find it ironic that other retirement benefit programs like mutual funds, IRAs and the like, provide this type of information, in writing, on a quarterly basis--and many provide participants direct 24-hour access by telephone. My bill would require that the Social Security Administration provide reasonable information in a reasonable timeframe. As we know, Social Security is an unfunded pay-as-you-go system. Today's benefits to the elderly are paid by today's taxes from the young. Recently, the government's own actuaries reported that Social Security's Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Trust Funds will go broke in 2030. By that time, payroll taxes on fewer than two workers will support each retiree, a sharp decline from 1980 when the ratio was 3.5 to 1--and an even further decline from 1950 when the ratio was 16 to 1. This will occur as a result of demographic factors in the system and is not the fault of seniors. Short-term fixes of the past to increase revenue or reduce benefits will be unsuccessful in postponing insolvency. Furthermore, the Social Security Administration's own pessimistic estimates indicate that by 2040 a combined employer-employee payroll tax of 40 percent could be required to pay benefits. Raising the already burdensome payroll tax for the 18th time in the history of the program is simply not an option. Unfortunately, many seniors, including my own mother, are not aware of the state of the system or the impending crisis. The lack of information provided to them and every other senior is simply unacceptable. Seniors across the country have a desire--indeed, a right--to know about the status of their participation in the Social Security system. My bill would guarantee seniors access to this important information and include them in our national dialogue. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Honorable Peter Tali Coleman, a great American who passed from us on April 28, 1997. A four-term chief executive of American Samoa, Peter Coleman is the only person in American history whose service as governor, from the 1950s to the 1990s, has spanned five decades. After World War II service as an army officer in the Pacific, for which he later was honored by selection to the army infantry hall of fame at Ft. Benning, Georgia, Governor Coleman's civilian career as a public servant began in 1946 on the staff of The Honorable George Bender, a member of this body from Ohio. He later also served as a member of our Capitol Police Force, all while raising a family and completing both an undergraduate and a law degree in just five years from Georgetown University. Mr. Speaker, upon his return to American Samo as the first Samoan ever to gain a law degree, he quickly rose from public defender to attorney general until his appointment in 1956 by President Eisenhower as the first native-born governor of American Samoa. He went on to be chief executive of the Marshall Islands and Northern Mariana Islands, and deputy high commissioner of the old Trust Territory of the Pacific before returning home in 1977 to become America Samoa's first elected governor, a post to which he would be elected twice more before retiring in 1993. Governor Coleman, a true trailblazer in the Pacific Islands and a man of many firsts during more than half a century of service to his nation and his own people, has been paid tribute by the current governor, Tauese P. Sunia, who has launched a drive to establish a permanent lectureship on Pacific Public Policy at Georgetown in Governor Coleman's name. However, of all his honors and achievements, Mr. Speaker, Governor Coleman was proudest of his family, which at his death included his lovely wife Nora, 12 of their 13 children, 22 grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren. As he departed the hospital last year to return home for what he knew would be his final battle, he penned a touching farewell letter to his people which he called ``Reflections on Easter and Spring.'' With spring having come to our capital and with Easter upon us, I would like to make part of our Record Governor Coleman's Essay of April 5, 1997, ``Reflections on Easter and Spring.'' Reflections on Easter and Spring (By Peter Tali Coleman) Yesterday I came home to our family residence here in Hawaii after a stay at Queen's Hospital over the Easter holidays. While it's never fun to be in the hospital, this Easter was memorable because all our family gathered to be here with Nora and me in a big family lounge that the hospital set aside for us. As I said the grace before we began our Easter meal, I could not help but think of the meaning of Easter and Spring, since the first day of Spring this year came only a few days before Palm Sunday, the traditional beginning of our Easter season after the long winter Lent. Spring and Easter are about the renewal of life and new beginnings. Our Lord perished on the Cross for our sins, but was resurrected to give all of us hope for the future and a better life in eternity. So, too, does Mother nature awaken each Spring to begin a new cycle of life and growth. On the Mainland, the last of the snow melts away, the flowers begin to bloom and land is green again. Here in the Pacific where it's always green, the life-sustaining rains give way to the drier and warmer times of spring and summer and we go about all the chores we had put aside until better weather. I could not help but think of family in the same way I think of Spring and Easter when I saw all of our family members on Easter, especially the little grandchildren and great grandchildren, great nieces and nephews, all with their wide eyes of expectation and excitement with Easter eggs and candy and Easter baskets, and bunnies and chicks and all the joys and traditions that go with a holiday which brings families together everywhere in the Christian world. The presence of the little children is God's way of bringing renewal and new beginnings to our families. When we look out and see those bright and shining faces, eager to learn about the world around them and beyond, we can take comfort in knowing that this world will be in good hands when their generation takes over. We can find peace in knowing that when our own time comes to join our Lord, if we have done our job on earth, we will have our families to carry on and through them we will continue to live, for our very blood flows through their veins and their children's veins in a cycle which forever will renew itself. My own life has been dedicated to service to the people and devotion to my family. Although my days of public service now have come to a