Jennifer Dunn

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support of House Joint Resolution 115. Mr. Speaker, with House Joint Resolution 115 we are saying ``No more excuses. No more Washington gimmicks. It's time to do the right thing for America's future.'' With our actions, today, we are making a downpayment on our promise to balance the budget in 7 years and build a brighter future for our Nation. I also want to take this opportunity to express my strong support of a provision in this measure that is a down-payment on the lives of over 40,000 women annually. A provision that not only will save millions of lives but millions of dollars at the same time. Specifically, this bill includes a provision to expand Medicare coverage for oral hormonal cancer drugs for breast and prostate cancer victims. While Medicare currently provides coverage for some oral cancer drugs, it does not cover oral hormonal therapies which are used in the post-surgical treatment of approximately 50 percent of all breast cancer patients, as well as the thousands of men whose cancer has spread beyond the prostate. Mr. Speaker, breast cancer strikes approximately one in eight women in their lifetime and is the second leading cause of deaths among women. In 1995 alone, an estimated 182,000 new cases of breast cancer are expected to be diagnosed, with almost 60 percent of those cases diagnosed in women over the age of 65. Medicare coverage of post- surgical treatment of estrogen receptive positive tumors is the next logical step in fighting both breast cancer and prostate cancer. The only drug to treat these breast cancers post-surgically is a chemostatic drug that deprives the tumor of the estrogen it needs to grow. Due to a technicality in the law, such drugs are not covered by Medicare because it was never previously available in intravenous or injectable form. It simply does not make sense that millions of lives should be left hanging in the balance because of a technicality in the law. I commend all of my female colleagues, particularly Congresswoman Nancy Johnson and Congresswoman Barbara Vucanovich, with whom I have worked to ensure an end to this discrimination. Mr. Speaker, when a nation prepares for war it sends in its most powerful armaments into battle. I would think every Member of this body would agree that breast cancer and prostate cancer patients deserve nothing less.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want the record to reflect my support for the energy and water appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. This conference report addresses rate fairness and regional control for electric ratepayers in the Pacific Northwest. Both Representative John Myers, the subcommittee chairman, and Senator Mark Hatfield, the Senate Appropriations Committee chairman deserve great credit for this accomplishment. Earlier this year the Bonneville Power Administration [BPA] the Federal Power Marketing Agency in charge of marketing power in the Northwest, unveiled its 5-year rate proposal schedule. The rate proposal would have increased rates for customers of private utilities by roughly 15 percent while simultaneously reducing rates offered to customers of public utilities in the region as well to direct service industries, mainly aluminum companies that buy power directly from BPA. I would have been remiss in my duties as a Representative if I had not opposed BPA's initial rate proposal since it would have adversely impacted my district. The power generated from our rivers is to be shared by all of the people of the Northwest. Yet BPA's initial rate proposal failed to sufficiently consider that perspective. I am pleased that my colleagues and I were able to provide a compromise provision in this bill that will protect customers of private utilities until September 30, 1997. We were able to negotiate what amounts to a 2-year safety by providing $145 million in fiscal year 1997 for the residential exchange rate so residents in the Northwest will be protected from dramatic rate increases at least until October 1997. This compromise is a first step in making sure that there is equity in future Northwest power rates. In the future, I will continue to pursue a rewriting of the 1980 Northwest Power Act that addresses all the fundamental questions of how we fairly share the benefits of the Federal power system in the Northwest. I still do not believe that BPA's new rate proposal is fair to people in my district. Therefore I am duty bound to continue to seek a long-term solution by any means possible. I am optimistic that our region can rewrite the Northwest Power Act to accomplish two critically important goals: Equity among various ratepayer groups in the region, and regional control of the Northwest power system. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the conferees on increasing the amount the Wind Energy Systems Program will receive by $12.5 million. The money for this program is an investment into the economic and environmental future of the United States. Growing international markets for wind energy are currently worth $1 billion each year, and growing. The United States can and should be a major competitor in this environmentally sensitive industry. I support the increase for this clean renewable energy research program. I urge my colleagues to support this carefully and thoughtfully crafted energy and water conference report for fiscal year 1996.