Jennifer Dunn

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. Mr. Chairman, the Government Printing Office--the GPO--is the Federal agency responsible for fulfilling the printing needs of the Federal Government and providing the American people with copies of Government documents. It is through legislative branch appropriations that the GPO receives its funding. I rise in support of both the funding allocation provided by the subcommittee to GPO and the allocation not provided to the Joint Committee on Printing, which has oversight over the agency. The provisions in this bill are consistent with comprehensive legislation I sponsored to reform title 44, the portion of the United States Code that governs Government printing. Both Mr. Packard and I are attempting to force agencies to budget for their printing needs the same way they budget for other activities. Both Mr. Packard and I are attempting to cut back on the amount of unnecessary and duplicative printing for Congress, while protecting the public's access to Government documents through the Depository Library Program. It is critically important that we maintain the historical record of the activities of our Government--a vital function of GPO's Superintendent of Documents. Without a complete and accurate record, we do a disservice to the generations of Americans who will come after us--all of whom have a right to Government information, documents, reports, and statistics. When agencies bypass the Superintendent of Documents, we very well may lose a piece of American history. This is what is referred to by depository librarians as the fugitive document problem. By creating incentives for Federal agencies to use the GPO for their printing, not only do we help eliminate the fugitive document problem, but we keep costs to the taxpayer to an absolute minimum since GPO's competitive procurement system can generally secure work for about half of what it costs agencies to print in-house. The bill before us today also asks the agencies, rather than the institution of Congress, to reimburse the cost of printing and distributing documents to the public through the Depository Library Program. Congress will still pay for the printing and distribution of its own documents, but for the first time, the costs of printing will be where they belong: In the budgets of the individual agencies. The bill has not provided funding for the Joint Committee on Printing, except to the extent that the JCP will exist through the rest of the fiscal year. This is among the first crucial steps toward reforming the way our Government purchases printing. It sends a message to our more reluctant colleagues that change is, indeed on the way. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend Chairman Packard for his leadership, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1854 is a historic achievement. For the first time, Members of Congress are finally putting their money where their mouths are. I'd like to commend Chairman Ron Packard for reporting out of his subcommittee a bill that is consistent with the reforms Members have promised their constituents they supported, but have never been willing to act upon. Year after year, we've heard Members tell their constituents that they agree this institution needs reform. Yet year after year, opportunities for reform have been wasted and we've seen no genuine effort to review legislative branch expenditures in terms of the best interests of the taxpayer. This Congress is different. This bill cuts funding by $155 million over the fiscal year 1995 level. As a member of House Oversight, the committee that authorizes programs funded through Mr. Packard's subcommittee, I am pleased to see the appropriation for the operation of the House of Representatives reflects the same intent of House Oversight, such that: Committee staff funding is cut by one-third. Many functions of the House provided more cheaply by the private sector will be privatized. Offices and functions not critical to the ability of Members to serve their constituents will be abolished. It's crystal clear that Republicans are running this show differently, and are willing to challenge the status quo if it means savings to the taxpayer and a more efficiently run Congress. The Republican-led Congress is not afraid to absorb cuts where we'll feel the cuts most--our own House, the House of Representatives. I am pleased to rise in support of this bill, because it says to the American people that while Congress is making the difficult policy decisions necessary to achieve a balanced budget, Congress is starting with itself. We are willing to reduce our budget and cut back on noncritical functions. Not only is it symbolically important that we be willing to set the example for fiscal conservatism in today's economic climate, it is further proof that we are keeping our promises to the American people. Thank you, and I yield back any time that remains.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the House National Security Committee, Mr. Spence, for agreeing to incorporate my amendment into the Chairman's en bloc amendment. His leadership in bringing a superb bill before the full House of Representatives is appreciated. The Defense Authorization bill as reported by the House National Security Committee included a section which allowed the Defense Printing Service [DPS] to use printing sources without guaranteeing competition--in effect, to by-pass the Government Printing Office duplicating services. This would have codified unprecedented authority for the DPS--action I believe is counter to the interests of the U.S. taxpayer. The Department of Defense is mandated by law to use GPO. In fact, all Federal departments are to follow this mandate, in accordance with Section 501, Title 44 of the U.S. Code, and Section 207(a) of Public Law 102-392, as amended. GPO has been shown to procure work at the cheapest price. Current law states that unless the Joint Committee on Printing [JCP] approves an exception, all Government printing at the Federal level shall be done at the Government Printing