close, the Samoan people and all the peoples of the Pacific Islands I have been privileged to know in my work and travels remain in my thoughts as a new generation of leaders and servants seeks to find a true path to renewal and new beginnings for our strong but fragile societies and cultures at the dawn of a new century and a new millennium. God has allowed me to see so much dramatic change through the course of this century. As amazing as it seems, the Samoa of my youth no doubt much more resembled the Samoa of most of the millennium which preceded it than it does the Samoa of today, which is poised to enter the 21st century. The pace of change in this century about to close has been dramatic. As a child in Samoa after World War I, I could not begin to comprehend or imagine the things we take for granted today, from modern medicine to computers to the Hubble Space Telescope. Nor can I begin to imagine now what the next century will bring. Whether I will be here to witness the beginning of the next millennium and new beginnings it will prompt is in God's hands. But wherever I may be and whatever advances science and industry may bring, I know that the futures will be bright if we remain true to our values. Those values are love of God, devotion to family, protection of culture, and courtesy and respect towards one another. For myself, it counts little what I may have achieved here on earth in 55 years of government service through war and peace. My failures were my own and my successes were the result of all the good colleagues and friends around me. But, for all of us, no matter what our calling in life, our truest legacies are the families which are asked to carry on when we are gone. So, while my days in public service may be finished, I have come home now to be with my family. They bring me joy and inspiration as I think about the future. They are all here now and I take great comfort in their presence. They have come to be with Nora and me from near and far: from the Mainland to Saipan to our beloved Samoa. And because they are so scattered, I have agreed to a consensus of my family's wishes that I should lie in rest in Hawaii. But in so doing, they have assented to my wish that when the last of my children's children shall have joined me in heaven, that my final resting place shall be in the soil of my birth. For now, when I think of spring and think of Easter, I thank God I have been given one more opportunity to reflect on life's renewal and new beginnings, and the love of family which bursts forth like the flowers of Spring. As the Easter season now ends and we move about in our Spring tasks, may God bless you and your families, too.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, after serving on the House Committee on Ways and Means for the past three and one-half years, I continue to be amazed at the outrageous provisions that encompass our current tax code. In no small part many of these provisions are a function of a tax code that is spiraling out of control. The irony is that while our tax code has 7 million words it lacks two simple words--common sense. One of the most ridiculous tax code provisions I have discovered imposes a 3 per cent luxury tax on the telephone service of every single American. The legislation I am introducing today, with my colleague from Louisiana, Congressman Billy Tauzin, will repeal this federal luxury tax on talking. Common sense suggests a number of reasons for swift enactment of our legislation to repeal the luxury tax on telephone service. First, this was a ``temporary'' tax first adopted in 1898 to fund the Spanish-American War. One hundred years later this ``temporary'' tax still exists. For over fifty years the tax served as a means to meet revenue needs imposed by the Spanish-American War, World War I, the depression, World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam. In 1965, Wilbur Mills, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee declared, ``the emergency conditions which gave birth to these taxes have long since disappeared. The taxes have remained, to become a source of discrimination among taxpayers.'' Secondly, everyone realizes that having a telephone in your home is no longer a luxury. Since the enactment of this tax 100 years ago, telephone service has evolved into a vital infrastructure for modern life. The use of telephone services by a select few in the 1930s has exploded to the point that over 90 percent of American homes and businesses, across all segments of society, are wired for telephone service. In 1990, the Congressional Research Service reported, ``A consensus has emerged that the telephone today is no longer viewed as a luxury and can best be compared to an item of general consumption. The tax bears no direct relation to any government service received by the telephone consumer.'' Third, like all luxury taxes, the federal telephone excise tax is regressive. Consumer expenditures on telephone service are a higher percentage of income for lower income families than for higher income families. In 1987, the Department of Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis, determined that ``the communications excise tax causes economic distortion and inequities among households and that there is no policy rationale for retaining the tax.'' The repeal of the federal telephone excise tax would instantly accomplish what Congress had hoped to do through the Telecommunications Act of 1996--lower customer bills. Telephone service in America today is a basic necessity, a part of our daily lives. Americans should not have to pay a tax to the Federal Government in order to call their families on holidays or Mom on Mother's Day. Common sense tells us this is an unreasonable tax. Common sense tells us that repeal is necessary. In closing, I would like to commend my colleague, Representative Billy Tauzin, for his willingness to work with me in moving for swift enactment of the Tax of Talking Repeal Act. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this measure.