Jennifer Dunn

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, government at every level-- Federal, State, and local--are being forced to reduce spending. At the same time, government should do all it can reasonably do to encourage private philanthropic efforts. Many of these government services can be provided at the local level by charities that know the community best and can supply the most efficient and competent delivery of services to those most in need. Public charities and private foundations already have proven they can distribute funds to a very diverse, wide-ranging group of support organizations at the community level. One source of untapped resources for charitable purposes is closely- held corporate stock. Today the tax cost of contributing closely-held stock to a charity or foundation is prohibitive, and discourages families and owners from disposing of their businesses in this manner. This legislation, which I introduce today, will correct this problem by once again permitting certain tax-free liquidations of closely-held corporations into one or more tax exempt 501(c)(3) organizations. Under current law, the problem with giving closely-held stock to charity is that the absence of a market for such stock and the typical pattern of small and sporadic dividends paid by such companies make it difficult for a charity to benefit from ownership of such stock. Accordingly, if such stock is given to a charitable organization, and in particular if a controlling interest is given, the corporation may have to be liquidated either by statute requirement or to effectively complete the transfer of assets to the charity for its use. Under current law, such a liquidation would incur a corporate tax at a Federal tax rate of 35 percent. This cost is imposed as a result of the tax law changes made in 1986 that repealed the general utilities doctrine and thus imposed a corporate level tax on all corporate transfers, including those to tax exempt organizations. The charitable organization could also be subject to unrelated business income taxes. These tax costs make contributions of closely-held stock a costly and ineffective means of transferring resources to charity, and these are the costs I propose to eliminate in order to free up additional private resources for charitable purposes. This legislation eliminates the corporate tax upon liquidation of a qualifying closely-held corporation of certain conditions are met. Most importantly, qualification would require that 80 percent or more of the stock must be bequeathed at death to a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. The bill also clarifies that the charity can receive mortgaged property in a qualified liquidation free from unrelated business income tax for a period of ten years. This change parallels the exemption from UBIT for 10 years provided under current law for direct transfers by gift or bequest. By eliminating the corporate tax upon liquidation Congress would encourage additional, and much needed, transfer to charity. Individuals who are willing to make generous bequests of companies and assets they have spent years building should not be discouraged by seeing the value of their gifts so substantially reduced by taxes. It is worthwhile to note that the individual donor does not receive any tax benefit from the proposal. All tax savings go to the charity. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation designed to encourage charitable contributions.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Hansen for his leadership on this bipartisan and proenvironment effort. This bill simply adjusts the boundary of the Snoqualmie National Forest to allow the incorporation into the Snoqualmie National Forest of some private lands owned by the Weyerhaeuser Co. I am pleased to state that this legislation is supported not only by all members of the Washington State delegation but also by the Sierra Club, the Alpine Lakes Protection Society, the Washington Environmental Council, the North Cascades Conservation Council, and the Mountaineers. This boundary adjustment will facilitate what is known as the Huckleberry Land Exchange, which involves approximately 7,200 acres of National Forest land and 33,000 acres of private land of which about 6,278 are outside the present boundary of the Snoqualmie National Forest. As Chairman Hansen stated in his opening remarks, this landmark agreement has been several years in the making and was brought about through a collaborative effort between the Sierra Club's Checkerboard Project and the Weyerhaeuser Co. It is noteworthy that this exchange includes a substantial donation of land by Weyerhaeuser into the national Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area. Mr. Speaker, the public will benefit from this substantial donation of land. It will be one of only a few added this year into our Nation's wilderness areas. By consolidating ownership, an additional connecting corridor of wildlife habitat between the Alpine Lakes Wilderness and the Mount Si Conservation Area will be created. This land exchange also adds substantial acreage to the area visible to the public from the I-90 Freeway in support of the objectives of the Mountain to Sound Greenway Trust--a nonprofit organization whose sole purpose is to protect a greenway along I-90 from the eastern foothills of the Cascade Mountains all the way to Puget Sound. I want my colleagues to know that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement was released in late June, a 45-day public comment period was initiated, and three public meetings were held to discuss the exchange and the draft EIS. The final EIS and Record of Decision should be released by the end of October. Today's action is necessary in order to give the Forest Service authority to administer the exchange area. And, Mr. Speaker, since this exchange has been 12 years in the making, all parties involved are pleased that we will be finalizing the boundary modification legislation today. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is part of a win-win proposal. By consolidating ownership both the Forest Service and Weyerhaeuser will be able to implement a more effective ecosystem-based management that will allow for wetland protection and long-term protection for wildlife. More important, this land exchange is a textbook example of how land disputes can be resolved between parties that are willing to look for areas of agreement rather than differences. The environment and all of the people of the Puget Sound region benefit as a result. I thank the Speaker, the Resources Committee, and I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this resolution.