Jennifer Dunn

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, quite frankly H.R. 2137 must be enacted immediately. We must not delay one day longer. My struggle to strengthen the laws to protect victims and communities from sexually violent predators started in the 103d Congress when Senator Gorton and I began work on including Washington State's sexual predator law into the 1994 crime bill. The tragic and highly publicized 1994 rape and murder of 7-year-Megan Kanka in New Jersey, the victim of a released sexual predator, unfortunately became the impetus for including sexual predator language in the 1994 crime bill. With Senator Gorton's help, Mr. Zimmer and I were able to convince conferees to the crime bill to include community notification and registration of sexually violent predators. Since the 1994 crime law enactment, many States have developed tracking programs that require convicted sexual predators to register with the local law enforcement agencies upon release and allow officials to notify local communities of their presence. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is time that we take this good law one step farther before we are shocked once again to hear of a needless death or crime committed by a violent sexual offender. Currently, communities may or may not be aware of a predator in their midst. That is wrong. We must alert the citizens when repeat sexually violent predators are in the area. H.R. 2137 will accomplish that by changing community notification from an option to a requirement. Wouldn't you and your family like to know when a potential predator has moved in next door so that adequate steps could be taken to protect your family? American women and families deserve no less. Every time we hear of a crime committed by a sexual predator we feel fear and terror in the possibility that our own personal safety--or that of a loved one--is at risk. Our daily routine is monopolized by tension and anxiety: walking to our cars, sending our children off to school, or locking up the house at night. Of course, women feel the brunt of this anxiety because women are the targets of most repeat sexual predators. Nobody should have to live in fear. Congress can and must help target the crimes that cause us the worst fear. We can and must pass a law that will require notifying a community when a sexually violent predator has moved into the neighborhood. And we must pass it now. Empowering families, women, and children with the knowledge that a potential threat is looming in their community enables them to take the necessary precautions to ensure that there are not second, third, or fourth victims. Communities must be forewarned when a sexual predator has moved in next door. That is why I support swift passage of H.R. 2137, a bill that will require law enforcement to notify communities of a sexual predator's presence. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, today the 104th Congress will vote to end big government. By the end of the day today, we will have saved taxpayers $43 billion over the length of the 104th Congress, the largest single cut in government spending since World War II. Translation: $688 for a family of four. With passage of today's legislation, this Congress will end over 200 programs, more than 100 in Labor, Health and Human Services alone, $12 million on a tick eradication program for cattle in Puerto Rico, and $14 million for the U.S. Travel and Tourism Association. The bill strengthens priority programs that our constituents said are important to them: An additional $400 million for veterans medical benefits, support for our troops in Bosnia, and antiterrorism programs in Israel. This bill does not just put the brakes on runaway Federal spending, it reverses it. Finally America's values have triumphed over Washington, DC, values. This truly is a historic day.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2715 and would like to thank the gentlewoman from Kansas, Chairman Meyers, and the gentleman from Massachusetts, Chairman Torkildsen, for their steadfast work on this legislation. The Paperwork Elimination Act is excellent legislation, and the efforts of the committee are to be commended. This bill is a streamlining government bill, and my original intent was to offer a pro-small business friendly amendment to this legislation. After being informed, however, that the amendment would be opposed by the minority on technical grounds, I have decided to withdraw the amendment, with the intent of proposing it as part of some future legislation. I do, however, want to explain the rationale for the amendment. Quite simply, the language I intended to offer requires that in-House agency printing of Government information be limited to certain levels so as to allow for agency convenience. Meanwhile, however, it ensures that larger nonclassified jobs are outsourced to the private sector for maximum savings to the taxpayer. Under my proposal, in-House convenience would be a limit of 1,000 units, or sheets of paper, or for a multipage document up to 5,000 sheets of paper. The current regulatory limit is 5,000 and 25,000, but clearly this limit is much too high. There is no question, for example, that a job requiring 50 reams of paper is a job a local printer can do for less than the Government Printing Office. Mr. Chairman, so you can see that my amendment was intended to act in unison and as a complement toward the goal of H.R. 2715, which is streamlining Government. My amendment is pro-small business. Most private printers are the mom and pop types of shops that all of us have in our own districts. If we insist that the Federal Government send its work out for a competitive bid, all of those small businesses will have an opportunity to bid on this work and drive down the cost to the taxpayer in the process. The beauty of it is it is the small business community who would have benefited most, small businesses and the American taxpayer. Of course, with more work going to the private sector, small businesses may have the need to step up their work force to meet the increased demand, thereby making this a worker-friendly amendment as well. My amendment is highly taxpayer friendly. The Government Printing Office has an outstanding procurement office with a proven record of purchasing printing more cheaply from the private sector than can be done by the Federal Government. The agencies are not fully availing themselves of this service, and that is the heart of this issue. My amendment would save the taxpayers precious resources at a time when every dollar counts. This amendment is efficiency in Government. The amendment makes Government smaller by streamlining printing