Jennifer Dunn

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. A few additional facts: According to the Department of Justice, the total number of arrests of juvenile offenders in 1995 was over 16,000 in this Nation, and I believe we are compelled to put a system in place that will prevent possible reoffense. Let me offer some facts from a study that was published by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy. It is very deeply disturbing. Juveniles who recommitted sexual offenses continue to offend against children. The sexual recidivists were arrested for new offenses very soon after they had been let out of institutions. In Washington State alone 716 juveniles are registered as sex offenders and are under State or county supervision. These juveniles either attend school or work. This number, moreover, does not reflect the number of juveniles who are no longer under supervision. These two studies and the statistics alone give us reason enough to implement immediately a process of parental notification. Mr. Chairman, the whole intention behind all our work on Megan's Law was to protect innocent women and children from sexual predators. All this amendment does is require each State to submit the method by which it will notify parents, a simple refinement of the work we have done. I encourage Congress to pass this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. DUNN. I yield myself the balance of the time, Mr. Chairman. How much time do I have remaining?

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the subcommittee chairman, who has been a great supporter.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, we believe, to answer the gentlewoman's question, that juvenile sex offenders present a unique danger to other youth. First of all, in a school, juvenile offenders are in constant contact with other children who are potential victims on a daily basis. In a community, individuals and families can avoid all contact. Second, a system to prevent sexual crimes against children must be developed immediately. As I have said previously to the gentleman from Virginia, this notification is up to the freedom of the State. All they have to do is submit the plan and let the U.S. Attorney General know.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas] who represents the county in which Mr. and Mrs. Kanka, parents of Megan Kanka, live and who has contributed a great deal to this debate.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] who has been very involved in the community notification for sexual predators beginning with our successful effort to get Megan's law into the crime bill of 1994.

Ms. DUNN. I do want to answer the gentleman's question, Mr. Chairman, and be very clear that this amendment neither sets the scope of notification nor the degree of risk that would necessitate notification. What we request is a report to the U.S. Attorney General on how the State intends to notify. It would give the States the flexibility to determine that process, which students would be potential threats as they return into the school system and how to notify parents of that threat.

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

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today I and my colleagues from New Jersey and California offer the Dunn-Pappas-Cunningham amendment to the Juvenile Crime Control Act of 1997. This week as the trial of Megan Kanka's accused killer begins, we are reminded how important it is to have a process in place that will ensure that communities will be notified when a violent sexual predator is released. We offer today, Mr. Chairman, an amendment to take Megan's Law one prudent step further. Our amendment will require States to submit a plan to the U.S. Attorney General describing a process by which parents will be notified when a juvenile sex offender is released and readmitted into a school system. Some of our colleagues may wonder why notification under Megan's Law is not enough. Mr. Chairman, sometimes our schools include students from a variety of communities. Community notification, therefore, will not reach some of the parents of these children. Without this knowledge, parents would not be able to take the necessary precautions to protect their children from being victims of a possible reoffense. It would be wrong and very possibly tragic, Mr. Chairman, to put juvenile sex offenders back into the school system without notifying the parents of the other students. We offer this amendment to H.R. 3 to complement Megan's Law and empower parents whose children attend schools outside their communities, as well as those whose children go to neighborhood schools. We simply cannot let what happened to Megan Kanka happen again, not in any community and especially not on a playground during recess. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, when Alexis de Toqueville came to America in the spring of 1831, there were many aspects of American life that deeply impressed him. One of the aspects of American life that impressed him the most was the spirit of voluntarism that he encountered everywhere he went. Mr. Speaker, that spirit of voluntarism is still alive and well today. In fact, I believe that voluntarism is part of the American character. That is why I am so distressed to see that the spirit of voluntarism is threatened these days by a legal system that allows all sorts of lawsuits to be filed against innocent people who volunteer their time to serve others. Mr. Speaker, too many volunteers are put on trial by those who are manipulating our legal system and that must stop. That is why we must pass H.R. 911, the Volunteer Protection Act. Volunteers who act in good faith, who are engaged in acts of charity should not be threatened by absurd lawsuits. Let us pass H.R. 911 and strengthen the unique American spirit of voluntarism.