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, let me first commend my colleague, Representative Rick White, for his leadership on high technology issues. His service and technological literacy is vitally important to an institution which, prior to the Republican-led 104th Congress, had still been using pencil and paper to balance its financial books. Mr. White has been an integral part of our efforts to bring the U.S. Congress into the 21st century. We have entered an era when the average American may sit down at a computer and gain access to information on anything from current research on the lifespan of the honeybee to what's playing at their neighborhood theater. Congress is changing with the times, and in that spirit, I rise in support of H.R. 3700, The Internet Election Information Act of 1996. This legislation enables online service providers to voluntarily offer web sites to candidate--without giving an advantage to any one candidate, and without the site being considered an in-king contribution to the campaign. This will enhance the ability of all Americans to make informed choices and to more fully participate in the democratic process. The laws governing campaign finance--written in the mid-1970's--were passed before the advent of the personal computer and the phenomenon known as the Internet. H.R. 3700 updates our campaign finance laws to account for the reality of this information-gathering mechanism. I support this legislation and praise Representative White for his foresight on the issue. The Internet Election Information Act of 1996 achieves a commonsense change in Federal elections, while providing a solid benefit to all Americans interested in learning more about the candidates asking for the honor of their vote. The power of knowledge and access to information--without preference to any party or any candidate--is what this bill secures, and is another step forward toward governing in the 21st century.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, a special thanks to Mr. Solomon, Ms. Molinari and all of my colleagues who worked so diligently to move this legislation forward. As my colleagues know, the incidence of violence and crime against women continues to escalate daily. Criminals and would-be criminals keep finding new ways to victimize women. This bill represents one of the many steps that need to be taken in order to help stop the violation of innocent women. I urge my colleagues to take this vital stride forward. First and foremost this legislation would impose tough minimum sentences on first-time offenders who distribute what are referred to as ``date-rape drugs'' with the intent to rape. This is only right, Mr. Speaker. These drugs render women helpless. When criminals administer drugs like Rohypnol, their victims are not aware it has been added to their drink because the drug is tasteless and odorless. Rohypnol is intended for use in treating people with severe sleep disorders and is 10 times more powerful than Valium. Unfortunately, it can induce amnesia as a side effect, which in date-rape cases obviously impairs the victim's ability to relay what transpired and to recall who raped them. Rapists prefer Rohypnol because it is fact-acting. It's effects begin within 30 minutes, peak within 2 hours and may persist up to 8 hours or more. Often times, the effects have lasted as much as 24 hours after ingestion. Mr. Solomon's ``Drug-Induced Rape Prevention and Punishment Act'' proposes minimum sentences of not less than 20 years for Rohypnol traffickers and would-be rapists. Mr. Speaker, this stiff penalty is justified to combat this problem. No parent should have to send a daughter off to college afraid that she might be drugged and victimized by a rapist. We should give those parents whose children have left home reassurance that we have done all we can to deter this criminal behavior. No woman should have to worry about this heinous act affecting her life. No woman should live in fear that the next beverage she consumes will render her a defenseless victim. That is why this House should stand up today, for women across the country, and say to the cowardly individuals who commit this crime: no more. We must establish zero- tolerance for rape and the use of drugs to commit rape. I urge passage of this important bill.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge passage of House Concurrent Resolution 132 relating to the extradition of Martin Pang from Brazil to the United States and to thank and praise the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the members of the Committee on International Relations for recognizing the importance of this case and for moving the resolution forward. For the benefit of my colleagues who have not been able to follow this horrible tragedy, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for giving a brief history earlier on the matter in the Pang case. Let me just add that when Martin Pang set fire to that warehouse, a warehouse that belonged to his parents to Seattle, WA, that blaze ultimately took the lives of four brave firefighters. Immediately after the blaze, Pang fled to Brazil, where he later admitted his guilt to the FBI. After serious and lengthy negotiations, he was extradited to the United States on March 1, 1996, but he was extradited under the Brazil Supreme Court stipulation that he be tried for arson only and not for murder. This past February, as the chairman noted, I introduced the original version of today's resolution expressing the sense of Congress that Brazil should reverse its court decision and allow Pang to be tried both for arson and for murder. We must past this resolution. Pang's pretrial hearing is set for October 8, and that is why it is so critical to do this today. We must try to persuade the Brazilian Government to amend its extraditional order prior to October 8. They say that justice delayed is justice denied. Mr. Speaker, if we delay justice much longer, then justice literally will be denied in this case. We have waited some 20 months for justice. Now justice will only be served if Martin Pang is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the U.S. law. The four families who lost loved ones deserve what is right. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my fellow Members to do what is right, take a positive step toward justice. Make no mistake; our action today will send a substantial message to the Government of Brazil in a strong bipartisan fashion. Indeed, my office has already been contacted by the Embassy with regard to this matter, so we know our message is being heard. Mr. Speaker, justice demands that Mr. Pang be tried for the murders of the courageous men who gave their lives in the line of duty. Today this House can do what is right for the families who lost loved ones. They deserve that much. I urge my colleagues to follow the bipartisan lead of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] of the Committee on International Relations. Let us do what is right for the families affected by this tragedy and for the entire Northwest community by passing this resolution urging Brazil to reconsider and allowing us to try Martin Pang for both arson and murder.