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address one of our country's greatest domestic problems, the Nation's illegitimacy rate. In 1940, the rate was well under 5 percent. Even 15 years ago, in 1980, the illegitimacy rate was only 15 percent. Today, 15 years later, it is doubled. It is 30 percent. It is a terrible revolution in birth patterns. Mr. Chairman, the consequences of this explosion are staggering. Everyone, including the President, recognizes that the exploding illegitimacy rate is the Nation's most important domestic problem because it is the leading cause of school failure, crime, unemployment, and welfare dependency. Why does illegitimacy lead to these problems? Consider these four facts: First, the poverty rate among children with never-married mothers is almost eight times that of children in two-parent families. Second, the odds of an out-of-wedlock child being on welfare are 10 times that of a child born into a two-parent family. Third, the odds of an out-of-wedlock child having a parent who does not work are six times greater than the odds for a child from a two-parent family. In fact, 40 percent of children born out of wedlock have no working role model parent in their lives. And fourth, the rate of school suspension among out-of-wedlock children is over three times as high as the rate of children from two-parent families. Mr. Chairman, everybody realizes that illegitimacy is an outrage but only Republicans are proposing solutions that will effectively alleviate the problem. We get what we pay for, Mr. Chairman, and the Federal Government is now guaranteeing a package of benefits to teenaged children who have babies that adds up to $12,000 every year. By far, the most important action we can take to reduce illegitimacy and to stigmatize this most destructive behavior is to cut the cash subsidies. The House Republican welfare reform bill is the only bill that deals with illegitimacy in this direct fashion. Only Republicans have the courage to take the strong action necessary to combat the tragic scourge of illegitimacy. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I do not see any other way to do it.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to debate on this reconciliation bill that we will be voting on here in the House tomorrow, and I am astounded at the lack of understanding that the other side continues to give to the idea of cutting taxes for American citizens. They still are telling us that cutting taxes is a dirty word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know, what is so wrong with leaving money in the pockets of the American citizens? Let us take a look at what we are really talking about here in the Budget Reconciliation Act. Twenty-five percent of the tax cuts that we are talking about are going to businesses, especially to small business. Seventy-five percent of the tax cuts focus specifically on building and strengthening and restoring the American family. We do not just give tax cuts to the rich. We give tax cuts to everybody, to individuals, to families, rich, poor, middle class. That is the strength of this plan. We give tax cuts to all Americans. A couple of facts, Mr. Chairman. In 1950, the average American family with children paid 2 percent of it income in taxes to the Federal Government. Today, 45 years later, that very same family pays 24.5 percent, and adding State and local taxes, the total percentage adds up to 37.6 percent percent of their income in taxes to all levels of government. That means, Mr. Chairman, in families where both of the parents work, a very common situation today, two-thirds of the wife's earnings go to pay increased Federal taxes. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the average American family literally spends more on total taxes than on food, clothing, and housing combined. Shouldering heavy burdensome taxes is no way for an American family to achieve the American dream. We want to make it easier. We want to keep these dollars in the pockets of the American citizens. Let us talk about some of the tax cuts that we believe make our bill unique that we are really getting done for the American people. First of all, a $500-per-child tax credit. This is the centerpiece of our efforts to give American families a little bit of a breakthrough tax relief, $500 for each child under age 18. The current tax systems penalized families with children because it does not properly reflect the very expensive cost of rearing children. According to the Census Bureau data, the cost of raising a child averages more than $5,000 per year. By allowing families to keep a little bit more of what they earn, the family tax credit increases the resources available to parents to properly raise their children. Second, the American dream savings account. Mr. Chairman, the American dream savings account is a unique, innovative use of the IRA concept to stimulate additional savings. The new proposal allows distributions to be made penalty-free and tax-free for worthwhile purposes like first-time home purchase, college or educational expenses, and medical expenses. Lastly, the sponsal IRA. This permits $2,000 for the stay-at-home, just as a working spouse. I urge all of my colleagues to support reconciliation.