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I must say, this is a fascinating debate. Finally we have somebody in this political maelstrom who does the right thing, who goes above and beyond fairness and does the right thing, as the Speaker of the House, and the other side cannot stand it. I want to tell my colleagues, I am proud of the Speaker. I am proud to be associated with him. I am proud to be part of his leadership team. He did not have to pay this reimbursement for legal services, but he has chosen to do that to set a new standard. It seems to me when we have a Speaker of the House that is willing to set a standard in the House of Representatives, maybe a standard the White House could take a little information from, we ought to praise him. I tell my colleagues it is time for the American people, who have helped us to come to this decision, to come back with us and mesh in a partnership, take back the agenda of this House, get the problems solved, the problems we know that are hurting America today, and get off this politicized ethics process. We need to get back to the work at hand. I call for bipartisanship, I call for great praise of the Speaker of the House.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Archer for his leadership in bringing this timely issue of taxpayer privacy to the floor of the House today. Throughout my tenure in the Congress I have heard from thousands of constituents who have described to me a myriad of problems they see within our system of taxation. Granted, our Nation suffers under an unfair and incomprehensible Tax Code that takes too much of what we earn. Worse, some rogue members of the IRS, the organization responsible for the enforcement of the Tax Code, have a record of seeking to intimidate and to frighten honest hard working taxpayers. They damage the reputation of a huge majority of the honest people working at the agency. We must not tolerate a Tax Code that punishes families just as we should not tolerate an IRS agent who is eager to bully, harass, or snoop on a taxpayer. An important element of the IRS Accountability Act that I have offered and of the bill on the floor today is the protection of taxpayer privacy. It is well-documented that certain agents have been able to snoop through confidential taxpayer information with no regard for individual rights of the honest and the law-abiding taxpayers. Furthermore, recent reports shed additional light on the need for this legislation and the adoption of my amendment. According to the GAO, for fiscal year 1994 and 1995, over 1,500 instances occurred where IRS employees were accused of unlawful browsing. After accounting for firings, for disciplinary action, and for counseling, 33 percent of these cases were closed without action. I am glad the Committee on Ways and Means adopted my amendment to require that the taxpayer be notified when an IRS agent is indicted or otherwise charged with unauthorized inspection. The bottom line is that this provision addresses what I believe to be a matter of common decency. My amendment also provides taxpayers a civil remedy in such unauthorized inspection or browsing cases. The honest American family works too long and too hard to have to deal with an unfair and, on occasion, overly intrusive IRS and agents who trample on their rights. The IRS deserves closer scrutiny when certain agents go beyond acceptable enforcement procedures and commit outright intimidation or when it is unable to use common sense as a yardstick. This bill, the one we are considering on the floor today, will ensure that the powerful government agency, the IRS, will no longer scoff at the rights of well-intentioned and law-abiding taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his proposal of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this measure.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I must say it has been with great interest that I have listened to my colleagues' discussion about our very important trip to Asia and how proud I am to have traveled with them on this trip and to have watched in action some very powerful Members of the U.S. Congress who care a lot about our relationships with those nations over there, but who are not willing to make a trip such as this, with the rights of our constituents in our hearts, without being very, very candid in all of our conversations about some of the problems that we must deal with over in that part of the world. My responsibility as a member of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means dealt with trade issues in the Asian nations, and I would say that thanks to the Speaker and to other members of the delegation, I was able to inquire about specific policies that deal with our relationship with Asia. Certainly I come from a State, the State of Washington, that is very, very export- oriented. One out of four jobs in my State are related to trade. As constituents in my State and as you know, Mr. Speaker, Boeing, the aircraft company that is the largest exporter in this Nation that does great business now with the nation of China, and we will see that nation as probably 20 percent of its future market. There were questions about market access that we brought up over and over again. For example, in Japan, what about access, as the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] was interested in, in American autos? How about apples that come from our orchard, Mr. Speaker, in your part of our great State of Washington, that we are not allowed to export to Japan, the apples they want to eat, not just the Red and Golden Delicious, but the Fuji and the Gala apples, and why not provide