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to present you with a clear and convincing contrast of two visions for America: The Republican vision and the Democrat vision. First, the Democrat vision: In Monday's Washington Post my good friend, the gentleman from New York, Charlie Rangel, the House Ways and Means Democrat in line to become chairman of the committee if the Democrats pull off a miracle, defended the IRS and said, ``We have the best and fairest tax collection system in the world.'' Hmmm. Now, for the Republican vision: Earlier this month Bob Dole said, ``It's time to end the IRS as we know it.'' He is calling for putting the word ``service'' back in the Internal Revenue Service by requiring IRS employees to help taxpayers understand the law rather than simply punish Americans for misapplying it. I like the second vision, and I bet America will too. We need a solution to our IRS problem that empowers the hard-working American taxpayer. We need to reform the IRS.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, in 1995 the Internal Revenue Service's 1-800 number provided about 8\1/2\ million Americans the wrong answers to even the most basic questions about tax law. Further, Money magazine estimated in 1990 that nearly half the 30 million penalty notices the IRS mails out each year are erroneous. Even more alarming, the latest impartial GAO audit of the IRS asserted that the agency that scrutinizes taxpayer finances cannot properly keep track of the $1.4 trillion it collects each year. Mind you, that was the fourth straight audit the IRS has flunked. Mr. Speaker, fair is fair. The IRS itself has failed to meet the standards of financial accountability and diligence it imposes on our citizenry. And since it can no longer adequately police itself, it can no longer be trusted with the authority to police individual American businesses and individuals. We need a solution to our problem that empowers the hard working American taxpayer. We need to reform the IRS.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I am very pleased that the President has announced that he is going to sign this bill. I want to commend Members on both sides of the aisle for their hard work. We have worked for a long time to put a good bill together. To those who are concerned with protecting the children, so were we. We spent a lot of time, a lot of thought, a lot of effort on protecting the children. We have come up with a bill that in the child care portion of the bill provides over $4 billion more to help those mothers who are trying to get off welfare into the workplace, with the peace of mind to know their children will be taken care of, $4 billion more than in the current welfare system. On the child support portion of the legislation, where we all know that in this Nation today $34 billion are owed, ordered by the court to be paid to custodial parents, we have tightened up this system. Those children are often the children that go on welfare--30 percent of their parents leave the State to avoid paying money to support their own flesh-and-blood children. We have solved this problem. So it is my great joy to say support this bill, and thanks for all the help.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, for too long parents have been forced to make tough choices between work and spending time with their children. In fact, a 1994 U.S. Department of Labor report found that the No. 1 concern for two-thirds of working women with children is the difficulty of balancing work and family. In two recent surveys, 3 out of 4 parents indicated that they would prefer the option to choose either overtime pay or compensatory time off for working overtime hours. Parents say this would enable them to find a better balance between their work and their family responsibilities. What are we really talking about? Mr. Chairman, in the late 1970's, when my sons were 6 and 8 years old, I found myself in a position to have to have a full-time job and still juggle the responsibilities to my family. Often I would have taken the choice, with a job that required some evenings and weekends and travel, to simply leave that job for a few hours and go to my children's school, talk with their counselors, or see their school plays. A mother should have that choice, Mr. Chairman. Under current law, too many working mothers lie awake at night worrying about whether or not they are giving their children enough quality time. We can do something to help those mothers and we ought to do it. This bill addresses exactly that problem. The legislation is balanced, it is commonsense, and it is a solution to the problem facing the hardworking parents of our country. Mr. Chairman, it is worth noting that Federal workers have long had this option, but the Government does not allow private employees to have this option. They should get the same consideration in the private sector that families in the Government have had since 1985. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation that supports the value of the family. On behalf of all the working families in this country, and especially the working mothers, I urge my colleagues to support this time legislation.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, the electorate and those who participate in the political process are owed, at a very minimum, several fundamental protections to ensure fair and competitive elections. The House of Representatives has on its calendar the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1996, H.R. 3820, legislation that addresses many of the injustices and shortcomings of the current campaign finance system. I want in my statement to underscore several points: the importance of guaranteeing integrity in the campaign process, the importance of requiring that candidates be accountable to the voters they seek to represent, and the importance of guarding the competitive nature of campaigns. I also intend to point out areas where I believe the efforts of the legislation before us fall slightly short. The Campaign Finance Reform Act takes a first step toward ensuring that the interests most special to Members of Congress are the interests of the citizens of their district, and not, for example, the representatives of multicandidate political committees or lobbying firms. One of my highest legislative priorities this Congress has been the formulation of a meaningful, bipartisan campaign finance proposal-- the FAIR Elections Act of 1996, H.R. 3543--the essence of which is a requirement that candidates for Federal office be more accountable to the citizens they represent. Whereas my legislation creates fairness in the treatment of contributions from multicandidate political committees and individuals by equalizing the maximum permissible limits, the amended version of the Campaign Finance Reform Act retains the current disequilibrium. Under present law, individual limits are set at $1,000 and PAC limits at $5,000 per election. This legislation proposes to retain individual limits at $1,000, and lower PAC limits by half to $2,500 per election, indexing both prospectively for inflation. While this amendment to the original provision--which proposed to equalize the limits, but