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address a very tough issue for women, with friends on both sides of this amendment. I know as a woman that special and very difficult challenges confront businesswomen trying to launch enterprises in fields that have traditionally been male-dominated. That is a fact of life for businesswomen, despite that fact women continue today to form businesses at twice the rate of men. Mr. Chairman, I also know there are serious constitutional questions involved whenever the government tries to guarantee outcomes, because that government action usually amounts to a quota and consequent legal challenges. The truth is, Mr. Chairman, that when women are given an equal playing field we have proven that we can succeed. Women now employ more individuals than all the Fortune 500 companies in the world combined, and we want to be able to say we have achieved those successes because of our brains, not our gender. Quotas have the perverse effect of undermining the credibility of minority businesses because people believe that they got that contract on some basis other than merit. For women, that would set our movement back. The Roukema amendment clearly states that it is the policy of the United States to recruit qualified women and minorities into the applicant pool for transportation contracts. This approach will move us beyond divisive government-sanctioned preferences and discrimination to a system of equality under the law, while continuing the original intent of affirmative action to reach out to those who are disadvantaged. Mr. Chairman, my bottom line is this: I want my party and this Congress to embrace public policy that lets women know they are welcome, even encouraged, to enter and compete for business. My party and this Congress should be about expanding opportunities for women. Toward that end, I believe the gentlewoman from New Jersey has struck the proper balanced approach that is pro-woman, pro-minority opportunity, pro-affirmative action. Nobody in this body can question the long and positive record of the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) on women's rights and opportunities. I urge my colleagues to support her balanced approach to affirmative action in the Roukema amendment.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson once said, ``To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.'' His thoughtful observation appeared a few years ago to be validated by the United States Supreme Court in the Beck decision. Many of my colleagues have stated this evening that union workers do not need the protections given in this legislation. But let me give them a clear example of the effect this bill can have and what union leaders so fear. In 1992, the voters of Washington State approved Initiative Measure 134, a state law prohibiting labor unions from withholding or diverting portions of an employee's wage for political purposes without the employee's written consent. The effect of the new law, which essentially implements the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling, has been striking. Prior to Initiative 134, one union, the Washington Federation of State Employees and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, was among the Nation's leaders in terms of money raised and the number of workers contributing through payroll deductions. Since I-134, more than 90 percent of this union's members chose not to give the union access to their earnings to pay for the union leaders' political agenda. The number of contributing union members dropped from 2,500 workers to 82 workers, this as a result of giving union members choice. Clearly, there is need to give the Supreme Court ruling in Beck the visibility and force of the Federal law. How can this same kind of awareness in paycheck protection be extended to all American workers? Federal legislative action is needed. The Paycheck Protection Act addresses the core issue spotlighted by the Supreme Court preventing forced collection of union dues before the fact. The worker would not, as Beck allows, be required to request a refund of his dues after the dues have already been seized. I encourage all my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, on January 13, 1998 House Speaker Newt Gingrich addressed a Joint Session of the Washington State Legislature in my home State of Washington. In his remarks, he suggested four goals for the country. First, that we as a society focus on being drug-free. Second, that we need to emphasize education and learning. Third, that we should talk about rethinking retirement. And fourth, that we ought to reduce the total amount of taxes the citizens owe their government. Mr. Speaker, these are nobles goals and I ask that the full text of his remarks be printed in the Record. I am delighted to be here. Let me start by saying to all of you, we share a common future, that it is important to build better abilities to communicate, and we are working very hard, both with the governors and with the leaders of state legislatures, to learn how to share what works, what does not work, what the federal government is doing right, what it is doing wrong, and whether we have a common, general direction we are trying to go in. To recognize, in a country our size, that there is an enormous difference between Washington, D.C. and the state of Washington, just as there is an enormous difference between Washington, D.C. and Georgia. And so, how do we have a common, general direction while maximizing our decentralization, maximizing local leadership and maximizing local initiatives? I want to share with you, for a few minutes if I could this morning, what we have done and where we were going. But frankly, it is exciting to me to see what you have done. You have implemented Welfare Reform in a very practical way. You have begun to take advantage of the opportunity to help people move out of poverty and into work, in what I think is a very, very important step in the right direction. You are working on Education Reform in a way that is very practical, and which is going to increase the chance of learning for all the children of this state. You recognize how much your state is connected to the world market, whether it is through Boeing or Microsoft or Weyerhaeuser or wheat farming; that, in fact, what happens in Jacarta does matter in Spokane and Seattle and Olympia and across the whole state. We are, in a sense, entering a new era together. In the Capitol, in Washington, we tried to reach out. Let me say, first of all, I think the Western Governors' University is a very exciting project. I commend all of you who have voted to have your state participate in it; the notion that you are really now becoming pioneers for the whole country, in telecommunications, in the use of distance learning, and in making available to all citizens across an eight-state region an opportunity to share educational resources. That is a very important development, and it is ultimately going to allow you to lead, not just the United States but the entire world as people tie in and then learn from these experiences. I also have to say that the Western States Coalition that