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington State. While the amendment is narrow in nature, it addresses one of the most important developments in fishery management in the last decade. The Individual Fishing Quota [IFQ] system that is being used by the halibut and sablefish fisheries did not come about overnight, it took many years. The real challenge of fishing management has been to conserve limited resources in the face of large fishing fleets and improved fishing gear. To prevent overfishing of the halibut resource, Federal officials began cutting back on fishing times. A season that started at 6 months in the 1980's was reduced to 4 and then to 2 and finally down to two 24-hour openings a year. These so-called derby days created misery and havoc in the overcapitalized fishery. The same situation was developing for the sablefish fisheries. When you have 2 days to fish you end up going to sea no matter what the conditions--or starve. Fishermen were working in a ``damned if you do, damned if you don't'' environment. An example of this was the September 1994 opening. In the Yakutat fishing grounds near Petersburg, AK, a storm system that was an offshoot of a typhoon was just beginning to hit when the fishery opened. By the time the 48-hour opening was over, four boats had gone down, one of them taking the skipper with it. With the introduction of IFQ's, halibut fishermen do not have to risk their lives deciding between fishing and typhoons and there are other major benefits. They will be able to schedule their trips to optimize the markets, eliminate conflicts with other fisheries, and could possibly reduce their bycatch. Investigation of alternative management regimes began in the late 1970's and continued throughout the 1980's. In a series of public meetings and workshops, fishermen, market experts, and other members of the industry and public made suggestions, and systems from around the world including transferable quota programs were analyzed. Finally, in 1991, after closely reviewing open access fisheries, license limitations, allotments, and combinations of these programs, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council recommended the IFQ program to the Secretary of Commerce. After public comments on a proposed rule, the final rule was published in 1993. The program was finally implemented this year. The IFQ program is new to Alaska. It is new to the halibut and sablefish fisheries and new to the fishermen and women who make their living from these resources. With any new idea there is growth and change as the concepts are discussed by regional councils, fishermen, processors, biologists, and enforcement personnel. The program is ``in progress'' and cooperation is needed from everyone involved for this program to be successful. The new management regime is bringing increased safety, protection of the target species, while encouraging the conservation of these stocks for the benefit of the present and future generations. And for all of these reasons Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Metcalf amendment to ensure the continuation of the Individual Fishing Quota program.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, like many seniors in my district, my own parents sometimes have been frightened by the rhetoric that has been generated in this debate. I rise today to clear away some of that emotionalism, perhaps to set the record straight, and to reassure my parents in Bellevue, WA, and seniors around the country. Mr. Chairman, if I we able to speak to them for a few minutes today this is what I would tell them: Mother and Dad, our Medicare plan will preserve your right to stay in the current Medicare. You can stay in the system just as it is, if you want to. That is a fact. You can also choose one of the new options, every one of which will be very clearly explained to you. But the truth is that nobody will be forced out of traditional Medicare. If you wish to remain in traditional Medicare, fee-for-service, traditional service, if you want to keep your current doctor with no change to a doctor you do not know or do not want, you can do that. That is a guarantee, and the Federal Government will continue to provide two-thirds of your part B premiums. There will be no increase in your copayments, there will be no increase in your deductibles and there will be no decrease in your benefits. Mr. Chairman. I also want to assure seniors that nobody will be forced into HMOs or forced to go to a doctor that they do not know. Managed care is just one of several options we provide in our Medicare Preservation Act. Over the past several months, I have talked to constituents who deal with the Medicare system every single day. Throughout those talks I have been guided by several principles that my folks and seniors around the country are looking for in Medicare reform. They want Medicare saved for their children and for their grandchildren. They want the problem solved, not just postponed, and they want to choose for themselves among the plans and the doctors they know. This is my promise, my commitment to the seniors of today.