then retroactively adjusted them for inflation, in essence more than doubling the contribution limits of individuals--is an improvement over the original bill language, it is still a departure from what I believe to be the correct approach. I believe this difference is critical to effective and meaningful reform. The proposed contribution levels create the perception that if you ban together with a group of like-minded citizens in a constitutionally protected effort to exercise your free speech rights, your voice is still a little bit more valuable, more weighted so to speak, than if you are simply an individual acting on that right. I assert that everyone's rights should be equal. I would point out that last week, I asked the Rules Committee to make in order an amendment to the Campaign Finance Reform Act to change the original retroactive indexing to prospective indexing, thereby keeping the $1,000 equalization in place, but allowing for inflation adjustments to occur only from 1996 forward. While that request was denied, I credit Chairman Thomas for being willing to take a second look at this provision to clean up the indexing portion of the proposal. There have been in recent years instances of extremely wealthy candidates saturating their own campaigns with personal funds, creating an immense advantage over their opponents or keeping worthy challengers out of a race because of their inability to complete with personal funds. While some people are concerned about the amount of money being spent in campaigns, right now in our country more money is spent on the advertising of yogurt in a single election year than on all Federal races combined. I believe it is critically important to present the issues necessary to the discussion of who governs our Nation. And such a presentation requires money to buy brochures and printing and television or radio time. In my view, however, the leveling of the playing field is the critical issue. The Campaign Finance Reform Act as originally reported provides special rules for candidates in an election when one of those candidates injects large amounts of personal wealth into the campaign. In the primary election for example, if $150,000 in personal wealth is spent, the bill raises individual contribution limits and lifts in- district fundraising rules for all candidates up to the amount spent. In the general election, if between $2,500 and $150,000 in personal wealth is spent, the bill allows political parties to contribute to the opponent a matching amount. And if over $150,000 in personal wealth is spent, the bill allows political parties to contribute matching dollars and also raises the individual contribution limits and in-district fundraising requirements. An amendment I proposed would have lowered the triggering threshold to $50,000 in both the primary and general elections; $150,000 in personal wealth could be enough to secure a primary victory. That is why I believe the triggering limit is too generous, and why I sought to lower it. One aspect of my own proposal would have offered incentives for individuals to become personally involved in the political process. By restoring the $100 per person tax deduction--$200 for joint returns--we would encourage citizens to contribute local dollars to candidates for State or Federal office, and thereby broaden the contribution base of a candidate. After witnessing the political process from the perspective of a private citizen, a State party chairman, a candidate for public office, and a Federal representative, I have no doubt that reform of the current system of financing campaigns is appropriate and necessary. My certainty in this regard hovers around several tenets of reform. The first is fairness. We should create fairness by equalizing the amount groups of like-minded individuals may contribute with what individuals may give to a candidate. We should ensure strictly voluntary participation in the political process, so that American workers are not unfairly forced to finance a political agenda with which they may adamantly disagree. The second principle is accountability. We must encourage Members of Congress to be more accountable to their constituents, not political committees, by requiring candidates, to raise the majority of their funds in-State and in-district. Integrity is the third aspect, enhanced through the promotion of fair competition between incumbents and challengers by, for example, restricting the use of official mail--franking--allowances, and disallowing the bipartisan habit of fundraising while Congress is conducting legislative business. Finally, other reform is long overdue, such as the restoration of a $100 income tax deduction to taxpayers who participate in the political process. Mr. Chairman, as we endeavor to restore the public's faith in the campaign finance system, the campaign process in this country simply must retain the ability to encourage good candidates to pursue public service. Elections for office must be competitive and characterized at all times by integrity. The Campaign Finance Reform Act has been a product of several hearings and a lively, yearlong discussion of the issue and is a first step toward that end. While a far from perfect bill, it makes a bold step in the right direction and provides an excellent starting point for serious and meaningful negotiations with our colleagues in the other body. This will be a process I will continue to pursue during the remainder of the 104th Congress and through Congresses to come. The American people deserve no less.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am very pleased today to see us moving toward bipartisanship on welfare. We are all very concerned about solving this major problem. Many of us here on the House floor who have worked on this issue month after month, and some people year after year, are worried about what the current system of welfare has done to children. I do want to reassure the gentlewoman from Florida that we have indeed built flexibility into this system, this new bipartisan proposal that will take care of children, that they will not suffer at the end of 5 years, that there is a 25-percent exemption number there, that money can be shifted from child care from title XX to take care of those children, and they can be transferred within the block grants, and that there are other State sources that may be used to support the children after 5 years as well. But I continue to be very pleased to see how much emphasis both sides of the aisle are putting on the issues that are most important to me in this bill, the issues of child care and child support. In the original welfare bill, we were very thoughtful in how we addressed child care. We took a great deal of time to work with the governors of the States, the Members on both sides of the aisle, the administration, to develop a plan that would fund child care at a level that would be far better than what exists in the current system today. So at this point we are something around $4.5 billion more than