operations. How many print shops do we need in the Federal Government, Mr. Chairman? Certainly not one in every Federal agency. In the President's own words from a statement dated July 22, 1994, he says ``Reform legislation can improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of Government printing by maximizing the use of the private sector printing capability through open competitive procedures and by limiting Government-owned printing resources to those necessary to maintain a minimum core capacity.'' In explanation of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, we visited this issue before, and I would add under Democratic leadership. Section 207 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 1995 reaffirms congressional intent that the GPO, and the GPO only, is the sole source of procurement of printing, including duplicating, for the entire Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, as we look for ways to decrease the paperwork burden generated by the Federal Government, we must look at both the unnecessary paperwork it demands, as well as the unnecessary paperwork it does. As you might say, there are two sides to the paper, especially when the paper generated within the Federal Government is costing taxpayers millions more than they should be paying. A preliminary CBO score of this provision which I have revised from legislation that I introduced earlier in this Congress indicates a savings to the taxpayer of around $150 million per year. I would have hoped my colleagues might have supported my amendment on this basis, and because it is pro-small business, protaxpayer, prostreamlining Government. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the adoption of my amendment in some future legislation, and I urge the support of the Paperwork Elimination Act.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about Medicare. Yesterday the Treasury Department reported a new and totally unexpected $4.2 billion shortfall in the Medicare trust fund during the first half of the current fiscal year. Just a year ago, this very same fund had projected a surplus of $45 million for fiscal year 1996. My parents, the Blackburns in Bellevue, WA, probably did not read that news story, but it is critically important to them because they, like millions of others, count on the Medicare system being solvent. More than a year ago President Clinton's Medicare trustees, including three members of his own Cabinet, warned that Medicare would be bankrupt by 2002 if no changes were made. Yet the President did nothing to change it. He offered no long-term solutions and he offered no leadership. In fact, all he offered was election year scare tactics designed to frighten senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Congressional Republicans in response to people like my parents have offered leadership. We want to save benefits for our seniors and save the Medicare trust fund, and we want to do it now while it is still possible.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this morning's New York Times carried a disturbing report that I believe deserves notice. The banner reads ``New Medicare Trust Fund Data Show Unusually Large Shortfall.'' Mr. Speaker, the article says the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund lost $4.2 billion in the first half of the current fiscal year, since the first of October, which suggests that the financial condition of this program is even worse than what was projected by the administration last year. During all of fiscal year 1995 the Medicare trust fund lost $35.7 million, when it should have been a surplus. But now, just in the first half of this year, Medicare has lost over $4 billion. Last year Bill Clinton vetoed the Congress' Medicare Preservation Act, which would have reformed Medicare. The issue is clear, Mr. Speaker. Liberals would rather sit back and do nothing to save Medicare and then demonize conservatives for their good faith effort to deal with the problem. I think it is outrageous that the other party would risk our parents and grandparents to score political points.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to pay tribute to Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown and the 32 other Americans who lost their lives when their plane crash near Dubrovnik, Croatia, on April 3, 1996. Throughout his tenure as Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown successfully worked on behalf of American companies and their workers in opening doors to the global market. For many companies in my home State of Washington, Secretary Brown was instrumental in promoting our products and cultivating new and/or improved business relationships with our international neighbors. The most important role of any Commerce Secretary is the promotion of American companies and the workers they employ. Ron Brown will forever be remembered as being a success at this task. The people who died aboard that plane gave the ultimate sacrifice in the name of democracy and a global free market. Prosperity and economic hope are essential in bringing long-term peace and security to that region of the world. Ron Brown and the other individuals on that plane knew this and recognized their role in spreading our Nation's democratic and free-market beliefs around the globe. My heart goes out to each and every family member of those who died in that tragic crash. In this time of great sadness, these families should know that as Americans their loved ones will be missed, as patriots they will never be forgotten.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2337, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II and urge its adoption. All too often ``tax fairness'' usually refers almost solely to whether Government is seizing the right amount of money from different economic classes--not how the tax collectors are treating the individual citizen. Under U.S. law, Americans are innocent until proven guilty. Yet, when an individual taxpayer deals with the IRS, the taxpayer is guilty until he or she proves their innocence. Over the past few months, I have heard from literally hundreds of constituents who have described to me numerous problems they see with our system of taxation. A common theme has been the intrusive nature of the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] and the enormous compliance burdens imposed on individuals. This measure gives taxpayers a helping hand if they find themselves at odds with the IRS. The American taxpayer will be empowered with more than 30 protections in dealing with the IRS. In addition to these protections, I will continue to work for the inclusion of an additional provision in