Speaker Ballard talked about, I found last summer to be very helpful. We brought a number of eastern members out, and as you know, the West is different. It is bigger. It is more complex. In some parts of the West, water problems are dramatically different. We in Georgia never quite experience the same water situation as in Eastern Washington. We are in a situation where we have a huge surplus of water most of the time. We do not understand Western water laws compared to Eastern law. To be in situations where we can look at the coming together of modern urban civilization, because in every Western state there are urban areas, and in fact, some of the Western states are more urbanized than some of the Eastern states in terms of the way people are, to look at that next to the environmental concerns, next to the agricultural, mining and forest concerns, to see it first hand, is important. I have already told the Speaker that I will be back, hopefully, in August for a visit to Washington state to look at the Columbia River Basin, to look at other concerns, and to get a better briefing on the issues that matter. And also to fly to Alaska, and look at our largest state and what their unique concerns are. I commend those legislative and other leaders who began to develop a Western state coalition to talk through what we should do at the federal level to increase flexibility within a framework of still getting to a common, general direction. I think the information age, with Microsoft and many other developments here is going to give us some opportunities that are enormous. I think the world market gives us opportunities that are enormous. And as the state that houses our most successful exporter of manufactured goods, Boeing, you know how important the world market is. But I think they also offer us opportunities to work together. One of the things I hope to do is to introduce the spirit of Peter Drucker and Edwards Demming into the whole way we think about government. Peter Drucker is the leading management consultant of the Twentieth Century, and Edwards Demming developed the concept of quality and taught that concept to the Japanese. In fact, the prize for the best company in Japan is the Demming Prize. They are really talking about a way of thinking that is a powerful, information age modernization over the bureaucratic model we have all inherited at every level. From school board, to city council, to county commission, to state government, to federal government, we have a model of structures that needs to be thoroughly rethought. I will give you a simple example. I know this is true in Georgia; I will let you decide if it is true in Washington. My wife, Marianne, went to spend $15 last fall. She did not go to a place like Nordstroms because she waited in line an hour and a half. She was not buying Beanie Babies or some fad that justifies that. She was getting her driver's license. I suggest to you that you have two clocks in your head. You have been acculturated to have these two clocks. One clock has a second hand and you use it every time you go into the private sector facility. When you go to McDonald's, when you go to a department store, when you stand waiting to be served, there is a second hand which you watch prior to getting impatient. The second clock has fifteen-minute increments and you use it when you walk into public buildings. You will inherently wait longer and be less impatient. Now, in both experiences you are paying money. In one case, it is taken from you in taxes and in the other case it is voluntary. You are a customer in both cases. But we have allowed, over the last 50 years, the private sector to modernize, to rethink what it is doing, to maximize its customer orientation, while allowing the public sector to find excuse after excuse to avoid rethinking its development. Part of what I hope we can do together is think through what a Twentieth Century information age, customer-oriented model of governance would look like? How would you design it? How would you staff it? How would you reward people who were effective, and retrain people who were ineffective? Or dismiss them if they refuse to learn? And how can we think that process through so that people 20 years from now have the same expectation of efficiency, customer orientation and modern performance out of the public sector that they have out of the private sector? And that would lead to a revolution in the structure of our governments. I think it has to be done together because the truth is, and this is a message I have for every state legislature as well county commissions, school boards and city councils, there are things we do in Washington, D.C. which make it harder for you in Washington state to be effective. One of the things I would encourage you to do is to identify in literally every one of your legislative committees, and report back to us, those things we should change which are stopping you from modernizing the government of the state of Washington. I think I can speak for all three of the members here with me today--for Jennifer Dunn, who is now the highest-ranking elected woman legislator in the U.S. Congress as the vice-chair of our conference; for George Nethercutt, who is doing a tremendous job on the Appropriations Committee; for Linda Smith, who has been working very, very hard on reform issues--I think they would say the whole delegation is prepared to try to serve as a bridge to come back and say to us, ``The following 37 laws are pretty dumb. The following 600 regulations do not work. The following micro-management is making it impossible to reform.'' I want to extend to you an open door, to say we would like to learn from you, at the grass roots, what you are experiencing that you think makes it harder for you to do the job for the people of the state of Washington. We have had an impact in the Congress. When we were sworn in in January of 1995, the Congressional Budget Office was projecting a $320 billion deficit for the year 2002. They are now projecting a $32 billion surplus. Now you are legislators. I would suggest to you that any legislative body which, in three years, can move a system from a $320 billion deficit to a $32 billion surplus has begun a process of fairly dramatic change. Some of that was the economy. But we also saved $600 billion in entitlements, we passed Welfare Reform which, as you know, has had a dramatic impact. In New York state alone there are 509,000 fewer people on welfare today than there were three years ago. They have moved from the public sector, where they were taking money from the taxpayer, to