to them the items that will be useful to the people that live in their country and also will help our export industry. So we did not get good answers on some of those issues, Mr. Speaker, but we continued to try. In China we have serious problems having to do with intellectual property piracy, a rate that someone said is as high as 98 percent, market access to wheat for one thing in the State of Washington. We have terrible human rights violations. We have very serious problems there, but we were given a very warm welcome by the people in Beijing and Shanghai, because they want to do business with us and they want to work with us. I believe that there is an openness there to a great degree that will allow us to expand on our trade relationships, that will allow the debate to begin on whether they should be able to accede to the WTO if they follow the road map that has already been laid out by our very effective ambassador-to-be of the USTR. Taiwan, we had candid conversations in that nation as we did in all of the nations. It was a very effective trip. We were treated with great welcome, and I think that we were able to contribute a great deal to the work of the U.S. foreign policy, certainly reflected that, and I am very grateful, Mr. Speaker, to have been a colleague of yours on this important trip.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, throughout my tenure in Congress, I've heard from thousands 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]. Last year, the Congress enacted legislation I cosponsored, called the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II, to help taxpayers in their dealings with the IRS. While I believe those necessary reforms were a good start, I believe we need to do more. That's why I am introducing the IRS Accountability Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. This bill, whose companion has been introduced by Senator Paul Coverdell--my counterpart on the Senate leadership team--in the U.S. Senate, is designed to provide citizens greater tax fairness and protections from IRS abuses. The IRS Accountability Act is wide-ranging and deals with a number of faults within the IRS that have recurred through discussions with constituents, through testimony at hearings from everyday Americans, and through my tenure as a member of the tax-cutting Ways and Means Committee. Wherever I travel in the State or country, consistently concerns are raised about the IRS. This Agency operates too much on the belief that most taxpayers are intending to cheat the Government. Granted, our Nation suffers under an unfair and incomprehensible Tax Code that takes too much of what we earn. Even worse, some rogue members of the organization responsible for enforcement of the Tax Code--the IRS--have a record of seeking to intimidate and frighten honest, hard-working taxpayers. They also sully the reputation of honest people working at the Agency. We must not tolerate a Tax Code that punishes families and we should not tolerate IRS agents eager to bully and harass taxpayers. Let me outline my proposal. The IRS Accountability Act: Criminalizes extortion tactics by an IRS agent. The Act criminalizes the actions of employees of the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] who abuse their authority by maliciously and willfully disregarding the statutory procedures established for collecting a tax. Makes IRS agents accountable for their actions. Current law shields IRS employees from holding personal liability for their actions, even if their actions result in civil damages against the United States. Under this section: In cases where the judgment is against the United States, a Federal judge will have the authority to assign a portion of the damages awarded and court costs incurred to the IRS employee whose actions prompted the suit; and An IRS employee involved in such a court proceeding may be represented by the United States. However, these costs must be reimbursed fully if the employee is found personally liable. Protects the privacy of taxpayers. Current law makes it a crime to release tax returns or return information without proper authority. Further, such actions may result in the personal liability of the Federal employee responsible. Under this section: It will be a crime to willfully access without proper authority a taxpayer's return or return information. This has been called file snooping; Willfully accessing, without proper authority, a taxpayer's return or return information can result in personal liability; and The taxpayer will be notified upon discovery that his return or return information has been improperly accessed. Limits on audits. Current law allows the IRS to audit an entity-- taxpaying or tax exempt--for any reason, even if randomly selected. This section requires that all audits be justified. Under this section: Random audits are prohibited. Proof of reasonable justification for the audit will be available to the taxpayer upon demand; Reauditing a return or return issue is prohibited unless approved by court order in the course of investigating criminal activity; and The IRS will be limited to 3 years from the time a return is filed in which to conduct an audit unless approved by court order in the course of investigating criminal activity. Extension of time to pay tax without penalty. All too often, the IRS itself is the most significant hurdle honest taxpayers must meet when trying to resolve their tax bill. According to the Taxpayer Advocate for the IRS, one of the most common complaints against the IRS is its failure to acknowledge taxpayer correspondence. Delays, misinformation, and snafus by the IRS all contribute to higher and higher penalties for taxpayers. Extending the period to 90 days before penalties may be