Office. There are only 23 JCP approved waivers to that law. Defense Printing Services does not hold such a waiver. This section unamended would have the effect of waiving Title 44 in the interests of a single executive department, without requiring the customary application for the exception. I share the same philosophy as the Member responsible for inserting this section into HR 1530. Namely, to get as much Government printing into the private sector as possible. However, without clarification that work must be competitively bid, it opens up the system to fraud and abuse, and to the possibility of sweetheart deals. Absent competitive bidding, DPS' printing and duplicating could become a high- cost option to the taxpayer. Chairman Kasich included the concept of HR 1024, which I sponsored, into his budget resolution because procuring Government printing through a competitive process can save as much as $1.5 billion over 5 years. If the original language of section 359 had been enacted, there would have been far less in savings to the taxpayer. To my knowledge, this issue received no discussion during committee consideration. I do know that the staff of the Joint Committee on Printing, a committee with oversight over Government printing, knew nothing about this language until after the bill was reported out of committee. The amendment I proposed treats the issue thoughtfully and thoroughly. It is consistent with the 104th Congress' aim to reduce the deficit and cut wasteful spending. This original section gave DPS unconditional authority to act without regard to current law or the guarantee of competitive procurement. This language avoided the proper channels for granting the waiver authority and codified that authority. That would have been contrary to the intent of Title 44. Section 359, as modified by my amendment, assures that, consistent with Title 44 of the US Code, Department of Defense printing shall be procured in the private sector using open competition. By using the competitive bidding process so efficiently managed by the Government Printing Office, only the very lowest possible cost of printing Defense documents will be charged to the American taxpayer.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to discuss with my colleagues the importance of long-range bombers to our Nation's security now and in the future. For 40 years the United States relied on forward deployment, the placement of large forces on bases around the world, outposts, if my colleagues will, for the defense of freedom. With the decline in defense spending and the withdrawal of our forces from overseas bases, the United States now must rely on smaller military forces operating principally from North America, in effect a home-based military force. For example, in the last 6 years alone the United States Air Force has reduced its major overseas bases from 38 to 15, Mr. Chairman, a 61- percent decrease. Let me repeat, a 61 percent decrease. Unfortunately, our global responsibilities have not decreased 61 percent. In fact, our need for global presence is growing. We are the world's uncertainty. In addition to regional conflicts we know that more and more irresponsible nations are acquiring weapons of mass destruction, a real and significant threat to United States security. Now, as the only superpower, our current strategy calls for American power to be projected abroad rather than based abroad. Therefore, we simply must be able to project increased conventional power from a smaller number of systems. The only answer is the B-2 stealth bomber, the only way we can quickly and secretly project real power around the globe. Listen to Air Force General Mike Loh: The role of the bomber has been elevated, not diminished, by the end of the Cold War. Nothing else has the range and payload of the bomber or the sense of immediacy able to strike in 10 to 12 hours anywhere in the world. Remember, the B-2 only requires two pilots and it costs less to operate than any other means of significant power projection such as aircraft carriers or Army divisions. Mr. Chairman, let us support more B-2s for our Nation's security. Vote against the Kasich amendment.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Kasich budget.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. Two years ago, the liberal Democrats voted for the largest tax in history. Today, we right that wrong by allowing the American people to keep more of their hard-earned money. The Republican Tax Relief and Deficit Reduction Act accomplishes many things for American families. One of the most symbolic and important is the provision that corrects an inequity against the American homemaker. Mr. Speaker, the current Tax Code treats American homemakers, who are overwhelmingly women, as second class citizens. In the eyes of the Federal Government, the work of the homemaker is not as valuable as the work of her husband. For tax purposes, a single-income family can set aside for retirement roughly one-half what a dual-income family can. Our spousal IRA proposal allows the work-at-home spouse to save $2,000 just like the spouse. This rule, and the Republican tax relief bill, acknowledge the value and hard work of the millions of homemakers in America. Support this rule, support homemakers, and support the families of America.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, my State of Washington is home to thousands of entrepreneurs, and home to Microsoft--now an economic giant but once launched by a pair of young entrepreneurs. We also have timber--an industry that once was robust and thriving, but now is facing difficult times. For too long, our Nation's entrepreneurs have been penalized by the tax policy of the United States. Since 1986, when the business capital gains rate was raised to 35 percent, venture capital financing has dropped by two-thirds--from $4.19 to $1.41 billion--and the number of firms receiving venture capital financing has declined every single year. Mr. Chairman, we must correct the current tax policy regarding capital formation. It we don't, we will be directly responsible when the next Microsoft never takes it off the ground. Failure to act could bankrupt 1,200 small timber businesses, who typically own 50 acres and have an income of less than $50,000. For them, the capital gains reduction is a life or death matter. These small timber firms alone represent more than 5,000 jobs threatened by high capital gains rates. Mr. Chairman, cutting taxes on capital is about jobs. Support capital formation, support entrepreneurs, support family businesses, and support more jobs for Americans.