the final version of this legislation that I have been working on within the Ways and Means Committee. Specifically, the bipartisan provision, which I am sponsoring along with my colleague, Mr. Matsui, would permit ``equitable tolling'' application in tax refund cases. My interest in this area was precipitated by a highly publicized court case in which a 93-year-old senile man, Stanley McGill, overpaid his taxes in 1984. After Mr. McGill's death in 1988, Marian Brockamp found her late father's canceled check to the IRS in a pile of receipts. In fact, Mr. McGill owed the IRS $700--not $7,000. Mrs. Brockamp asked the IRS for a refund. Although the agency acknowledged the mistake, it refused to return the money, claiming the 3-year statue of limitations on refund claims had expired. But Brockamp's attorney argued that the time set aside for suing the Government should be extended under the legal doctrine known as equitable tolling--which is invoked in cases where a taxpayer is disabled. A Federal judge in Los Angeles rejected that argument in 1993, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the lower court in June 1995, calling the IRS refusal unconscionable. The Justice Department has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. This is just one example of an outrageous injustice that my commonsense change of law is intended to end. H.R. 2337, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II, will help the average American, who might have made an honest mistake in underestimating his taxes due by providing him a little more time to prove it was an honest mistake. The new majority in this Congress is working on commonsense ways to give taxpayers a break. In fact, the Taxpayers Bill of Rights II itself is simply a long overdue exercise in common sense. Will Rogers once said, ``Common sense ain't that common.'' Well, like everything else, common sense is making a comeback.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Joint Resolution 159 and urge my colleagues to approve this common sense and responsible measure. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that it is simply too easy to raise taxes. Currently, it is easier to increase taxes than it is to cut them. In 1993, President Clinton and the Democratic-controlled Congress enacted the largest tax increase in the history of our great Nation by a 50- percent-plus-one vote. And that is exactly how it happened. They passed the largest increase in the history of the United States by a one-vote margin. Democrats placed this burden squarely on the backs of the American people. Those tax increases took real money out of the pockets of real American families. In 1995, Republicans worked to reverse the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation. Last fall, we passed and sent to the President a measure that would have included tax reductions to offset the economic burden placed on every American by the 1993 tax increases. Unfortunately, the President vetoed that relief and in order to override the veto and pass tax cuts the Congress needed to achieve a two-thirds majority. It is simply too easy in this country to take more money out of the pockets of the citizens. Simple majority for a tax increase--and two-thirds majority for tax cut. This must stop. This Republican Congress will no longer allow elected officials to take the easy way out. During the past 30 years there have been 16 major votes to increase taxes. Of those 16, only 8 would have passed if the two-thirds majority requirement had been in place. Since 1980, the taxpayers would have saved $666 billion had the tax limitation amendment been in effect. Around the country States have also been forced to reform their spending, and budgeting priorities because of deficit-spending. The most successful method used by States has been some type of tax limitation. One-third of all Americans live in a State with tax limitation in their constitutions. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has learned a number of lessons from the States, and this is no exception. States that have enacted a tax limitation have experienced expanded economies, reduced spending and a better way of life for its citizens. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will at the very least listen to their constituents. The American people support tax limitation. Seventy percent of the American public support amending the Constitution to require a two-thirds vote to raise taxes. The power of the Federal Government to tax is an enormous responsibility. If used unwisely this power will lead to a lower standard of living for all Americans. With enactment of this amendment, no longer will tax increases become the preferred method of dealing with our Nation's finances. Ultimately, this measure will foster good government by forcing us to reevaluate commitments and prioritize spending. I urge my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 159. Mr. McDERMOTT, Mr. Speaker, in the words of Seattle Time's columnist Terry Tang, today's debate is best summed up as ``A Republican Floor Show Only a Cynic Could Love.'' The proposed constitutional amendment is so gravely flawed it should not be debated on the floor of the House of Representatives. Instead of working to finish passages of this year's budget, or work on serious legislation, the Republican leadership has decided to waste valuable legislative time debating a bill they know will never pass. Today's vote is nothing more than a cynical publicity stunt to pander for political votes. Today's vote to amend the Constitution to require a two-thirds vote to raise taxes is a perfect example of Republican legislation which has nothing to do with governing and everything to do with bumper-sticker politics. While these sound-bite tactics play well in campaign ads, they fail the test of serious legislation. When will the Republican Party learn that there is more to legislating than trying to add a campaign slogan to the Constitution? When the Republicans took control of the House in January 1995, one of the first things they did was pass a House rule requiring a three- fifth's vote to pass any legislation that included an increase in income tax rates. The Republicans touted the passage of this rule as a sign of their commitment to not raise taxes on Americans and balance the budget through spending cuts alone. Have the Republicans lived up to their lofty promise not to raise taxes on Americans? The answer is an emphatic ``No.'' On four separate occasions, the Republican leadership brought bills to the House floor for a vote which included increases in income tax rates on working Americans. How do we know for sure that at least four Republican