applied will give honest taxpayers some welcome relief. Preserving the integrity of judicial decisions against the IRS. Often, the IRS will choose to nonacquiesce to a court's decision in which it loses. As a result, it will pursue a subsequent case against a different taxpayer under identical or similar circumstances. This section grants a Federal court the authority to dismiss a case of controversy involving the IRS if it can be shown that a similar or identical case already has been decided within the court's jurisdiction or circuit. The petitioner must previously have exhausted remedies available within the IRS before seeking such court relief. Limitations on asset seizures and levies. this section requires court approval to proceed with any asset seizure and/or levy. Limits accrual of interest. This section prevents interest from accruing on the penalty added to a tax owed. Equal interest rates charged. Current law gives the IRS an advantage over taxpayers by allowing it to charge a more favorable interest rate. Under this section, the interest rate charged by the IRS will be the same as the interest rate charged against the IRS in all cases. Fairness for mathematical and clerical errors. For mathematical and clerical errors, a.k.a. honest mistakes, the IRS is not required to follow the procedures of notification and collection provided for cases in which a tax is underpaid. Further, penalties and interest may be added to the tax underpaid in cases involving honest mistakes. Under this section, the taxpayer would have 60 days to either pay the tax or file an abatement request without incurring a penalty or interest accruing. However, should the 60-day period elapse without the taxpayer taking either option, penalties and interest would be owed in full. The honest American family works too hard and too long to have to deal with unfair and oftentimes overly intrusive IRS agents who trample their rights. The IRS deserves closer scrutiny when it goes beyond acceptable enforcement procedures and commits outright intimidation, or when it is unable to use ``common sense'' as a yardstick. This bill is part of a continuing effort to ensure that an overzealous Agency will no longer trample the rights of well-intentioned and law-abiding taxpayers.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, this issue is very important to me. Balancing work and family responsibilities is a very tough challenge. I have in fact lived the challenge that is facing today's working mothers, having raised two sons on my own as a single mother who tried to balance the time with my children with a full-time job. Let me assure my colleagues it was not easy, but it does not have to be so difficult. That is why we need the Working Families Flexibility Act. Just as a mention in response to the gentlewoman from Hawaii's comments, the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed in 1938, Mr. Chairman. This was a time nearly 60 years ago in our country's history when the workplace was filled mostly with fathers and also it was a manufacturing base. Things have changed now and many mothers are now in the workplace because they are required to have two parents working just to make ends meet. Mr. Chairman, for too long parents have had to choose between work and spending time with their children. That is a tragedy. The 1994 U.S. Department of Labor found that the No. 1 concern for two out of three working women with children under the age of 18 is the difficulty of balancing work with family. Two recent surveys show us that three out of four parents indicate that having the option to choose either cash wages or paid time off for working overtime hours would enable them to better balance their work and their family responsibilities. This is all we are asking for, that they have the choice. A working mother, for example, might prefer to see her daughter in a school play than have time and a half on the job. She should have that choice. Under current law, too many working mothers lie awake at night worrying about whether they are giving their children their time. We can do something to help those mothers. This bill addresses that problem. It is a sensible, balanced solution to the problem facing the hardworking parents of our country who are caught in the difficult quandary of simultaneously trying to provide for their families while still looking to spend time with them. I urge my colleagues to look at this piece of legislation to see its good and to vote for it.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, last week a bombing occurred outside the Jewish Community Center on Mercer Island, a city located in the congressional district I represent. It was a rare and threatening display of criminal behavior on Mercer Island and a crime that will not go unpunished. There is an extremely dangerous individual at large who is responsible for this bombing, a coward of the highest magnitude, and who remains a threat to the Jewish community. Whether a dangerously immature prank or a deliberately anti-Semitic effort to terrorize this peaceful community, I condemn this act in the strongest possible sense. Local community leaders and I are relieved that no one was hurt and the center went undamaged. Bringing those responsible to justice is my highest priority, and I publicly declare my intention to fully support law enforcement officials toward that end. It is particularly ironic, having recently witnessed on Israeli soil the finalizing of the Hebron agreement, that despite the historic and committed peace underway in one of the most traditionally volatile regions of the world, the community of Mercer Island is living with violence. I am proud of my neighbors on Mercer Island who refuse to allow this violence to terrorize them into retreat. They have reacted with calm, and their composure is noble and to be greatly admired. Mr. Speaker, this Congress, indeed all of us, should note that what could have been a disastrous situation characterized by loss of precious life and honored property is instead a reminder of the work that lies before us. The good, peaceful, and law-abiding citizens of our communities and our country are ready to take this country back from terrorists and vandals. They will apprehend the lawless, prosecute them, and protect their communities. That's what the people of Mercer Island and the Jewish community are doing. I stand ready to help.