the current welfare program provides to the States for child care, including their funding, and $2 billion more than the President originally asked for, and I think this is an appropriate level and shows the concern that we have for those mothers on AFDC who are wishing to get off welfare and into the work force. We have talked to these women and we have figured out that this is the most important piece of this whole legislation that allows them the peace of mind they need to make this transfer. Child support is critically important. We spent a lot of time, there has been a lot of work that has gone into the child support issue, the issue of deadbeat parents, 30 percent of whom leave the States, Mr. Speaker, to avoid paying child support. We have provided a nationwide information service here that will allow States to find those deadbeat parents, and I must say that today in our Nation, $34 billion is owed in court-ordered child support to custodial parents. When it is not paid, those kids go on welfare and the taxpayers become the parent. So I am here today to commend both sides of the aisle to support the Sabo motion to instruct and to urge my colleagues to continue the bipartisan approach to welfare that I hope will continue right through to the signing by the President in the White House.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time to me. I am very alarmed at the misinformation I have heard last evening and today coming out on the issue of child care. I want to set something straight. In the Republican bill, the bill that we are debating and voting on today, in fact, we have been told by the people who make these estimates that we need, in child care, $16 billion to perform the duties that are outlined in the bill. We have, in fact, in the Republican bill provided $23 billion. Madam Chairman, I just want to say in my book of mathematics, that leaves $7 billion aside that can be helped to ease working mothers off AFDC into the working world. In addition, Madam Chairman, that is $4.5 billion more than is in the current child care portion of the welfare bill. It is also very important, as it is also $2 billion more than the President has in his own legislation.

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am involved in this debate on welfare because I believe that the current welfare system and what it does to children, and families is a crime. The system is cruel, it is broken, and it needs to be fixed. For the third time today, Madam Chairman, we are going to vote to send to the President a welfare bill so he can keep his promise that he made in his campaign to reform welfare. It is a clean bill and it protects children. It is based on three principles: One, that welfare should not be a way of life; that these poor children, some of whom never have a working role model in their lives, will not be put in that position ever, ever again. It is also based on the second principle of returning flexibility to the States; and, third, it is based on the principle that if Government is going to provide incentives in our lives, that the incentive in welfare should be to encourage personal responsibility in our citizens. Today I want to focus on one thing that is probably the most important thing in this whole debate, and that is the children. Back home in Washington State women tell me, ``Jennifer, my child support is the sole difference between making ends meet and going on welfare.'' On behalf of these women, we have a responsibility to make sure that deadbeat parents pay their child support to their own flesh and blood children. Today in this Nation, Madam Chairman, $34 billion is owed by parents who have left their children's home to custodial parents. Thirty percent of these people leave the State in order to avoid that responsibility. I think it is outrageous. The tools this bill provides give us the way to track those deadbeat parents down. I know what it is like to raise children as a single parent. I have done that. I worried about money, and I worried about child care. I worried about how you fit a full-time job around the responsibilities of my own children's needs. It is hard enough in my case, Madam Chairman, where I did receive support. I cannot imagine what it would be like when a parent did not receive that support. It is the mothers and the children that we have included in these provisions. As far as I am concerned, Madam Chairman, the President needs to sign this bill for the sake of our children.

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Madam Chairman, Democrats have been arguing today that noncitizens are less likely to receive welfare than citizens, but the leading scholar in this area, whose name is George Borjas of the Kennedy School, says just the opposite. We have a chart here that I would like Members to look at. These numbers are percentages of households receiving welfare programs. The first line says ``Aid to Families with Dependent Children,'' our AFDC program. 4.4 percent of immigrant households receive this kind of aid, as opposed to 2.9 percent of folks who are citizens of the United States, and the chart continues. In short, Madam Chairman, I just want to say that there is simply no question that some Members are today on this floor spreading misinformation. Welfare for noncitizens has gotten out of hand. We have an opportunity through this legislation to change that. Madam Chairman, I would say, too, that America is a generous country. We welcome legal immigrants into this Nation, as long as they are here because they want to take advantage of a nation of opportunity. But we can no longer ask our citizens who work for a living to support people who are not citizens of the United States.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Madam Chairman, I commend all the people who have been active in this debate on welfare. It has been a tough long haul. We have produced two very good bills, sent them to the President. He has vetoed both of them. We are working now to put together a bill that he will sign, and I certainly understand and appreciate the concern and the compassion of all the folks who have been involved. I like this alternative bill, but I simply believe that our original welfare bill is far better balanced and has looked at every issue with a better eye. There are three areas where I am a bit concerned, Madam Chairman, about the lay of the land on the substitute bill. First of all, it reduces earned income tax credit payments to low- income families by over $3 billion over our original bill. I am concerned about that. I think that we have been far more careful in revising the EITC and that this cuts it too much for working families. Second, this substitute continues welfare after 5 years. There needs to be an end to welfare. Sixty months is enough in most cases, and as we continue food stamps and as we continue Medicaid, I believe 5 years is enough and that the voucher system is not a good part of the substitute bill. Last, this substitute provides about $12 billion in extra welfare for noncitizens. Madam Chairman, Americans are generous people. We have opened our arms to people from all over the world as long as they come to this Nation realizing it is a Nation of opportunity, not a Nation where we lean on the Government. We have in our original bill tightened the sponsor agreements. I believe that it is very, very bad to provide welfare to able-bodied noncitizens. I urge a vote against this substitute.