the private sector where they are paying taxes. It has been a major factor on what has happened with the budget turnaround. Because we are committed to a balanced budget, we have lowered interest rates by at least two percentage points over what they would have been otherwise. That has had a huge effect on farming, or purchasing cars and buying houses, on paying off student loans, and on all the different things people pay interest on, including what governments pay in interest. We think we have begun. But we have a lot to do, and a long way to go. I want to propose to you that there are four major goals, lots of things we need to do together. I could talk today about the ICE T bill in transportation, because I know it is an important issue. I could talk about a wide range of issues that matter. But I want to focus on four today. Although, before I do, I do want to commend you for your rainy day fund. I was calculating based on the size of your budget; if we had a comparable rainy day fund, it would be about $90 billion. I will let you imagine a Washington, D.C. that would allow $90 billion to sit there without having approximately $400 billion of new ideas! But I do commend you because it is the right direction and it is the way we should be moving. I want to suggest four goals to you. First, that we become a society that focuses on being drug-free and, therefore with dramatically less violence. Second, as you are already doing, we really emphasize education and learning. Third, we have now come to a point in our history where we should talk about rethinking retirement. And fourth, that we ought to talk openly about what is the total amount of taxes the citizens should owe their government in a peacetime environment. Let me briefly talk about each. Let me be candid and say these will only work in collaboration. They will only work if we work together. I think the number one goal we should establish is to break the back of the drug trade and the back of the drug culture. To insist that our children deserve to live in a drug-free society where they are not threatened with addiction and where they are not threatened physically. I believe, as a historian, we can do it. We have done it before. We did it in the 1920's. Other countries have done it. It is a matter of willpower, focus, resources and management. I came today to ask you and your governor to work together to tell us, from the state of Washington, what you need from the federal government as your highest priority to enable you to have a drug-free Washington state. What do we have to do to do our share of the job? And then ask you to do your share of the job and make a genuine commitment. I will just give you one specific statistic that I find staggering. If you are a woman, you are 27 times more likely to be killed if you are in a home with hard drugs than if you are in a drug-free home. Not 27 percent, but 27 times. That is 2700 percent more likely to be killed. And when we talk about violence in America, I do not think we can talk about the future without realizing how much of that is tied to drugs. We realize that in New York City alone, there are 32 drug-addicted babies born every week. The human and financial cost of not taking on drugs is horrendous. We are challenging General McCaffrey to produce a World War II-style victory plan. I think we need a decisive, sharp, two- or three-year effort to break the back of the drug culture, to make it too expensive to use drugs. And to recognize that the problem is not in Colombia. The problem is not in Mexico. The problem is in the streets, the neighborhoods and the schools of America, and in the professional sports of America and among some of the rock stars of America. If we are not buying it, they are not going to be shipping it. We have an obligation to start in America to win the war on drugs--to be the model country for everyone else, to not just lecture Mexicans and Colombians on what we wish they would do because we do not have the guts to do it here at home. If you will let us know, whether by resolution, by report, or by letter, what we need to do to help you win the war in the state of Washington, and if we can get every state legislature engaged and every state government engaged, I truly believe, in three or four years, we will be a drug-free country. And I can imagine nothing, nothing that will do more for children's health than to be able to win the war on drugs and save them from that kind of a future. Second, I want to pledge to you our commitment to work with you on Education Reform. I want to draw one distinction between education and learning. I think we want the best education system in the world, and I think we want the best system of learning in the world. They are not necessarily the same. Here again, I want to thank Microsoft, where I will be spending part of the afternoon studying. We have an education system that is teach-focused. A learning system is student- focused. We have the potential in the next decade to build a seven- day-a-week, 24-hour-a-day learning system available for a lifetime, which you can access from anywhere at anytime at your convenience and learn as much as you are capable of learning. We should make it a national goal to really encourage the development of that kind of learning system. To some extent, your Western State Governors' University is a step in the direction, but we are only scratching the surface. We have the potential for everyone to learn, and to do it at their convenience. Now, this is not a panacea. It is not a replacement for an education system. But it is an important enhancer, and it will allow us to leapfrog, not catch up, not match up with, but leapfrog the Japanese, Germans and others in providing the best system of learning in the world, which is essential if we were going to have the best economic competition in the world. Because, if you do not have good learning in the information age, you cannot produce the technology you need in order to have the best jobs in the world. So this is vital to our entire future. In addition, we need the best education system. I favor scholarships, so that in really bad neighborhoods parents have the right to choose. But this is not going to solve the problem. Most children in America are going to learn in public schools for the rest of their lifetimes. I am a product of public schools. My wife is a product of public schools. Both of our daughters went to public school. I taught part-time when I was a college teacher. I also taught in the public high school. Most schools do pretty well. But every one of you knows that