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf]. This is a fairness amendment. I ask my colleagues to support it.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. On behalf of the one in eight women who will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year, and the 46,000 women who die every year from this disease, and on behalf of those women who are diagnosed with ovarian cancer, who suffer from osteoporosis and other women's health diseases, I thank the gentleman for his acceptance of my amendment, and ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. DUNN of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will set aside $2 million out of the $293 million authorized for life and microgravity sciences and applications in this bill for research and for early detection systems for breast and ovarian cancer and other women's issues. Mr. Chairman, because of the unique microgravity environment space provides for research, new and effective approaches to diagnosing and treating breast and ovarian cancer tumors are being investigated in space labs in ways not possible on Earth. The low gravity of space allows cancer cells, actual human cancer cells, to be grown in a 3- dimensional form replicating those to be found in the human body. Developing technology to help eradicate breast cancer is not a new direction for NASA, but one that needs to be spotlighted as a continuing basis. For example, technology that NASA has developed for the Hubbell space telescope is being applied at this time to digital mammography techniques that the National Cancer Institute hopes will lead to better treatments of breast cancer through even earlier detection. Right now, NASA and the National Cancer Institute have identified two technologies that hold promise for direct digital mammography with high resolution and a wide field of view that is necessary for early detection. They are now in the process of testing these diagnostic systems. These advanced sensors and signal processors could boost the resolution of a mammogram and allow physicians to detect cancer soon after its onset.

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, we should all be thankful for the efforts of these courageous women, Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who struggled to permanently secure their rights at the ballot box and in so doing swung open the doors of progress for our mothers, sisters, wives, daughters, and grandaughters. Today women have more opportunities than ever before to choose what they want to do and who they want to be, whether it is being an exceptionally devoted mother, a successful businesswoman or a Member of Congress. Now only a woman's imagination should limit her. Today the board room table or the operating table may be substituted for the kitchen table, and [[Page H 9714]] women have quickly become mainstays in the American entrepreneurial scene. In 1920, women refused to accept the status quo and they fought for their opportunity to affect national policy by securing their rights at the ballot box. That fervor should not be and is not lost on today's women. Relocating the portraiture monument to the Capitol rotunda is a symbolic but important gesture that will finally provide women recognition for past efforts and progress in the world of politics, business and academia. I think about my own two grandmothers, whose life experiences were vastly different from my own. The possible definitions of what makes a happy and successful life for a woman today is so much broader because we now have endless options. I would like to take a moment to commend the hard work of my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green, the gentlewoman from Maryland, Mrs. Morella, the gentlewoman from New York, Mrs. Lowey, and those who were out in front of this issue in the Senate where this resolution passed 100 to zero. They and their staffs logged in countless hours to ensure this day would come. With this resolution amended, October 25 will be the day that we will celebrate the passage of the 19th amendment to the Constitution which gave women the right to vote. With the placement of the portraiture monument in a location of prominence and esteem, we will be daily reminded of and inspired by their great achievement. I would ask the gentlewomen and gentlemen who testify here today before the public, if they decide that they want to sustain their objection, that they would join our effort to make sure that this portraiture monument is located in the rotunda on October 25, the date of our celebration.

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to tell my colleagues that this bill will authorize moving the Portrait Monument from the basement of the Capitol to the rotunda in the Capitol. This is in honor of the 75th anniversary of the passing of the 19th amendment to the Constitution which gave women the right to vote. The bill will also authorize the celebration of the anniversary and the relocation of the monument on October 25, 1995, pursuant to the amendment that I have at the desk.