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I come from the Nation's most trade-dependent State, so the question of United States-China trade is crucial to the people I represent in Congress. In fact, Washington State ranks first among all 50 States in exports to China. Contrary to what opponents of MFN suggest--trade with China does promote change. U.S. trade and investment teach the skills of free enterprise that are fundamental to a free society. Washington State exports a number of U.S. products, from aircraft to software. And every single airplane and every single CD carries with them the seeds of change. These products serve to further unleash the free-market desires of the Chinese people. And I am certain that everyone of my colleagues would agree that it is in our national interest to move China toward a free market. At the same time, we must make clear to the Chinese that their participation in the world economy and in international security arrangements can come about only with concrete evidence that China is abiding by norms of international behavior. Let me be clear: disengagement will not help us improve our relationship with China. I suspect that my colleagues who oppose MFN would have had a difficult time suggesting that disengagement would have been the better course of action in addressing intellectual property piracy in China. In fact, it was only through engagement that we have been so successful on this front. I propose that we use the following criteria to find the answer on difficult MFN cases like China's. We should extend normal trade status, or MFN, to a nation if: it allows U.S. investors and operators in; the rule of law is advancing; a multilateral action is unattainable; or we have that nation's assistance on a critical geopolitical issue. Conversely, we should deny normal trade status to governments abusing their people if: a multilateral action is doable; they will not help the United States on other geopolitical issues; they do not allow U.S. employers in; and they do not respect the rule of law. Indeed, I would go one step further by stating that the burden of proof is on those who deny normal trade status with China. They must prove that an act of protest--such as denying to China normal trade status--would demonstrably improve the human rights situation in China, or how it would address grinding poverty or lessen religious persecution. The only thing we know for certain is that an act of protest such as denying MFN would increase unemployment and suffering in the United States and result in a tremendous setback in our bilateral relationship with China. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution of disapproval.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Madam Speaker, when women back home in my district talk to me about what Congress is doing these days, I tell them that Congress is dealing with the very problems that women are concerned about. Well, what is it that we women care about? We want opportunity for ourselves and our families. We want some sense that there will be a retirement system we can count on. We want personal safety. We want health care security. We want a homemaker IRA because we know that the work that is done inside the home is every bit as important, if not more important, than that work done outside the home. I have found that my friends at home care about the very same things that this Republican Congress does, helping families keep more of their paychecks so they can decide how to do more for their children in their communities; saving Medicare for our parents and encouraging local answers as we solve the major problems of crime and education and protecting the environment. Madam Speaker, our solutions are not complicated and they do not require congressional studies. I have found if I listen to the American woman and respect her advice, the answers are all there.

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 H.R. 2754 as approved by the Committee on Ways and Means, and to commend the chairman of the committee and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] for their steadfast work in securing enactment of this historic agreement. Unfortunately, in spite of their efforts, some individuals argue that no agreement is better than this agreement. In reality, if the Bateman amendment is adopted, that is exactly what we would have: No agreement. To all those people, I say, take off your blinders and recognize that, embodied in this agreement, is our best chance to revitalize our domestic industry. For years we have witnessed the continued decline of the U.S. shipbuilding industry at the hands of massive foreign subsidization. The remaining American commercial shipbuilders have become the most efficient in the world. Yet no amount of belt- tightening could ever overcome the enormous subsidy margins provided by their foreign competitors. Over the past several years, many have expressed frustration with the negotiating of this agreement. I must say that while the road to this final agreement has been extremely difficult, I am confident that this agreement provides our domestic shipbuilders with the best opportunity to compete in a fair world market. If Members believe they are helping our domestic shipbuilding industry by voting for the Bateman amendment, let me tell the Members, I believe they are wrong. Our failure to pass this measure as approved by the Committee on Ways and Means will likely spur existing subsidies by our foreign competitors to record levels, and this would certainly be the final and fatal blow to our domestic shipbuilding industry. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Bateman amendment and adopt this historic and sound international agreement.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, last week the White House rapid response team got another one wrong. Clinton adviser George Stephanopolous actually said that the administration opposed the Republican bill in Congress because it cuts too deeply into child care. ``We've been willing to have flexibility,'' he said, ``but we cannot agree to cuts in child care.'' Mr. Speaker, are Republicans cutting child care? Well, to borrow a phrase from John McLaughlin: wrong. Let us talk reality. The current Republican welfare plan based on the bipartisan Governors' proposal calls for $4.5 billion more in mandatory and discretionary child care spending than the Clinton plan. Here is the bottom line, Mr. Speaker: Republicans provide more funding for child care in our welfare plan than does the President in his, and making up excuses to oppose welfare reform does not help a single child escape the welfare trap and does not provide a single mother the help she needs to find a job. President Clinton is in dire need of sensitivity training for hiring a pollster who also is employed by an accused rapist. Mr. Speaker, while we are signing up Clinton administration officials in classes, someone should enroll George in remedial math.