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Return Capital to the American People Act (ReCAP Act). This legislation provides a capital gains reduction for both individuals and corporations and will do more to boost our Nation's economy, more to create jobs, more to enhance U.S. competitiveness worldwide, and more to increase savings and investment than any other single legislative change we can enact. For established, successful businesses, for struggling entrepreneurs, and for middle-class families across the country, this measure represents the most serious effort to unlock billions of dollars in investment providing for expanded growth and job creation. While there are many reasons to support a reduction in the capital gains rate, I would like to highlight what I believe to be the most compelling case for enactment of the ReCAP Act. A low capital gains rate benefits all Americans. This bill is fair to all income groups and sectors of our economy. Many of the so-called rich who would benefit from a cut in capital gains taxes are only rich for one year. A family in Eatonville that sells its house, an owner in Issaquah who sells a small business, a worker in Bellevue selling stock received through an employee stock option, and a retiree in Auburn selling an asset and planning to live off the proceeds would all be considered wealthy on current tax distribution tables. For example, a review by the Joint Committee on Taxation on capital gains realizations for the period 1979-1983 shows that nearly 44 percent of tax returns claiming a capital gain during the 5-year period claimed only one capital gain. Most of these people aren't rich, regardless of what statistics say. They merely have one year of inflated income because they realized a big capital gain. Furthermore, an analysis of 1993 tax returns found that nearly 50 percent of the tax returns reporting capital gains were filed by taxpayers with less than $40,000 in adjusted gross income. Of tax returns claiming a capital gain, nearly 60 percent of those returns are filed by taxpayers with less than $50,000 in adjusted gross income. Low capital gains rate is important for our future and our Nation's ability to save and invest. Americans do not save enough. If you look at our tax laws, you will see why. Instead of encouraging people to save, the tax code often punishes people who save and invest. This is primarily due to the fact that the income tax hits savings more than once--first when income is earned and again when interest and dividends on the investment supported by the original savings are received. This system is inherently unfair because the individual or company that saves and invests pays more taxes over time than if all income were consumed and no savings took place. We need to change this. Without savings, a person cannot buy a house, a business cannot purchase new equipment, and our economy cannot create jobs. Unless we can raise our national savings rate, our standard of living, and our children's and grandchildren's standards of living will not grow. Lowering the capital gains rate unlocks investment and America's true economic potential. High capital gains taxes can prevent someone from selling an asset and paying the tax. This is the lock-in effect: when a person will not sell an investment and reinvest the proceeds in a higher paying alternative if the capital gains taxes he or she would owe exceed the expected higher return on the original investment. This lock-in effect limits economic growth and job creation. Capital stays locked in an investment instead of being free to go to a person who wants to hire new employees in her consulting business. Lower capital gains taxes will reduce the lock-in effect and free up capital for small businesses, first-time home buyers, and entrepreneurs. Lower capital gains will increase Federal revenues and thus help reach the goal of a balanced budget. History indicates that lower capital gains taxes have a positive impact on Federal revenues. During the period of 1978 to 1985 the marginal Federal tax rate on capital gains was cut from almost 50 percent to 20 percent--but total individual capital gains tax receipts increased from $9.1 billion to $26.5 billion. After surging to $326 billion in 1986 (the year before the 1986 rate increase took effect), capital gains realizations have trended down and remained at less than $130 billion per year in the 1990's. Given the increases in the stock market, inflation, and growth of the economy since the late 1980's, realizations and taxes paid are certainly being depressed by the current high capital gains rates.