there are some schools in this state you would not send your children to, just as you know there are some schools in my state that I would not send my children to. And here is the test for us. We say in our Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We have to take that passionately and apply it to education reform. This means that every child of every ethnic background in every neighborhood has been endowed by God with the right to pursue happiness. In the information age, if you are not learning how to read and write, and you are not getting an education, you are more likely to go to prison than to go to college, and you are not being given the true opportunity to pursue happiness. I think that is how we ought to approach education reform. We ought to say first of all to a school system, let us start writing into the contract that if your school is in the bottom 20 percent in scoring, the contract does not apply any more, as of that date. Not ``Let us slowly modify tenure.'' Not ``Let us have a study commission.'' You would not leave your children in those schools. We have too many of our friends who are very big passionate supporters of the worst public schools, but their kids go to private school. We have too many teachers who pay the union dues and they want to make sure that we do not reform public schools; but their children go to private school. There are some big city systems where 40 percent of the public school teachers send their children to private school because they know better. We have an obligation to be passionate about this. Winston Churchill had a phrase for World War II. He would pass a note that said, ``Action this day.'' This should be our attitude across the board to the system. I want to suggest three reforms that are very specific. Two of them we are not going to do at the federal level, one we have to. But I am here as a citizen sharing ideas; I am not here to say we are going mandate any. I do want to suggest as a general principle that we should have a passionate, deep commitment to every child in American learning how to read by end of the fourth grade. We should focus overwhelmingly on learning how to read and write in the fourth grade. I am going to be very direct: we should learn how to read and write in English, because that is the commercial language of the United States, and they are having their future crippled if they cannot read and write by the fourth grade. Second, I think that the federal government should modify the bilingual education law to make it local option. You at the state level and the school boards at the local level should have the right to decide for your children what is the most effective way to make sure that they are capable of reading and writing in English at the earliest possible time. And third, I would really like to suggest you consider, and I say this upon the state with some trepidation, but I would like you to consider mandating that, once a year, at every grade level, a day be spent looking at the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I say this for two reasons. First, as a historian, I actually think it is kind of good for Americans to learn how they became American. We are multi-ethnic, but we are one civilization. We are bound together by this thing of being American. We signed a contract with ourselves. We the people of the United States, we issued a declaration that says ``we hold these truths to be self-evident.'' And if our citizens do not grow up learning these things, how can we expect America to continue? But secondly, the Declaration says, ``We are endowed by our Creator . . .'' Now, I want to see the ACLU lawsuit that explains why the teacher cannot explain what the Founding Fathers meant when they used the word ``Creator''. I think it would be a very edifying moment in American history. America is radically different than Europe. In the European model, power went from God to the king and was loaned to the citizens. This is why Brussels is worse than the IRS. In the European model, the citizen only has those rights loaned to them by the state. In the American model, from our opening date of our first document, we said power goes from God to the citizen, and you loan it back to the government. It is a very different model. And I just think if we spent one day a year from the first grade to twelfth grade studying that model, coming into contact with the great people who created this country, we would be a healthier country. We would be a country with a better sense of where our rights come from. We would be a country with a more serious sense of why being a citizen matters. And so I want to commend that to you. Our third goal is to look at retirement. A lot of that is federal. But I also have a proposal that I think you will find interesting at the state level. And this is very simple. We are moving from 60 years of deficit spending. We were about to move to a generation of surpluses. This is not like 1969, the last surplus. We had lots of deficits, one year of surplus, and then lots of deficits. If we were disciplined in Washington, and if we avoid war, we will be in a position to have twenty or thirty years of surpluses. This gives us for the first time a chance to talk seriously about retirement, to recognize that Social Security is a very powerful and tremendous system developed in 1925 when there were no computers. But Social Security is neither personal nor modern. In fact, in one study that Congressman Mark Sandford of South Carolina put out, he looked at his 20-year- old son. He said ``You know, Einstein was asked, `What is the most powerful thing in the universe?' And he said, `Compound interest.' '' If you simply take the FICA tax a 20-year-old will pay today and invest their FICA tax over their lifetime, in an average market basket investment, not buying Microsoft when it is young, but an average market basket investment, they will make $975,000 for their retirement. If you give them the current government payment, they will make $175,000. So, we are condemning 20-year-olds to lose $800,000 by the way we have designed the system. I am proposing a National Commission on Retirement, made up of one-third baby boomers, one-third older than baby boomers, and one-third younger than baby boomers. I suggest to my colleagues in the House and Senate that they set up a citizens committee in their district tied in by the Internet to the National Commission. I think we ought to look at the totality, because I believe that by using a good part of the surpluses intelligently, we can make the transition to a personal, modern social