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to adjust the boundary of the Snoqualmie National Forest to allow private lands owned by the Weyerhaeuser Co. located next to the Snoqualmie National Forest to become a part of the National Forest. This boundary adjustment will facilitate a land exchange which involves approximately 7,200 acres of National Forest land and 33,000 acres of private land owned by the Weyerhaeuser Co., of which about 6,278 are outside the present boundary of the Snoqualmie National Forest. This boundary adjustment is known as the Huckleberry Land Exchange. This landmark agreement has been several years in the making and was brought about by a collaborative and cooperative effort between the Sierra Club's Checkerboard Project and the Weyerhaeuser Co. The Huckleberry Land Exchange includes acreage that is west of the Cascade Crest in King and Pierce Counties and will add a substantial donation of land by Weyerhaeuser into the national Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area. By entering into this cooperative agreement with the Sierra Club's Checkerboard Project, the public will benefit from a substantial donation of land. This donation will be one of only a few added this year into our Nation's wilderness areas. By consolidating ownership, an additional connecting corridor of wildlife habitat between the Alpine Lakes Wilderness and the Mount Si Conservation Area will be created. Also, we will be able to add substantial acreage to the I-90 viewshed-- the area visible to the public from I-90--to support the objectives of the Mountain to Sound Greenway Trust. The Trust is a nonprofit organization whose sole purpose is to create and permanently protect a multipurpose greenway along Interstate-90 from the foothills of the Cascade Mountains across Snoqualmie Pass to Puget Sound. To accomplish the land exchange through the administrative process, an Environmental Impact Statement must be completed. This document is expected to be published at the end of May. After the public comment period, a final Environmental Impact Statement will be released. In order to give the Forest Service authority to administer the exchange area, introduction and passage of congressional boundary modification legislation is necessary in 1996. The Huckleberry Land Exchange is a win-win proposal that enhances both parties land ownership patterns administratively and environmentally. By consolidating ownership the Forest Service will be able to implement a more effective ecosystem-based management that will allow for wetland protection and long-term protection for wildlife. It is of importance to note that the land acquired by Weyerhaeuser will be managed for long-term timber production, and will include specific measures to protect water quality, aesthetics, and other resources as required by the Washington State Forest Practices Act and beyond. Mr. Speaker, this land exchange is a text book example of how land disputes can be resolved between parties that are willing to look for areas of agreement rather than differences. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Resources Committee to bring this measure to the whole House for passage this session.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, last week 10 Republican Members of the Congress wrote to President Clinton to express our outrage over the fact that his top political adviser, Dick Morris, has been assisting in the defense team of Alex Kelly, an accused rapist who fled the country for 8 years rather than face charges of brutally raping two teenage girls. Kelly, who is a convicted thief on probation for nine burglaries, allegedly threatened to kill the girls if they reported the rapes. In our letter to the President, we said there has been a lot of tough talk, Mr. President, from your administration on the issue of crime. But actions speak louder than words. Given Mr. Morris' insensitivity to women's concerns about rape and violent crime and his lack of ethical judgment, we call on you to dismiss him immediately. The White House, which has failed yet to take any action on this matter, now admits that the President himself knew about Morris' testimony, testimony on behalf of the rapist, but tolerated it. Mr. President, we call on you to dismiss Dick Morris. Do something good for the women of this Nation.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about welfare spending. Welfare spending is so huge it is tough to comprehend. One way to put it, though, is this. On average the cost of the welfare system amounted to $3,300 for each household that paid Federal income tax in the year 1993. That means the first $3,300 of taxes from that household went into the welfare system black hole. I am sorry, but that is a lot of money for a Federal bureaucracy that has simply failed every American. Mr. Chairman, some studies show that for every dollar that is spent in the current welfare system, 70 cents of that dollar is wasted on the Federal Government bureaucracy. That is not compassion, I would argue. The money in our Federal welfare system needs to go to those folks who really need it, not a bureaucrat inside the beltway. Let us talk a moment about compassion, because many of the liberal Members seem to have a distorted sense of what that term means when it comes to our Nation's failed welfare policies. More taxes do not equal more compassion. Is it compassionate to continue with the status quo that for the last three generations has only served to strip women and children of their dignity? I do not think so. Is it compassionate to prolong a system that encourages destructive behavior and greater illegitimacy plus little incentive to go to work? I do not think so. Is it compassionate to maintain a system that traps so many children in such a poor environment that it exposes them to higher rates of domestic abuse, higher rates of violent crime, and inadequate educational opportunities, so that some children never during the course of their lifetime have within their family a role model who holds a job? I do not think so. Republicans say no. In fact, our current welfare system is anything but compassionate in reality. It is destructive. Most Americans on welfare want to go to work, but as long as the Government offers them a better deal to stay dependent and makes it tougher to move off welfare, many of them will stay on welfare. That is not compassionate. Our proposal will bypass this outdated bureaucracy at the Federal level and it will funnel money more directly to the people who so desperately need it. Our proposal will shift the Government's current destructive incentives to incentives that promote marriage and work. And our proposal will remove the Federal Government as a surrogate parent and enable people to take personal responsibility for their lives. Republicans want to help people break the cycle of poverty that holds down families and children of America. That is compassion. I encourage my colleagues to vote down the blue dog budget and to vote for the Republican budget that funds $6 million in child care, that goes after deadbeat parents, and that sends our welfare tax dollars back to the States and to the people who need it.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