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 73. Mr. Chairman, like many Members of Congress, I campaigned on the issue of reform. It is my belief that in order to change government we must change the attitudes of those who govern. We need public servants who are closely attuned and accountable to their constituents. The evidence suggests that, under current law, we have a system that ultimately erodes accountability and responsiveness. Conversely, we now have the opportunity to reverse the downward trend by limiting the terms of our elected officials. This is the first step toward putting our legislative system back on track. Term limits will help revive the concept of a citizen legislator. Officials should serve their communities in a national forum for a limited time and then return to private life to live under the laws they have created. Term limits provide the necessary turnover to ensure that fresh new minds are given a chance to participate in the process. We do not need any more lifetime professional politicians. In 1992, my State of Washington passed what has become the most famous term limit law in the country. Former House Speaker Tom Foley sued the voters of Washington, his own State, to overturn the peoples' decision to impose term limits. This ``Washington D.C. Knows Best'' attitude of entrenched politicians proves that the longer Members serve in Congress, the more removed they become from the people who elect them. This lack of accountability must be replaced with citizen- legislators who would bring with them valuable private sector experience, knowledge, and motivation. Our Nation is endowed with a multitude of bright and talented people. While it is true that some very good Members of Congress may be forced into early retirement by term limits, those limits are necessary to remove the mentality that politics as a career that permeates this institution. Creating open seats with term limits will increase representation of more women and minorities, and more small business operators and educators, making Congress more reflective of the American people. Congress must pass this constitutional amendment guaranteeing that more Americans have real opportunities to serve the public. If we fail to garner 290 votes for this amendment, be assured like the fight for the balanced budget amendment and the line-item veto, we will continue to keep the pressure on this body to do the right thing and vote again and again until we pass term limits. If we do approve this amendment, it will free Congress from the grip of entrenched incumbency and prevent the abuses of office that fueled the term limits movement in the first place. It will help ensure that our Nation's legislative body, when making tough decisions, is beholden to the most special interest of all: the citizens of America.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, over the last few days we have spent a great deal of time listening to opponents of the Republican welfare overhaul talking about how cruel this bill is to children. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what cruelty is. Cruelty is the current welfare system that has wasted $5 trillion of taxpayer money and yet has failed to lift children from poverty. Cruelty is the current welfare system that condemns so many of these children to a life surrounded by crime and violence and lack of ambition. Cruelty is the current welfare system that condemns the children of these children to face the same circumstances in an endless cycle of poverty and hopelessness. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what the most cruel and mean-spirited act of all is: It is the cruelty found in the current liberal opposition to our bill. The liberals in Congress built this current welfare system, the system is a failure. Today the Congress will overhaul this failed system and end cruelty to children.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to some of the comments we have heard in this discussion this morning. Americans are a generous people and they have long demonstrated their commitment to help their neighbors and families and children in need. But the American people We all know and it is agreed upon that the American welfare system right now is a $5 trillion failure. We have talked about the School Lunch Program that the Republican plan increases that by 4\1/2\ percent a year. But I want to mention something else that was inserted as an amendment on the floor by the women Republicans, and that is the Day- Care Program. Mr. Chairman, the Day-Care Program in the Republican plan adds $2.1 billion a year for child day-care for women who are working off of the welfare rolls on to work. We know it can be a problem for them, and the Republican day-care plan helps individuals meet that responsibility by giving them peace of mind as they move off the welfare rolls back into work. Mr. Chairman, last Saturday at home I met with a group of Head Start women who were unanimous and emphatic in their desire to get off AFDC and off welfare. The one thing they asked for was help in child care. Help them find good, safe, child care and they will find work in the private sector. I urge rejection of the Mink amendment and support of the Republican bill, H.R. 4.