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Oversight be discharged from further consideration of Senate concurrent resolution, (S. Con. Res. 21), directing that the ``Portrait Monument'' carved in the likeness of Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, now in the Crypt of the Capitol, be restored to its original state and be placed in the Capitol Rotunda and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on September 7, I was present in the House Chamber during the vote on final passage of H.R. 2126, the fiscal year 1996 Department of Defense appropriations bill. I along with other Members, were not properly recorded as having cast our vote on Rollcall No. 646. I respectfully request that the official record indicate I voted ``aye'' in support of passage of the bill.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I want to state for the record my strong support of H.R. 1655, the fiscal year 1996 Intelligence Authorization Act which the House passed last week. First, I would like to commend the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Congressman Larry Combest, for reporting out a find bill that quite appropriately authorizes those intelligence functions that are consistent with out Nation's vital national security needs. I believe the committee was wise to chose no longer to view the intelligence budget merely in terms of straight dollar figures. Dramatic changes in the geopolitical and military landscape during the last decade have significantly impacted key aspects of United States security. The magnitude of those changes continues to evolve in uncertain directions as do the implications for America. In other words, while the world is dramatically different from the cold war years, it remains an unstable and therefore dangerous place. It is, in my view, entirely appropriate to continue the process of analyzing threats to U.S. borders, to our military, and to American leaders and citizens traveling or living abroad. And we must analyze them under the new terms of the evolving post-cold-war dynamic. As we prepare for the 21st century, I appreciate the committee's efforts to emphasize a more intense and evaluative consideration of our intelligence functions. As stated in the committee report that accompanied H.R. 1655, ``each [intelligence] program adjustment was considered as an individual, substantive issue.'' that, Mr. Chairman, is exactly what the taxpayers of the Nation expect and deserve. Given the considerable importance and wide-reaching implications of the intelligence programs authorized in this bill, this bill is a remarkable accomplishment. H.R. 1655 is in keeping with the 104th Congress's disciplined effort to balance the Federal budget, and is a perfect example of our desire to scrutinize everything funded with the public dollar. Further, it exemplifies American legislative policy that supports not only our national interests but our drive to keep federal spending under control. I am proud to express my support for it.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Skaggs amendment which is really an effort to remove the language that ends Government subsidies for advocacy groups. In 1990, more than 40,000 organizations from all across the political spectrum received a total of $39 billion--yes, billion--in Government grants. Many of these groups turn around and aggressively lobby Congress on behalf of their own special interests. It is a vicious circle, and the taxpayer loses. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about giving taxpayer dollars to advocacy groups so that they can use those taxpayer dollars to hire people to lobby for more taxpayer dollars. A couple of months ago, my parents received a direct mail scare piece from one of these Federal grant recipient groups alleging--falsely-- that I, as a Member of Congress, was going to wipe out my parents' retirement plans by blindly cutting their Medicare benefits. My father, age 84, called my congressional office here in Washington, DC, wanting to know if it were true the Republicans wanted to ruin his retirement by slashing his Medicare coverage. Mr. Chairman, this is a flat-out lie. There are no plans to cut Medicare, only hopes to save it. Yet this particular organization that sent my parents the mailing receives $86 million of taxpayer funds each year to help pay for its scare-tactic lobbying. This is outrageous, and a huge conflict of interest and should be ended. Mr. Chairman, the taxpayers are buried in debt. We do not need to add insult to injury by taking their money to give it to groups which often exist largely to lobby for more money from the taxpayer. This is not a question of whether or not we support the various groups that receive these taxpayer dollars, it is a question of whether special interests should be allowed to use those taxpayer dollars to advance their agendas. Side with the taxpayers, support this provision, and reject this amendment.