security system, tied into the development of better pensions and tied into the development of better savings. And we can leave our children and grandchildren a dramatically better retirement in a much wealthier country with a much higher savings rate with much lower interest rates and much more capital investment. And that is a much healthier America in the future. And I know it takes some courage for elected officials to raise the issue, but I just think we are at a magic moment of transition. I believe the grandparents, as long as they are secure in getting the current system, will want their grandchildren to have the best possible future. And I believe we can have an honest, adult, dialogue about this without the kind of mudslinging and the kind of 30-second commercials that so badly weaken our political structures. So, I encourage you to look at it, to offer us advice, but I also encourage you to look at the state program. I do not know the details of your program, but I will tell you that Michigan has now adopted a new, personal pension system that vests within two years, where the new employees are controlling their own money in a way that is a very dramatic departure from the way we have done pensions in the last 60 years. Finally, I want to ask a very touchy question, and you are the first group of legislators I have done this with. So I will be very curious to see your reaction after I leave and you no longer have to be polite because I am around. I want to raise a serious question: In peacetime, in a free society, how much should your government be allowed to take from you? I was fascinated when I read Paul Johnson's new History of the American People. He is a former socialist in Britain turned conservative and he has written a wonderful history of the American people. And he said that in 1775, we were probably the lowest-taxed people in the history of the world and we hated every penny. And he said we were so grateful that we were so low-taxed as to say, ``How come you need this?'' And the part about how much freedom, in part, is a function of how much time you have. How much money do you have? Not how much does your government have to give to you. How much do you have? And it turns out that when you study it that the American people said for forty years that they believe, in peacetime, the most their government should take from them is 25 percent. We currently--federal, state and local--take 38. And what I would like to propose is that we set a goal over the next ten to fifteen years to get to 25 percent taxation. The feds currently take about 22 percent. I propose we go down to 14 percent. So we lose 8 percent. State and local currently takes about 16 percent, I propose state and local goes down to abut 11 percent. So we will drop by more than you will have to drop. But, I think it is fair for you to come back to us and say, ``Fine, how about block-granting education money rather than having 700 little programs? How about dropping this kinds of red tape?'' I think it is a two- way dialogue. But, if we take Demming and Drucker; if we are prepared to prioritize, modernize, downsize and privatize, we can create, over the next ten to fifteen years, a country where people have more take-home pay, a better retirement system, a lifetime learning system, and an education system that either works or is changed rapidly when it starts to fail. People will be competitive in the world market, having the highest technology and the greatest entrepreneurship to produce the best goods, giving us the highest incomes with the greatest economic security and the capacity to lead the world. Yes, this is big. Yes, it is a lot. But, frankly, the Contract With America was pretty different when we started and I am very proud that at the key moment in the fall of 1994, we bought a two-page ad in TV Guide that did not attack anybody, did not have any pictures. It just said, ``You hire us and we will try to do these ten things.'' And I think the time has come as citizens, across the board in both parties, to talk about for the next generation, ``What are the goals worth doing? Let us work together to do it.'' I accept fully the responsibility today that I have come here and said, you come up with ideas on the drug war; we have to listen to you and at least try to help. You come up with what we need to do to get out of your way in education; we have an obligation to listen and try to help. You tell us what we are doing wrong about pensions that make your job harder, let us know. And you tell us how you think we should change federal pension law. It would be very helpful and we would listen to you. And finally, if we are going to get there together, we have an obligation both to shrink the federal government and to shrink the burden the federal government imposes on you. But, I think for our citizens, the America I just described would be a vastly better place. And let me just close with this thought. Every time I come out here, I have to tell you, I just love coming to this state. I think part of it relates to the fact that I was here--some of you will be able to identify this--a few years ago on a stopover and went down to the fish market and bought a geoduck and took it to my mother-in-law, who promptly chopped it up and made stew out of it. I have to say, also, that I just brought back a very wonderful salmon that they identified with much more immediately and ate immediately. But, it is a fabulous state. You sort of have this sense, I always have this sense, when I come here what Lewis and Clark must have felt. As an easterner, when I fly in and look out at Mt. Rainier, when I look at Puget Sound, when I see the weather, even on rare days like yesterday--again, for a Georgian, it was very exciting--I think we lose, sometimes, the romanticism of what this country is about. This country is a romance. This country has the most magical way of saying to the whole planet, ``I do not care what your background is, I do not care what your religion is, I do not care what your ethnicity is. If you have a big enough dream and you are willing to pursue it, come to America and try it out.'' And the result has been to put together the most exciting opportunities for people in the history of the world. This is a great country filled with good people and given a chance to achieve remarkable things. I believe we can work together in a partnership--not us dictating to you--but in a partnership. And we can give our children and grandchildren an even greater America with an even greater future. And through that, we can give the entire human race an opportunity to live in freedom and prosperity and safety. Thank you for honoring me by allowing me to come here today. Thank you.