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of some of America's neediest and yet valued citizens, we begin the process of ending welfare as a way of life and restoring welfare assistance to its original purpose, to provide temporary help to our neighbors in need. Mr. Chairman, Americans are a generous people who have long demonstrated our commitment to help our neighbors, families and children in need, but the American people also ask for results for our efforts. To the American taxpayers who have, so far, spent $5 trillion to support what has been described by both sides in this House debate as a failed welfare system, let me assure them that our bill is a botton-up review. The Republican bill will remove the incentives that encourage welfare dependency and provide new incentives that encourage work and lift people from the cycle of poverty. As part of providing support to the soon-to-be working mothers, Mr. Chairman, we are offering an amendment that will provide an additional $750 million in child care funding to these parents. As people move off welfare the women with children, especially preschool children, could be caught in a trap. Rightfully they are required to enter the work force, and yet also rightfully they are worried about the safety of their children. Our amendment helps newly working mothers meet their personal responsibility obligations and address the legitimate concerns for their children. Last Saturday, Mr. Chairman, at home in Washington State I met with a group of welfare mothers at a Head Start meeting. They were unanimous and emphatic in their desire to get off responsibility of funding day care. Help them find good day care, and they will take the responsibility of finding work in the private sector. Mr. Chairman, as a single mother who raised two sons, I know the value of good day care and the peace of mind when it is found. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, when I hear the phrase ``cruelty to children'' I think of the cruelty that has been perpetuated within the current welfare system in the form of the $34 billion owed to children whose deadbeat parents could keep them off welfare but are not willing to pay up. The Republican welfare bill under debate requires that States list the Social Security numbers of applicants for a number of licenses in order to find these deadbeat parents. My amendment simply adds a provision requiring the Social Security number of the deceased, that it be added to the above list. As my colleagues know, Social Security numbers will be used in tracking down deadbeat parents. Mr. Chairman, after the conclusion of our committee hearings, a case was brought to my attention where a woman had received $25,000 in delinquent funds from the estate of her deceased former husband who had gone into hiding years earlier, and only through luck did she learn of his estate. This amendment would take the luck out of it, Mr. Chairman. I urge the support of my colleagues.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, later today, we will consider an amendment to be offered by Mrs. Johnson, Ms. Pryce, Mrs. Waldholtz, and myself that will provide an additional $750 million for child care. The current welfare system is a failure that encourages people to join welfare and stay much longer than they should. In weeks of testimony, there was not one person who said that the present system is helping Americans. In fact, it hurts our families and children. But, our overhaul of the welfare system will help the most needy Americans. The Personal Responsibility Act is a tremendous stride in the right direction as it provides incentives for these women--and it is primarily women--to seek employment in the private sector. Mr. Speaker, along with these incentives, we must provide certain tools and resources to help people transition themselves off of welfare. The Johnson-Pryce-Dunn-Waldholtz amendment will give an additional $750 million to boost the annual total provided to States to $2.1 billion. Mr. Speaker, as a single mother who raised two sons, I know how difficult it is for women to go back to work. We need to help them by giving them funds to cover daycare.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, today we have a great opportunity, an opportunity to overhaul a welfare system that is currently failing millions of Americans, an opportunity to restructure the welfare program to work effectively, and, I believe, with lots of thoughtfulness, to work compassionately. Over the last few months, members of the Committee on Ways and Means have heard from hundreds of witnesses from President Clinton's Secretary of Health and Human Services to many of the mothers who live on welfare. Every witness, Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, every single one of them has told us that the current welfare system is an unmitigated disaster. Yet during these days as we work hard to redesign this system, I continue to be disappointed by the tone of the opposition's rhetoric. Opponents of this bill assert that the reform-minded Republicans want to change the welfare bill only to save money, regardless of how it would affect the poor. Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, our changes save money, nearly $67 billion over 5 years. But to my friends who say that these savings will help the poor, I ask, how much good has the $5 trillion that we have spent in the last 30 years on the welfare program done to solve or even lessen America's poverty? Could it be that it is not the amount of money that we are spending that is wrong, but rather the way in which we spend it? To the liberals in Congress, I salute your intentions. You, too, want to help the poor, those people who truly do need our help. But the welfare system you built is a failure. The welfare mothers whom I met with last weekend in my district at a Head Start meeting told me that the welfare system, or AFDC, is a negative system that pulls people down and robs them of their self- esteem, and too often devalues them and their ability to be productive members of our community. Today we begin the process of lifting the weight of the old welfare system from the backs of America's poor, the reevolvement of America's welfare systems. We are removing the perverse incentives that encourage people to go on to welfare and, once they are on there, that capture them and keep them on an endless cycle of dependency of government. The status quo fosters government dependency while our proposal fosters personal responsibility. And it provides the hope of work and the promise of self-respect. We want to give people self-respect. We want to restore their self-esteem through the dignity of holding a job. We want to provide them with day-care and medical benefits that can help them again become productive citizens of our society. Mr. Chairman, we are a nation of great wealth and compassion, but we are neither compassionate nor wise when we spend $5 trillion over 30 years and still allow so many Americans to remain trapped in this endless and hopeless cycle of poverty. It is lunacy to continue with the liberal welfare system that promises only the likelihood of a life with more crime, less education, and lifelong government dependency. Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt by the end of this week we will pass a bill that offers people a hand up and out. And to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this week we have the opportunity to truly end welfare as we know it.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I am very tired of hearing the Democrats talk about cruelty to children. I think we have got to get squared away on just where this debate is going. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that what I consider cruelty to children is that $34 billion owed to these children by deadbeat parents, who have not paid up and who have not been checked in recent years. In this Republican welfare approach, we have taken a long, hard look at deadbeat dads and moms and how to get those $34 billion back into the system because that is $34 billion that could be used to keep these children out of the welfare cycle, out of poverty. Mr. Speaker, of that amount, $11 billion leaves the system as deadbeat parents leave the State to evade their responsibility. What they end up doing not only is not supporting their children but also with their irresponsibility requiring that these kids stay on welfare. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but they also end up requiring that the Government take responsibility as the parent for these children. I support this rule because I think we need to have open debate on this issue. Title VII is the child support enforcement part of this bill. The plan that we have put before the Congress and will be debating in the next few weeks requires a Federal parent locator service to be set up at the Federal level that will allow the States to access information and locate where those parents are to make them pay up. I think it is very responsible, Mr. Speaker. A lot of the information in this title VII has come from work between the parties. So this can be our bipartisan core of this bill that we all agree on to force these parents who have given up all responsibility for their supporting their flesh and blood children to get back in the system and keep these kids off welfare. That to me, the ultimate cruelty is something we can take care of in supporting this bill this week.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, today we begin the process of overhauling a welfare system that traps millions of Americans, especially women and children, in an endless cycle of poverty and hopelessness. One of the most crucial provisions of the Republican welfare reform bill provides new methods for collecting money from deadbeat dads and mothers. Right now these irresponsible parents in my home State of Washington owe over $423 million, and $34 billion is owed nationally to the children and the families. This is money that, in many cases, could be used to keep children off welfare. These uncaring parents provide neither hope nor a bright future for their children. What these deadbeat parents do instead is three things: They evade their most basic responsibility by failing to support their own flesh-and-blood children, they force their own children into welfare, and they force you, the American taxpayer, to pick up the tab for their irresponsibility. Mr. Speaker, they force the Government to become the parent. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the status quo welfare system provides little relief to the families trapped by delinquency of the deadbeat parents. The child-support provision of our bill, which I am pleased to say has great bipartisan support, will begin the process of ending welfare as we now know it and putting our children first by requiring both parents to support their own children. Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member to support this bill and the children.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure for me to offer support for this resolution and to make a couple of brief points. This bill is another small example of the historic positive changes the 104th Congress is making to this great institution. It is another example of how the new majority in this House is keeping its promises, and I am especially pleased, Mr. Speaker, to see how the minority side is giving support to this initiative that we have begun. It is important to point out that in bringing this resolution to the floor, Chairman Thomas has done a great service on behalf of the American voters. Congress is being told to reduce the deficit and to cut spending. Mr. Speaker, that is a very popular theme around this place these days. This bill offers proof to the taxpayer that we are starting out by saving them money and cleaning up our own house. During our opening- day reforms we voted to reduce committee staff by one-third. This bill acts as a companion piece to that measure. It makes an additional reduction in committee funding for staff and expenses by over $67 million, a 30-percent reduction from last year's provision. This resolution reflects true reform, Mr. Speaker, in the entire legislative budget process by which committees ask for and receive funding. Prior to this Congress hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for salaries and below-the-line costs, an amount that made up over one-half of the total committee costs, was something that we did not even see. It escaped the scrutiny of the public hearing process. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, this resolution sets a good, solid precedent for allocating a third of the resources to the minority. I have served for the last 2 years on this committee as a minority member and was vocal in insisting on fair treatment of the minority. I am still insistent on that fair treatment, and, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to third of their committees' resources to the minority has increased by over 50 percent. Mr. Speaker, this bill establishes accountability and sunshine in the committee funding process. I commend Chairman Thomas for his hard work and for his leadership, and I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Emergency Timber Salvage Program in the rescissions bill. Last year, devastating fires burned almost 1 billion board feet of timber in Washington State. I remember flying home last summer with smoke from these fires. As soon as I landed, I contacted friends in eastern Washington who were trying to protect their homes and orchards from fires burning less than a quarter of a mile away from their properties. Thankfully, the western part of my State did not suffer from those fires. However, we do know about the effect of fires on private lands. Just this year there was a fire in Carbanado, a small community in my district. And the Forest Service representative in the Mount Baker/ Snoqualmie National Forest informs me that there is a strong possibility that a fire similar to the ones in eastern Washington could be in our future because of the 200-year fuel load on the ground. On my side of the mountains, we also have millions of board feet of blown-down timber in need of salvage. Salvage work that could put families back to work doing what they have been doing for generations. Mr. Chairman, this is not just about salvaging timber. It is about salvaging families, communities, and human dignity. We have the opportunity to give a hand up to people in need, not the mere handout of public assistance. Further, this issue is also about the health of our forests. Ignoring that concern now will result in larger and more catastrophic environmental tragedies later. If we do not remove a significant amount of the fire-killed timber, we increase the likelihood that the area will burn again in the very near future. Another burn would destroy more valuable forest resources and wildlife habitat. And once again, we would place human lives and property at risk. With that in mind, this language simply directs the Forest Service to perform emergency salvage sales during a 2-year period and directs the Bureau of Land Management to perform salvage sales each year for 2 years. These sales would be conducted on Federal lands managed by these two agencies. The salvage program only involves less than one-third of the total estimated volume of dead, dying, and diseased timber on suitable Federal lands. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, there has been some misinformation accusing the supporters of this program of ignoring, or trying to bypass, the administrative review process required before a sale goes to market. Nothing--I repeat, nothing--could be further from the truth. This language streamlines the process in order to allow the agencies involved to expedite these sales over a period of months, instead of years. Right now, many of these sales are locked up in litigation, appeals, and other roadblocks. What this salvage program provides is the predictability that this process has so sorely missed. Last and certainly not least, this salvage program will also return money to the Federal Government, up to $620 million. The timber salvage program presents an opportunity to begin cleaning up our national forests, generating Federal revenues and providing family-wage jobs in affected communities. I strongly support this Timber Salvage Program.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, our Contract With America states the following: On the first day of Congress, a Republican House will require Congress to live under the same laws as everyone else; cut committee staffs by one-third; and cut the congressional budget. We kept our promise. It continues that in the first 100 days, we will vote on the following items: A balanced budget amendment--we kept promise; line-item veto--we kept our promise; a new crime package to stop violent criminals--we kept our promise; national security restoration to our freedoms--we kept our promise; Government regulatory reform--we kept our promise; commonsense legal reform to end frivolous lawsuits--we are doing this now; welfare reform to increase school lunches for poor people, encourage work, not dependence; family reinforcement to crack down on deadbeat dads and protect our children; tax cuts for middle-income families, who have been too long ignored by the Democrats; Senior Citizens' Equity Act to allow our seniors to work without Government penalty; and congressional term limits to make Congress a citizen legislature. Mr. Speaker, this is our Contract With America.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are keeping their promises--and that includes the promise to help millions of children currently forced to live on welfare because one of their parents has abandoned them. This Nation's No. 1 natural resource is its children, and they deserve the protection that Republicans offer them in our welfare reform plan. For decades our Nation has seen a huge welfare bureaucracy continue to grow while Congress stood idly by failing to hold parents accountable for the precious children they have brought into the world and then carelessly chose to abandon. We cannot allow this tragic status quo to continue. Under the Republican welfare reform bill States will finally get the assistance they need to track down deadbeat parents--especially the 30 percent who move out of the State often to avoid paying child support. Our proposal will help to find these individuals and require them to pay the $34 billion they owe in child support to the children they have deserted--children who might have been kept off welfare if the parent had kept his commitment. Mr. Speaker, it is a tough approach but a fair one. And, above all else, it is the approach that can save children from falling into the welfare trap of a lifetime of dependence on the Government. We can end the status quo. Let us help States find those deadbeat parents, and let's keep our promise to the children.