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a strong supporter of the space station and urge my colleagues to continue funding for this valuable space and science mission. When I first came to Congress in 1993, I became a member of the Science Committee and the Space Subcommittee. During the 103d Congress, we lived through the highs and the lows of this program. There was a call for the project to be redesigned, and space station funding passed on the House floor by one single vote. In early 1994, NASA made significant changes in the way it conducted business. They streamlined the program. For the first time, they named a single overall prime contractor for the space station, and they brought proven private sector know-how, decision-making, and competitiveness into the program. Russia joined our international partnership, a partnership that already included Japan, Canada, and member countries of the European Space Agency. This provided us the opportunity to use selected Russian hardware, to learn from their experience in extended space flight, and to use the MIR space station for testing and training purposes. We all witnessed the successful results of this partnership earlier this month with the MIR docking. The new, redesigned station, with Boeing as the prime contractor, forced NASA to trim costs and develop a program that was both fiscally and scientifically sound. The space station budget has been capped at $2.1 billion annually. This is not an open-ended obligation, Mr. Chairman. We will reach completion in 2002. In 1994, continued funding for the station passed overwhelmingly, highlighting the success and bipartisan support for this program. Mr. Chairman, with the station, we will promote international cooperation and the peaceful exploration of space. We will spawn new industries, new products and new jobs. We will give rise to unprecedented research capabilities, and we will provide incentives to our students to pursue scientific professions if America remains dedicated to preserving its scientific cutting edge. Since we began the race for space in the 1950's, this Nation has taken upon itself the role of leader, not only in space exploration but also in space-based research. For my colleagues who are looking for a down-to-earth, practical reason to support this station, here is one for you: your mother, your daughter, your sister, or your wife. Because of the unique microgravity environment the station provides for research, new and exciting approaches to diagnosing and treating breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and osteoporosis are being investigated in space labs in ways that simply are not possible on Earth. In fact, Mr. Chairman, as a result of an amendment that I worked on that set aside funding specifically for women's health care research, for the first time on the recent MIR mission female rats were used to study the relationship of long-term space existence on the development of osteoporosis. Biomedical research on Earth, working hand-in-hand with space-based research, will help eradicate this terrible disease that affects our mothers. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Rollcall No. 543, I ask that the Record reflect that I intended to vote ``yes.''

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the gentleman from New York, Mr. Walsh, and also the gentleman from Kansas, Chairman Roberts, and the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Gunderson, the gentleman from New Mexico, Chairman Skeen, and all the people who helped to forge this agreement with the Secretary of Agriculture, our former colleague, Dan Glickman, on new meat safety inspection rules that will benefit all Americans. This agreement is especially significant to those of us from Washington State, as my colleague the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] has said, because in January of 1993, my first year as a Member of Congress, three little children died and 67 were hospitalized in Washington State because of an E. coli outbreak that was traced to a local fast food outlet in my district. Now, a little over 2 years later, with the combined efforts of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], the committees and the other gentlemen, and the Secretary of Agriculture, we can finally put into place a meat safety regime to ensure the production of clean, safe, quality meat that restores consumer confidence. I want to add a special note of thanks to our colleague from Washington State, Mr. Nethercutt, who is also a member of the subcommittee, for his help on this critical issue. Mr. Chairman, in memory of 2-year-old Michael Nole, 2-year-old Celina Shribbs, and 17-month-old Riley Detwiler, the little children who died from E. coli, my thanks for the diligent efforts of all the Members of Congress who are involved in bringing to fruition safer food for all Americans. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. [Mr. de la GARZA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I rise is support of the proposed agreement between all of the parties concerned and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], and endorse it. Mr. Chairman, in light of recent compromises I rise to support the removal of requirements within the Agriculture Appropriation bill which limit funding for work on the February 3, 1995, Pathogen Reduction/ HACCP proposed regulation. Agriculture Secretary Glickman has offered a reasonable resolution, as laid out in his July 18, 1995, letter to Mr. Walsh, the author of the limitation language, that allows for the rule development to proceed on schedule but grants additional input for stakeholders on a major regulatory change. The controversy surrounding the development of a rule for our meat and poultry inspection system pertaining to microbiological pathogens and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point methodology was over the process of how the rule is developed. Unfortunately, some in the media has started to turn this controversy into a discussion over whether children would or would not die because of this particular proposed regulation. It is always a human tragedy when anyone dies due to food- borne disease and especially children who have their entire lives ahead of them. But I feel it is important to understand that the Secretary's letter makes commitments assuring that there is a continued development of a good rule that improves our meat and poultry inspection system. A rule that all can support. A rule that will minimize potential lawsuits concerning the final regulation which could cause real delays in meat and poultry inspection reforms. It is also important