bills included tax increases? Simply because they already have voted to waive their new rule four times in order to ensure passage of their legislation by a simply majority vote, and not the three-fifth's majority vote that their own House rule required. Let me make this clear--the Republicans have ignored their own rule, they have voted on and passed four separate pieces of legislation which increased income tax rates on the American people, in direct contradiction to their widely publicized promise not to raise taxes. The Republicans have clearly not been able to live according to the terms of the House rule they adopted for themselves at the start of this Congress. The Republicans now want all of their minions to march down to the House floor today and ram an amendment through the House without ever taking the time to study what such an amendment might actually mean to the American people. If the American people, and my colleagues across the aisle were to take the time to actually think about this bill, people would clearly see that such an amendment would have significant consequences on our country's future. Passage of this amendment to the Constitution is nothing more than giving Speaker Gingrich another tool to undermine the working men and women of America. This amendment is structured to protect corporate welfare in the Tax Code, reduce spending on education and the environment, weaken Medicare and Medicaid and threaten the future of Social Security. The latest budget proposals put forth by the President and the Republican leadership include provisions which would close corporate tax loopholes in the Tax Code to help reduce the deficit. Yet, the Republican leadership, with this amendment, is signaling to corporate American that they are in the clear from here on out because this amendment would make it almost impossible to close any tax loopholes for deficit reduction. Why? Because the requirement for a two-thirds majority would not only apply to measures to raise taxes, but also to measures to cut unproductive tax expenditures that grant subsidies to select industries. The amendment was drafted this way, despite the fact that a recent CBO study found that over half the corporate subsidies the Federal Government provides are through the Tax Code. Closing tax loopholes is often hard enough by a majority vote requirement--to constitutionally require a two-thirds vote of Congress to do so would be impossible. The Republican party evidently would rather balance the budget on the backs of working men and women than require corporate America to contribute its fair share to deficit reduction. It shouldn't be surprising to anyone to learn that this amendment is biased against average families and the poor. Most Government programs that benefit working Americans, like Social Security, school loans, unemployment insurance and food stamps, to name a few, come from the spending side of the budget. In contrast, wealthy individuals and corporations tend to receive benefits through the Tax Code. Because this amendment makes raising revenue for deficit reduction through the Tax Code very difficult, the wealthy and powerful are more easily able to preserve their Federal Government benefits. Most distressing is that this amendment makes clear that the Republicans have no commitment to preserving Medicare or Social Security for future generations. This amendment would prevent Congress from asking beneficiaries of these programs who have high incomes to pay for more of the Government benefits they receive. The Medicare bill which the Republicans passed, would have increased the Medicare part B premiums for beneficiaries. Under today's amendment, it would not be allowed without a two-thirds vote. Whether raising premiums is necessary or not, Congress needs the flexibility to be able to take actions such as increasing premiums or means testing Social Security benefits if a majority of Representatives think it is necessary for the continued financial integrity of these programs. Amending the Constitution should not be taken lightly. It is disconcerting to know that bills we will be voting on later this evening on the suspension calendar will have undergone substantially more scrutiny than this proposed amendment. Today's amendment has never had a hearing before either the Constitution Subcommittee or the full Judiciary Committee. This legislation has not been marked up nor has a report on this bill been filed. Trying to amend the Constitution of the United States with a Republican Party campaign slogan is irrefutable evidence of how little respect the Republicans have for our Constitution. For any Member to vote for legislation which has undergone so little scrutiny, let alone a constitutional amendment which will affect the lives of every American would be a serious mistake. For this House to vote on such a flawed amendment is a disgrace to the institution and an insult to the Nation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3136, the Contract With American Advancement Act. Over the past 15 months, Republicans have made truly historic efforts to change business as usual here in Washington, DC. Central to those efforts has been our drive to finally put our Nation on a credible path to a balanced budget. Despite the fact that Republicans crafted the first balanced budget since 1969, we have learned that a supposedly revolutionary idea like balancing the budget takes two elections. Despite this setback, we have not given up the fight. Republicans continue to believe that Washington spends too much, taxes too much, and that government is too big. That is why we are doing all we can to reduce spending, reduce taxes, and shrink the size of government. While we may not be able to accomplish as much this year as we had hoped, we are dedicated to doing as much as we can--right now. That brings me to the measure before us today. While we continue to work to keep our promises to the American people for a balanced budget, we must not put the Nation at undue risk. This vote--to authorize the Government to borrow more money by increasing the Nation's debt limit-- is not easy. Congress has twice sent the President a bill that extends the Government's borrowing authority. President Clinton has vetoed both bills. Now Republicans again act to avoid default. Our current debt limit stands at $4.9 trillion. And it is growing everyday. Someone, someday has to pay off this debt. I do not want to leave it to the next generation. We have a responsibility to our children, and to our children's children, to end this pattern of destructive out-of-control spending. Mr. Chairman, $4.9 trillion is a lot of money. To put that figure into perspective