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be withdrawn as a cosponsor of House joint resolution No. 2.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about compassion, because some of our Members seem to have a distorted sense of what that term means when it comes to our Nation's failed welfare policies. Is it compassionate to continue with a status quo system that for three generations has stripped women of their dignity? Republicans say no. The current system limits the ability of poor women to seek gainful work and condemns those women and their children to a life of hopelessness caught up in the welfare cycle. That is not compassion, Mr. Speaker. It is destructive to women, to children, and to families. In fact, because of the disincentives that exist in the current system, many welfare mothers will never be married. Mr. Speaker, let us not defend the status quo. Instead, let us end a system that traps children in lives of higher rates of domestic abuse and violent crime and inadequate educational opportunities. Let us transform welfare and redefine compassion to mean stronger families, domestic tranquility, and good jobs.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Barton balanced budget amendment. Some say that to propose a balanced budget amendment without proposing how we would get there is wrong. I say nonsense. The American people are pleading with us to set aside bickering and at least agree on the goal of living within our means. We must take that first step toward a balanced budget amendment, with or without the support of the President. Then we can debate the spending cuts necessary to achieve that goal. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have had 40 years to control the power of the purse and prove that Congress could be fiscally responsible. The result: Congress has left this country with a crippling debt and with higher taxes. Americans can no longer afford this sort of behavior from their Congress. Mr. Chairman, now the burden of proof should be on the Congress to justify dipping further into the taxpayers' wallets. That is why we must pass the to raise taxes. We must force this Congress to make tough choices in spending cuts, not taxing our way to a balanced budget. Protect the taxpayer. Pass the Contract With America version of the balanced budget amendment.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this wide-open rule because, Mr. Speaker, there is not any portion of the Constitution that represents the commonsense approach that our new majority was elected to pursue more than the federalism of Article 10 of the Bill of Rights. Article 10 reads as follows: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.'' H.R. 5 will restore the spirit of this amendment by restricting unfunded mandates and returning the decisionmaking power back to the local level so that they may determine which programs should be priorities for their communities. Mr. Speaker, there has been no greater violation of the spirit of the 10th amendment than through the process of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on our States or local communities. In my home State of Washington, towns with small budgets work hard just to keep their noses above water as they struggle to comply with the dictates handed down by overzealous lawmakers in Washington, DC. For example, the mayor of Snoqualmie, a small town in my district, told me the city would be bankrupt if they are forced to comply with the Federal mandates included in the Safe Drinking Water Act. Additionally, they will have to increase local water bills by 200 to 300 percent. Mr. Speaker, the town of Carbonado, population 540, must find $800,000 to comply with this same legislation. When will this kind of absurdity end? The American people have said the time is now. Let us pass this rule, debate this bill, and end the arrogance of Congress passing laws and then passing the tab on to the backs of State and local governments and eventually, of course, on to the people. If the Federal Government cannot pay for it, we should not force the costs on to the States. That is just common sense.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for too long, Congress has lived by a double-standard, passing dozens of laws, imposing hundreds of regulations on the private sector while at the same time exempting itself from those same laws and regulations. How long has Congress enjoyed the double standard? Fifty-seven years later, Congress will finally be held accountable to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, requiring a minimum wage and overtime pay for congressional staff; 31 years later, Congress will at last adhere to title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; and 25 years later, Congress will comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970, making our U.S. Capitol and the House and Senate Office Buildings safer places to work and visit. There is a whole host of other laws with which Congress must now comply: the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act to name few more. Mr. Speaker, this is a sensible bill that accomplishes more than just apply all laws to Congress. While Congress still has a long, challenging journey ahead if we are to restore the public's confidence and faith in this institution, passing this congressional compliance legislation is a major step in that direction. Today, as we send this bill to be signed into law by President Clinton, we legislators will prove to the citizens of this Nation that we are committed to turning this place upside down, shaking it by its ankles, and accomplishing this long overdue reform.