to note that modernization of the inspection system through a spirit of cooperation of all stakeholders is paramount to realize real improvements in the safety of the meat supply. The most important guidelight for all interested in changes to our food safety system must be the best science that can be afforded. The entire process should be driven by sound science not politics. I cannot emphasize enough that this rule is but a step in a continuous series of steps where the goal is reducing food-borne illness. Note that I said reducing food-borne illness, not eliminating it. Elimination of food-borne illness is not a reality. It is scientifically and economically impossible to achieve zero food-borne risks at this time and it becomes a disservice to the public to imply that the Government can supply or regulate a food delivery system into one without risks, but one we can rely on and that the people can trust and give us the maximum protection possible. I want to thank Secretary Glickman for his involvement in the matter and his interest in restoring confidence in the process. I commend Mr. Walsh of New York for his leadership in finding a path of compromise in which all sides win.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Bereuter-Wolf bill, which sends a strong, and appropriate, message to China without jeopardizing United States national interests or United States workers. China's continued human rights abuses are an unavoidable issue in United States-China relations. We Americans care deeply about certain inalienable rights. However, linking trade policy to these concerns by new threats to withdraw MFN for China's shortcomings would be highly counter-productive to our long-term national interests and to the release of Mr. Harry Wu. Our Nation's trading practices and policies have been the subject of lively debate in America since the birth of our Nation. And on this particular question--MFN for China--we have wrestled for years. The China MFN issue has been hung up on two competing policy goals: Is our goal to maximize our own United States jobs? Or is it to make the cause of human rights primary as a means to achieving our best long-term interests? The answer, I believe, is both. The goals are not mutually exclusive. For instance, I believe all of us can agree that compassion for the suffering in China is useless if our policy has no effect other than to put our own people out of work. We have made no difference in the life of those suffering overseas while only increasing the numbers of those suffering here at home. Mr. Speaker, I believe, these criteria must become our compass. We should extend MFN to a nation if: They allow U.S. investors and advisors in, the rule of law is advancing in that country, a multilateral action is unattainable or unsustainable, or we have that nation's assistance on a critical geopolitical issue. Conversely, we should deny MFN status to governments abusing their people only if an effective multilateral action is doable and the U.S. can expect no help from that government on other critical geopolitical issues, if they do not allow U.S. employers or advisors into their country, and if they do not respect the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, the genius of the Bereuter-Wolf bill is that we give full voice to our American concerns for human rights without self- defeating linkage to trade policy. That is the appropriate response, and I want to thank both Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Wolf for crafting this solution.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the theme of the 104th Congress, we are today keeping another promise we made to the American people. That promise is a commitment to openness and to reform, to let the Sun shine in on the internal operations of the House of Representatives. As promised, the results of the first audit ever done in the U.S. House of Representatives by the independent nonpartisan firm of Price Waterhouse have been revealed, and, as expected, the auditors found that during a single 15-month time period, from October 1993 to December 1994, the Congress squandered millions of taxpayer dollars because of poor management practices, inefficiencies, and waste in all House operations. Corrective steps recommended by the auditors will help the Congress save the taxpayers over $20 million. We have already begun instituting some of those reforms Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us for a further forensic audit will help ensure that never again will this honorable institution become a casualty in the course of Members conducting the people's business with the public's money. We are acting decisively to restore the American people's faith in this institution. Taxpayers deserve full disclosure, and they are finally getting it. They deserve full accountability, and they are finally getting it. They deserve to have their Representatives take responsibility for the way things are run in Congress, and in the 104th Congress, Mr. Speaker, they are finally getting it. And from now on, they always will. Mr. Speaker, when the auditors cannot even deliver an opinion because financial records were so inadequate or incomplete, we have got a problem. I was told at today's Committee on House Oversight meeting that in the private sector this type of finding of no opinion by the auditors is unheard of. What a shame. I applaud the bipartisan work of the House leadership, Mr. Speaker, of the Inspector General and the auditors, and I am very pleased to support this bill.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, yesterday during the House's consideration of H.R. 1868, I inadvertently voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 420. I rise to ask that the Record reflect I intended to vote ``yes'' on that vote.