I want to share just a few facts. If we were to pay all of the debt off today, a family of four would need to contribute over $72,000 as their share of the debt. A single person's bill would come to just $18,000. Every week we continue to have this debt, that family's personal share of the debt rises by $89. Every month--$383. For most families, this is a monthly car payment which ends in 4 or 5 years. But this is not a car payment, it is our national debt. You keep giving, but you get nothing in return and you continue to pass the tab onto our children. Included in this measure is what I believe to be one of the most important tools necessary to fix our irresponsible spending habits--the line-item veto. To demonstrate how important this tool is, I am willing to give the authority to a President of a different party. To those who say the President will use it for political purposes, I say nonsense. The President currently has veto authority. With line item authority he simply could remove the misguided pork barrel spending without killing the entire bill. It is time we give the President what 43 Governors have: the fiscal responsibility to strike out the pork. The American people clearly are in favor of this provision, as well they should be. With a new debt ceiling of $5.5 trillion, it is time we stop Congress' out of control spending. The bottom line is that we are in far too deeply. Over the past 15 months Republicans have made the difficult choices necessary to reduce the size of the Federal Government, to provide families and employers with badly needed tax relief, and to provide for a balanced budget in 7 years. We are building a path to the future that restores both hope and opportunity for all Americans--from my parents to my children and to their children yet to be born. Our Nation is at a crossroads. There are two competing visions of America's future. We can either adhere to the status quo as the President suggests--which means higher taxes on families, more spending, more debt, fewer jobs, and less opportunity for our children--or we can follow a new responsible course by balancing our Nation's budget, cutting taxes and restoring hope, confidence, opportunity, and prosperity. To be sure, it has not been easy making the tough choices needed to reach a balanced budget. But those are decisions that we have been willing to confront. In no way should today's extension of the debt limit relieve us of this responsibility. To the contrary, we must be more vigilant than ever in bringing our Nation back to a responsible fiscal path. To the next generation--to my own two sons--I say that Republicans are committed to redoubling our efforts to convince the President that enactment of a balanced budget is our single most important responsibility.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act of 1996. This legislation solves the health insurance problems most common among my constituents in Washington State--eliminating job lock and preexisting conditions while keeping the costs of premiums down. A critical component of our efforts to keep the cost of health insurance down is the set of provisions to reduce fraud and abuse in our Nation's health care system. According to the General Accounting Office, each year as much as 10 percent of our Nation's total health care expenditures are lost to fraud and abuse. With annual health care costs in the United States approaching $1 trillion, fraud and abuse is robbing taxpayers and policyholders of about $100 billion each year. Let me repeat that because it is an important fact: fraud and abuse is costing our constituents about $100 billion each year. Despite the enormity of the problem, the GAO concluded that ``only a small fraction of the fraud and abuse committed against the health care system is identified.'' The Department of Health and Human Services has estimated that Medicare and Medicaid programs alone lose as much as $31 billion annually to fraud and abuse. And who pays? Patients, that is who. And in the case of Medicare and Medicaid, taxpayers pay for health care fraud and abuse in the form of higher health care costs and higher premiums. For all these reasons attacking fraud and abuse is an essential component of the measure before us today. For instance, we get tough on fraudulent and unscrupulous suppliers and providers who game the system in order to reap billions of dollars. Through the establishment of the Medicare Integrity Program, we greatly increase Medicare's ability to prevent payments for fraudulent, or erroneous claims, and to identify illegal billing schemes early to avoid large losses. We provide incentives for individual beneficiaries to report fraudulent, abusive, or wasteful claims practices. Under the bill, a Health Care Fraud and Abuse Account with the Federal hospital trust fund is created. Moneys derived from the newly coordinated health care antifraud and abuse programs will be transferred into the trust for the expressed purposes of fighting fraud and abuse. This new funding is vital because there has been a 45-percent drop in per claim spending on Medicare fraud and abuse prevention activities since 1989, despite historic savings rates in excess of $10 for every $1 invested in prevention. Our plan devotes more resources to the fight against fraud and abuse. We also toughen criminal laws and enforcement tools for intentional fraud and abuse. The lack of a specific Federal health care fraud criminal statute, coupled with weak sanctions, has significantly hampered law enforcement's efforts to combat health care fraud. That is why it is so necessary to create this new criminal offense for activities such as theft, embezzlement, false statements, and money laundering. We then provide for mandatory forfeiture of property in such cases. In addition, civil monetary penalties will be substantially increased from $2,000 to $10,000 for each item or service involved. All of these efforts will serve to deter future abuses. Strengthening prevention, increased funding for the battle against fraud and abuse, better coordination and enforcement, new criminal fraud statutes--all of these are included in this bill. I urge my colleagues to support our effort to end this annual $100 billion rip- off of taxpayers by supporting the bill.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, today I want to express my strong support of the Balanced Budget Downpayment Act II and to urge the President to sign this legislation as soon as it comes before him. This legislation makes a critical and significant downpayment toward finally achieving a balanced budget. Additionally, the bill includes emergency funds that Washington State needs in the worst way. In December of 1995 and again in February of 1996 the Pacific Northwest was hit by devastating floods. Roads and bridges and homes that were constructed above the 100-year flood plain were totally washed out. Many of our residents living in both rural and urban areas had their lives shattered. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration called the November storm the ``most significant storm affecting the Western United States during 1995'' and compared it to the Columbus Day storm of October of 1962, which was the most destructive wind storm to ever hit the Pacific Northwest. While Federal Emergency Management Agency in conjunction with other agencies was scrambling trying to help counties, States, businesses, and individuals put their lives back together after the December storm, Mother Nature dealt us another devastating blow in February. Washington State's office of Financial Management has stated that the February storm will go down in history as the State's costliest. Preliminary figures estimate $319 million in uninsured and underinsured damage. The President toured both Washington and Oregon immediately after the worst storm damage had occurred and immediately promised his full support for maximum aid for our beleaguered region. I urge the President to not back out of his commitment to the people of Washington State--he must sign this bill. Mr. Chairman, this bill includes almost $1 billion dollars in natural disaster assistance--exactly as the President requested. I urge my colleagues and the President to support this legislation and expedite the help needed to the communities in the Pacific Northwest.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am relieved and gratified that the Senate and the House have finally agreed on a proposal that will end welfare as we know it. I believe everybody in this body would agree that the cruelest thing of all, Mr. Speaker, is to limit the ability of poor women to seek gainful work and condemn those women and their children to a life of hopelessness and dependence, where often in their child's life there is never a strong role model, a parent who works and provides for the family. Nowhere is there a better example of where the current system has failed the family than in the area of child support. Mr. Speaker, today in our Nation $34 billion is owed in back child support, court-ordered child support by deadbeat parents who have walked out on their families. The new child support provisions in this bill are the toughest ever passed by Congress. Under our bill, States will finally receive the assistance they need to track down deadbeat parents, especially the 30 percent who leave the State to escape their responsibilities. Child support payments can be the difference between forcing a single parent, usually the mother, onto welfare or helping her make it on her own. Our bill helps these custodial parents stay off welfare and provides them the support they are owed so that they can make a better life for themselves and, even more importantly, for their children. Mr. Speaker, now is the time for the President and all our colleagues to stand up for the Nation's custodial parents and their children, and to recognize our efforts to accommodate their concerns so that we truly can ``end welfare as we know it,'' as the President pledged.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 394, I am pleased to lend my support to this bill under suspension of the rules. H.R. 394 will eliminate the so-called source tax, a misguided provision of Federal law which allows States to tax retirement income of nonresidents. The source tax is nothing less than taxation without representation and contradicts a fundamental American principle. Not only is it wrong to allow States to tax the pensions and retirement income of Americans who have moved out of the State, but it is an unfair burden on retirees whose current State also lays claim to the income. I have heard from countless constituents who have relayed their stories of how States across the country extend their arms into the hard-earned pensions of retirees who have moved to Washington State. This is simply unacceptable. Retirees are currently forced to somehow calculate the portion of taxes to be allocated to each State. Simply put, Mr. Chairman, retirees should not be forced to pay taxes to a State in which they no longer reside and no longer vote. I urge my colleagues to end this practice and suspend the rules and pass H.R. 394 to return fairness to taxpayers in Washington State and across the country.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I returned from Bosnia. Even a short visit left me with two powerful reactions. Seeing Sarajevo evoked a strong emotional response. The devastation is indescribable; it is surreal. Anyone seeing that firsthand would want to help end the suffering. The people want peace. My second reaction was analytical. As a Member of Congress, my job is to try to strip away the emotion and ask legitimate questions so I can analyze the President's decision to deploy ground troops. Here is what I found: First, we have no clear mission; second, the expectations of our troops are all over the map, some even expect our troops to be assigned the deadly task of finding 6 million land mines; and third, we still have no exit strategy at all. Mr. Speaker, this is troubling beyond words. Our troops are being placed between warring factions on the unrealistic assumption that peace will suddenly break out in the next 12 months after centuries of fighting. I implore the President, before signing an agreement in Paris, please define the mission, clarify the expectations, and develop a credible exit strategy. It is the least that should be done for the troops we are committing to this impossible task.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Congresswoman Nancy Johnson, and her bipartisan Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for the thoughtful and thorough job that they did, the thorough consideration, and the fact that they threw out 64 of these 65 complaints against our Speaker. I want to be clear also, Mr. Speaker. Ethics charges are serious charges, and they should not be used for partisan purposes. So I am delighted the committee has declared in a unanimous bipartisan report that 64 of the 65 charges are dismissed. And the last charge, which was a matter of tax exempt status for a university, will be observed by an outside adviser. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Democrats are on the wrong side of history. Their ideas have been rejected by the American people and their institutions are the cause of our $5 trillion national debt. The liberalism they have defended for a generation has left a legacy of debt, a culture of dependence and the breakdown of our American families. As they see it, the only hope left to them as a party is to destroy one man's character. It is wrong, it will not work, and the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct report proves it.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This is a wonderful piece of legislation. It has simply taken too long to come to the floor of the House. It is bipartisan. It came out of our Committee on Ways and Means with a vote of 31 to 0, and it is time, in fact, beyond time, that this legislation go into effect. I support this legislation largely because I think it is just plain wrong to penalize our most experienced and dedicated workers for continuing to work and contribute to a better livelihood for themselves and also to a better future for the United States. Seniors across the country want to work beyond age 65 because a fixed Social Security income alone these days often does not provide adequate financial security. I think also the younger people in the workplace gain a lot through the experience of those folks who continue to work. It is good for all of us. Unfortunately, currently the earnings limit discriminates against some of our senior citizens and prevents us from being able to benefit from the talents of millions of experienced professional. The earnings limit punishes seniors after they have earned $11,280 by hitting them with an additional effective tax of 33 percent. It is too long that this has gone on. Now is the time to change it. Mr. Speaker, I do want to make one note about an amendment that was accepted unanimously in the Committee on Ways and Means that is included in this legislation, a provision I offered during our consideration by our committee, that is, in effect, a sunshine amendment. It is designed to help seniors better understand their contributions and benefits under the Social Security system. The lack of information currently provided to seniors simply is unacceptable. My parents and seniors around this country have a desire, a need, and certainly a right to know about the status of their participation in the system, and so the amendment we proposed outlines the total income earned by each senior. Mr. Speaker, the provisions that we have added to this bill that would give further information on Social Security are: The total income earned by the individual receiving benefits, the total Social Security contributions by that individual and separately by that individual's employer, and, finally, the total dollars that have been received back by the beneficiary from Social Security. I think, Mr. Speaker that it will open up a degree of information that has never been available before. It will help people understand what their return is on the current Social Security compared to what they have paid in. Numerous seniors in my district find it ironic that other retirement benefit programs, like mutual funds and IRAs, provide this type of information in writing on a quarterly basis. Our proposal is a study for a period of 2 years with not more than 600,000 recipients. We will see how it works, and I hope continue to provide this and further information. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this proposal. it is, as I said, way beyond its time. It will be good for seniors and good for all of us.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

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

Ms. DUNN of Washington. I thank the gentleman and rise in strong support of the request of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf] that the EPA be required to complete a comprehensive baseline risk assessment at the Tulalip landfill in Washington State. Many of us from Washington State represent constituents who have been severely impacted by EPA's handling of this site. The Senate report language was very clear in its direction the agency, and the chairman's support of this directive is appreciated.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, today we take a historic step in reducing the size of the Federal Government, providing families and employers with badly needed tax relief, and providing for a balanced budget in 7 years. We are building a path to the future that restores both hope and opportunity for all Americans--now and in the future. We are dramatically changing the fiscal direction of our country. From a path of out-of-control growth of Government to a path of sustained expansion of the economy and job creation. Achieving a balanced budget will produce lower interest rates, higher productivity, improved purchasing power for all Americans, more exports and accelerated long-term growth. That will revive the American dream. In addition to reducing Government spending and eliminating the deficit, we are providing incentives for growth of our economy. Two years ago, the Clinton administration imposed the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation, placed squarely on the backs of the American people. Those tax increases took real money out of the pockets of real American families. This budget resolution unlocks the door to a prosperous, deficit-free future. Real incomes will grow faster, long-term interest rates will fall significantly, and Americans can once again look forward to their children doing better than they. Our balanced budget is about more than just accounting and tidy bookkeeping. Budget deficits sap private investment, drive up interest rates, and debt service costs the average taxpayer nearly $800 a year in taxes. Ending these deficits is the most important economic program this Congress can enact. In my district, a family from Eatonville with an average mortgage of $75,000 will save $37,000 in interest over the life of the loan--an annual savings of $1,200. A University of Washington student with an average loan of $11,000--over 10 years--will save $2,160 in interest over the life of the student loan--an annual savings of $216. A Issaquah family buying a $15,000 car will save $900 in interest over the life of the car loan--an annual savings of $225. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is at a crossroads. There are two competing visions of America's future. We can either adhere to the status quo as the President suggests--which means higher taxes on families, more spending, more debt, fewer jobs, and less opportunity for our children--or we can embark on a new responsible course by balancing our Nation's budget, cutting taxes, and restoring hope, confidence, opportunity, and prosperity. It has not been easy making the tough choices needed to reach a balanced budget, but they are decisions that we have been willing to confront. They have been decisions that we had no choice but to confront--to do anything less would have been to neglect our responsibility as elected representatives. I cannot and will not turn my back on my country's future. I urge my colleagues to support the Balanced Budget Act of 1995.