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the Committee on House Oversight because I think that the committee has shown great courage in considering this challenge to an election. For decades, we never took a second look at challenges and there was a deal made between both sides of the House of Representatives, and nothing was ever done. I think there were among those four decades of challenges probably some very good and useful basis. However, why I am particularly thankful to Chairman Thomas and the committee for looking at this challenge is that it has brought to public view some very serious problems that exist for people who run elections and for citizens who should have the right to elect their own representatives themselves. Specifically, I am talking about the whole area of motor voter and the whole area of the requirement that one must be a citizen before he or she votes. I did work as a party chairman in Washington State for 11 years, and I must say we had the cleanest elections of all of the States in the Nation during that time. Most of it is due to the success of our Secretary of State, Ralph Munro, who himself was an early supporter and initiator of motor voter. But the problem exists in this sort of scenario, Mr. Speaker. Last year when I renewed my driver's license, the man behind the counter asked me to come back there and look at some documents. He showed me a stack of documents this high that he told me were illegal documents used by people to get their driver's licenses, upon which they would get the guaranteed right to vote. Those were people who were not citizens, then using the national ability of a citizen to vote. This is a big problem, and to the degree to which this investigation leads us to analyze and do oversight over the whole motor voter issue so that citizens will be required to vote, and that people who are not citizens of our great Nation will not have the authority to put into positions representatives of our Nation I think is a great achievement of this investigation, and I look forward to those oversight hearings that the Committee on House Oversight will have and to our Secretary of State, Ralph Munro, for providing testimony, as he has agreed to do and looks forward to doing.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, as a working mother, I can identify with the millions of parents across this country who find themselves torn between the competing responsibilities of work and family. For many families, there is no choice harder to make than whether to work, and put your child in the care of others, or to forego a second income to care for your child yourself. The majority of mothers I have talked with would prefer to work part time, or not work at all, in order to care for their children. Unfortunately, that choice is not financially feasible for most Americans. High taxes limit parents' freedom and ability to address the needs of their families. Mothers and fathers don't need experts and polls to tell them what they already know in their hearts to be true. What parents really need is more time to spend with their children, and more money to meet the financial needs of their family. President Clinton has proposed a child care package that ignores these fundamental concerns of parents. His plan creates a bias against mothers who have sacrificed an income to raise their children at home. Instead, we should make it possible for as many children as possible to enjoy the benefit of full-time parental care during their early years. Non-parental care is second-best for young children and in some cases can even be harmful. This resolution is a first step toward making sure Congress passes laws that are good for children, not bureaucrats. Families should not be penalized by Washington, DC for the personal choices they make, since parents--not bureaucrats--know what is best for their children. As responsible legislators, we should not take away the choice of parents to stay home and take care of their children. We ought to enable an average family to survive in ordinary comfort on a single income. We can no longer guarantee this choice, however, because of the crushing tax burden on families raising children. To the extent that our tax policies are squeezing parents and forcing both into the work place, we are inflicting real harm on children. I encourage this Congress to continue in our efforts to give all families the flexibility, choice, and freedom they need to provide for their families and raise their children in the manner they see fit, and we can only do so by promoting policies of equity that place value and trust in the ability of parents to do what is right for their children.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am proud to be here to talk in favor of naming Washington National Airport after Ronald Reagan. He was my President. I knew him, I admired him, I loved him. I worked with him as state party chairman in the State of Washington for all of those first years during the Reagan administration, the 8 years. And I remember my fondest memory of Ronald Reagan was when he came to Seattle in 1989, after he had left the Presidency and his Vice President, George Bush, had become President and he did a little meeting with some of the folks that cared a lot about Ronald Reagan. There were people who had been with him over the years from when he was first a movie actor, from when he ran for governor of California, from when he ran for the Presidency in 1976 and then again in 1980. And it was my joy that day to introduce him and to have the opportunity to thank Ronald Reagan for everything that he did for us. It was the last time I talked to him in private, but that was such an overwhelming sense of support in that room, all the personal connections in that room and the opportunity to say thank you, Mr. President, for getting rid of the potential threat from the Soviet Union, for standing strong for our Nation, for its principles, for everything that we believe in, and for leaving a legacy of decency in the White House, for setting us up to be able to compliment him now years later after he was the President. I think this is the proper, the fair, the appropriate thing to do. And, Mr. Chairman, in my household, I have a son named Reagan. He was 9 years old when the Reagan he was named after became President. So, indeed, he waited a long time to be named after a President, but I think compared to the naming of a son, an airport is very small indeed.