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in commemorating the chartering of Assistance League of the Eastside [ALE] in Redmond, WA, as the 98th chapter of the National Assistance League. For 8 years Assistance League of the Eastside has existed to develop and carry out philanthropic projects to meet the needs of the greater eastside community. This all-volunteer, nonprofit organization has made a difference in the lives of literally thousands of needy citizens with programs that are tailored to meet real-world emergencies. For example, Operation School Bell has provided more than 1,000 at-risk children with new clothing, school supplies, and hygiene items. Victims of rape and assault have benefited from the Assistance League's dissemination of assault survivor kits, a program that provides sweat suits and personal care items to those seeking refuge from an aggressor. And the ALE's caring and sharing program has brightened the lives of senior citizens at the Emerald Heights assisted living facility in Redmond by providing birthday and holiday parties for the residents. ALE, through the efforts of its 65 very active and good-hearted members, is making a difference in ways that go far beyond the capabilities of government programs because the volunteers are impelled by compassion for their fellow eastsiders. That spirit deserves not only recognition, but commendation and celebration. America needs more people like the citizens who devote their spare time to the many good projects of Assistance League of the Eastside. Therefore it is fitting that today, as ALE gains chapterhood status with the National Assistance League based on compliance with that organization's bylaws, policies, and standards, I am proud to draw the attention of the House of the great work of this organization. And I am honored to join Redmond Mayor Rosemarie Ives in setting aside March 12, 1997, as a day to honor Assistance League of the Eastside. I join Mayor Ives in urging all citizens of Washington State to recognize this all- volunteer organization and encourage its continued philanthropic work benefiting our eastside community.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, by any measure of public opinion the balanced budget amendment is one of the most popular political issues in America today. But sadly, because some politicians believe that it is perfectly acceptable to say one thing at home and do another in Washington, DC, we have a situation where the will of the American people will be thwarted once again. This is the kind of thing the American people have come to loathe about Washington, DC. This is why they threw out the last majority in 1994, because they were tired of seeing politicians say one thing and do another. Mr. Speaker, it is a very sad day today. The balanced budget amendment has wide bipartisan support in this body and in the Nation as a whole. But as long as the American people keep sending Representatives and Senators to Congress who do still believe in honor, who do still believe in trust and who do still believe in telling the truth, we will eventually have a balanced budget amendment.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to reiterate my position on what has been referred to as the Mexico City policy--a policy regarding the appropriation of taxpayer funds for the population assistance activities of any foreign private, nongovernmental, or multilateral organization. My position on taxpayer-financed family planning has been well established over the course of the previous two Congresses. I believe in family planning programs. I believe they help women and children. I also believe, however, in placing restrictions on how taxpayer dollars are used in pursuit of family planning. Simply put, I believe that the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for or promote abortion is inappropriate, except under circumstances of rape or incest, or to protect the life of the mother. The Mexico City policy--that taxpayer funds intended for international family planning should not be directed to organizations that perform or promote abortion, except in the instances of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother--has been raised several times in recent years. I continue to support the main thrust of that policy, and I continue to hold to the view that our government ought to be neutral on the difficult question of abortion. I take the libertarian view that government ought not to be involved in this most difficult and personal of decisions, and will continue to support legislation which is consistent with that view.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on January 23, the National Cancer Institute declined to recommend that women in their forties seek annual breast cancer screening. Research into the benefits of mammography for women in this age group is wholly inadequate. Further, without definitive guidelines, the lives of America's mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters are at risk. This year, an estimated 33,000 women in their forties will be diagnosed with breast cancer--these are women in the prime of their lives, women whose children are still in kindergarten, and women entering the peak of their careers. Guidelines for women aged 40 to 49 were in place until 1993, when they were rescinded by the National Cancer Institute. This occurred despite the lack of confidence in available research and differing opinions by respected medical organizations on the wisdom of the rescission. Research performed in two studies last year found a 44 and 36 percent lower death rate among women who received mammograms in their forties, and a number of studies have shown that breast tumors in women under the age of 50 may grow far more rapidly than in older women, suggesting that annual mammograms are of value to women in this age group. Congress must take an active role in this issue and that is why I am introducing this bipartisan resolution that calls for one, additional research into the benefits of mammography for women aged 40 to 49, and two, a strong request that the advisory panel for the National Cancer Institute consider reissuing the guideline rescinded in 1993 for mammography for women when it convenes in February 1997, or until there is more definitive data, direct the public to consider guidelines by other organizations. The resolution will serve as the House's opportunity to concur with the Senate's statement on this matter, when on February 4, it approved Senator Snowe's bill, S. Res. 47, by a unanimous vote of 98 to 0. Mr. Speaker, and distinguished colleagues, please support this vital resolution that helps raise awareness of mammography and breast cancer guidelines.