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago candidate Clinton promised that he would present and support a 5-year balanced budget plan. He never followed through. Later he said we could balance the budget in 10 years, and then 9 years and then 7 years. Of the two budgets he did introduce to Congress this year, neither of them brings the deficit down at all. In fact in 2005 under President Clinton's budget, the deficit will be over $200 billion. Mr. Speaker, this whole budget showdown really goes to the issue of credibility. Does anybody really doubt what would happen if the other side were still in charge? Is there any doubt they would raise our taxes, make government bigger, deficits worse and that they will do it all in the name of compassion? I do not think so. Mr. Speaker, I challenge the President to break with the past and keep at least one of the promises he made as a candidate. Come to the table, Mr. President. Help us balance this budget.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure, the first serious measure in decades to balance the Federal budget.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic process was never meant to be a smooth process; that is [[Page H 13038]] why our Founding Fathers created a system of checks and balances. That is why we have a loyal opposition. That is why we negotiate. But, Mr. Speaker, there comes a time for closure. That time is now. The picture is coming into focus, Mr. Speaker. One side wants a balanced budget by a date certain; the other side is not even certain about a date. On the one side is Congress, including, as these folks will not tell you, 48 Members of their own conference intent on balancing the budget in 7 years. On the other side is the President. Mr. President, it is time to come to the table. Do not pick up your walking stick; come join us now and negotiate this 7-year balanced budget. Our children are counting on us.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I received a copy of a letter written by a senior citizen and businessman who lives in Seattle. It is addressed to President Clinton, and this is what he wrote: When you were elected President, I felt issues you addressed in your campaign, such as balancing the budget in five years, were important. Let me interject, Mr. Speaker, that the President now says that balancing the budget by 2002--10 years after his election--is unacceptable. The writer goes on: At the age of 62, I qualify as one of those you are trying to scare, but I can count . . . You speak of ``huge and horrendous cuts in programs'' which, in reality, will increase at well over the rate of inflation. Please settle down, and without posturing, deal in a thoughtful way with our budget problem. . . . Even the poor, old, infirm and students will benefit from lower interest rates . . . Your posturing and inflammatory scare rhetoric may, in the short-run, accomplish some objective, but history will not treat anyone well who fails to lead us out of the mess that years of excessive spending has created. Mr. Speaker, that says it all.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Madam Speaker, the introduction by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr] of his father a moment ago was a great change from the rhetoric we have heard during the last few years. Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment to address my colleagues from my perspective as a mother. First, I know what it is like to raise two little boys into grown men and I know what it is like to dream about their futures. Unfortunately, the burden this Congress has put on these children for the last few decades has been a spending spree that has undermined their futures. Past Congresses have burdened each child born this year with a bill of $187,000, just to pay interest through their lifetime on the national debt. That is why we must move aggressively toward a balanced budget. As a mother I am concerned that we do the right things to preserve and protect Medicare for my sons, not to mention my parents. That is why we must take the steps necessary to save Medicare from going into certain bankruptcy. Madam Speaker, as the front page of the Washington Post says today, the real fight is over balancing the budget. I am committed to it, we are committed to it. It is the right thing to do.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow and a heavy heart that I rise today to pay tribute to Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister of Israel, whose life was tragically stolen from him on Saturday. He was a man of great courage, a man whose dedication to peace ultimately cost him his life. In an ironic and fitting twist, the brief capsule of time it took to extinguish the life of Prime Minister Rabin--intended by his assailant to destroy the hard-fought peace process--will instead solidify Prime Minister Rabin's status as a legend. The outpouring of sympathy and love for Prime Minister Rabin by the world community is matched only by the expressions of condolence by his own beloved, grief-stricken countrymen. The work of Yitzhak Rabin was pursued not just on behalf of the Nation of Israel and her citizens. Peace accomplished between Israel and the Palestinians is to all of humanity's advantage. Peace benefits Jews and Arabs living around the globe, and the region as a whole--a region which has experienced too many troubles over a span of thousands of years. The grief-stricken people we have all seen on the news has left me stunned, but not without hope that continued vigilance in the pursuit of peace must be maintained. The violent outbursts of the man who would become Yitzhak Rabin's assassin, the poignant pictures of earth being placed over the flag-draped coffin, the moving remarks of Rabin's own granddaughter paying homage to her cherished hero, the shocking sight of those blood-stained long lyrics--all of these images are etched in my mind and will serve as a constant reminder that Prime Minister Rabin gave his life for a truly honorable goal: the Israeli-Palestinian peace accord. At Saturday's event celebrating peace, Yitzhak Rabin eloquently stated, ``There are enemies of the peace process, and they try to hurt us. But violence undermines democracy and must be denounced and isolated.'' We must ensure that from him we inherit a legacy of peace, not violence.