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

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to switch the discussion to welfare, because welfare reform is included in this balanced budget resolution. During the past 30 years, the Federal Government has spent more than $5 trillion on welfare programs intended to alleviate poverty, but the problem is getting worse, not better. The system is getting more and more cruel. Today one American child in seven is raised on welfare. That is what this budget debate is all about: the children and their families. The current welfare system encourages a life of dependency and weak families, and that has a devastatingly negative effect on a child's development. Every one of us feels sick when we read in the paper, we see on television the real life stories of how the current welfare system has failed. Think of this: 19 children found together in a cold, dark Chicago apartment. Police found them sharing a bone with the family dog for food. Or the Boston family that has 14 out of its 17 adult children now living on welfare, right now, and receiving close to $1 million a year from taxpayers. Our solutions are focused on promoting families and work, moving families into the work force and off welfare is the only way to break this cycle of dependency. Most Americans on welfare want to work, but, sadly, our Government offers them a better short-run deal to stay dependent. To make our approach work, the amount of time someone stays on welfare must be limited. Our bill does that. The President says he supports a 5-year time limit on cash welfare benefits, but he includes so many exemptions that the current welfare system would no be significantly changed. Furthermore, under the President's plan, recipients are guaranteed noncash benefits forever. We understand that families, especially mothers, need a helping hand in moving from welfare to work. That is why we provide over $6 billion in additional child care assistance over what is currently contained in the current welfare system. This gives parents the peace of mind to go off welfare into the work force. We also understand that children are hurt when our system fails so pitifully in enforcing court-ordered child support. Right now today, $34 billion are owed in court-ordered child support not being paid to custodial parents from these children's own parents. Our program finds a way to locate those dollars, especially those deadbeat parents who move out of the State to avoid supporting their flesh and blood children. Mr. Chairman, what is at stake is real welfare reform. Imagine what our country will look like in 5 years if we do not pass it. The system continues to hold millions of poor families in its grip. The problem is not the people who are involved. The problem is the failed process. The President recently asked for a welfare bill with personal responsibility, work and family. We give it to him. Sign this balanced budget proposal, Mr. President.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I join with Mr. Bilbray as an original cosponsor of H.R. 3203, H.R. 3204, and H.R. 3205, legislation that would begin to reform the appeals process for injured Federal workers; require the administrative agency responsible for adjudicating claims select physicians that are impartial; and require that physicians who have been certified by a board of medical specialties be selected to provide for second opinions for these claims. This legislation would create a much needed timeframe for the decisionmaking process for a workers compensation claim. This legislation would require that the initial decision made by the Secretary of Labor regarding any claim filed by a Federal employee be made within 90 days of the filing of said claim. If for some reason, a decision regarding compensation is not reached within 90 days, the claimant would be given full and normal salary payment until a decision is reached. These measures would specify that an employee filing an injured workers claim must submit to an actual physical examination by a physician designated or approved by the Secretary of Labor or his designee when ordered by an administrative law judge. When surgery is required, a second opinion would be required except in life-threatening situations. If there is any reason for disagreement between the physician for the Secretary of Labor and the claimant's physician, a list of three physicians of the appropriate board certified specialty would be given to the claimant to choose from, and a final exam would be conducted to reach closure on any medical and legal issues. All information would be shared with the claimants physician. The fees set for this process would be set by the Secretary of Labor and would be the same as those allowed to the claimant's physician. All medical bills shall be paid within 60 days of billing, except during the initial claims process and in that case within 60 days of acceptance of the claim. Further, it would be required that if a claimant is not satisfied with the initial decision regarding his claim he/she may request an oral hearing within 180 days of the date of the initial decision. Under this legislation, once the hearing request has been filed, a hearing must take place within 90 days of the date requested. Any decisions regarding the issues being appealed would have to be rendered within 30 days of the hearing or benefits shall be reinstated if denied. When conducting a hearing the claimant would be able to cross examine all witnesses and present any evidence they feel necessary for consideration of the claim. If the claimant prevails in the appeal, their attorney or representative would receive 15 percent of the benefits awarded to the claimant. In a case in which vocational rehabilitation is required, the Secretary would provide these services to any permanently disabled claimant who requests them or whose physician requests them. The claimant would be able to choose the vocational service provider and, Federal employees would be given first priority of placement to injured Federal workers positions commensurate with their pay at the time of their injury and disability. Mr. Speaker, these legislative changes will bring about much needed reform in the way Federal worker's injury claims are handled. I look forward to working with Mr. Bilbray in bringing this measure before the whole House of Representatives as soon as possible.