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to introduce the Crown Jewel National Parks Act. This legislation will require the President to submit a specific budget request for our 54 national parks so that for the first time, our national parks would have their own specific and separate line-item to ensure that their funding is a top priority. We are truly blessed in this Nation with a national park system that is second to none and serves this Nation as one of the top vacation choice of families, individuals and visitors world-wide. In my State of Washington, we have the good fortune of having three national parks. Mount Rainier National Park, the North Cascades National Park, and the Olympic National Park. Like many of our older national parks, they are suffering from lack of funding creating maintenance and construction backlogs that continue to build up year after year. Also, the popularity of our parks has increased dramatically over the last decade and funding for roads and trails has not kept pace. While we significantly increased funding for the National Park Service in the 104th Congress, we must not allow money from one park account to be haphazardly moved to another without any constraints. Our national parks are too important to be left to the discretion of bureaucrats. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 105th Congress to enact this legislation.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, on this, the first day of the 105th Congress, I introduce the Software Export Equity Act and urge my colleagues to support its swift enactment. The Software Export Equity Act enjoys tremendous bipartisan support as demonstrated by the members that join me as original cosponsors, Messrs. Matsui, Herger, Jefferson, Crane, Neal of Massachusetts, McCrery, McDermott, English of Pennsylvania, and Weller. Today, the U.S. software industry is a vital and growing part of the U.S. economy, exporting more than $26 billion worth of software annually. U.S. software companies perform a majority of this development work here in the United States. This measure will do more to ensure the competitivess of the U.S. software industry worldwide than any other single legislative change we can enact. Congress enacted the FSC rules to assist U.S. exporters in competing with products made in other countries which have more favorable tax rules for exports. The FSC statute was carefully crafted to ensure that only the value-added job creating activity qualified for FSC benefits. When the statute was enacted in 1971, the U.S. software industry did not exist. However, due to a narrow IRS interpretation of the FSC rules, the U.S. software industry is the only U.S. industry that does not generally receive this export incentive. Nearly every other U.S. manufactured product--from airplanes to toothpaste--qualify for FSC benefits. Although the Treasury Department recognized the inconsistency in providing FSC benefits to licenses of films, tapes and records, all industries that were in existence when the law was created, but not to licenses of software, they stated their belief that this problem needed to be addressed in legislation rather than by regulation. Treasury has further stated their strong support for legislation to extend FSC benefits for licenses of computer software. To illustrate the inequitable IRS interpretation of FSC rules with regard to software exports, suppose we have two CD ROM's--one containing a musical recording, the other containing a multimedia software product that also provides music. If the master of the musical recording is exported with a right to reproduce it overseas, the export qualifies for FSC benefits. If the master of the computer software is exported with a right to reproduce it overseas, the export does not qualify for FSC benefits, a result that makes no sense from either a policy or practical perspective. The ability to export software, accompanied by a right to reproduce that software in the local market, is essential to the way the software industry does business. Denying the benefits of the FSC rules to software exported through established industry distribution networks poses an impediment to the competitiveness of U.S. manufactured software. The United States is currently the world leader in software development, employing hundreds of thousands of individuals in high- wage, high-skilled U.S. jobs. Much of the expansion of the industry is due to the growth of exports. The software industry, like other U.S. exports, needs FSC benefits to remain competitive and keep U.S. jobs here at home. FSC benefits are extremely important in encouraging small and medium-sized software companies to enter the export market by helping them equalize the cost of exporting. In addition, FSC benefits are needed to help keep high-paying software development jobs in the United States at a time when foreign governments are actively soliciting software companies to move those jobs to their countries. I do not propose any special or unique treatment, nor seek any new or special tax benefit. All that I propose in this measure is fair treatment under existing law. If the goal of this Congress is to pass legislation promoting economic opportunity and growth in America, then common sense dictates that we enact the Software Export Equity Act.