Jennifer Dunn

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I have an overwhelming sense of deja vu. This is the third time the House has taken up a bill to help workers and boost the economic recovery. Some of my colleagues in the opposition prefer platitudes and promises instead of action. They would rather talk about helping the unemployed and promoting economic growth rather than putting together a workable plan. Their motto ought to be ``Just say no.'' Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, wishing for a stronger economy will not make it so. Congress needs to act. Our constituents might justifiably wonder why we are voting on this bill a third time. They ought to know that 2 months ago the House passed a generous, fair- minded bill that provided $37 billion in unemployment coverage, health coverage for the unemployed, tax incentives for businesses, and tax relief for the middle-income families. But the other body objected. Why? We just recently heard it from the gentleman from California, because they said that tax relief would help the rich. What does that mean? The rich like the schoolteacher who lives in my district who makes $30,000 a year and cannot afford housing in her own district and drives an hour to get to work? She is in the 27 percent bracket; they do not want to lower it. Is she one of the rich they are referring to? The other body also objects to our health care provisions. Why? They did not agree with the way that we cover the unemployed. They would like to help the folks who work only for big business. They do not want to help the employees in small businesses who do not have access to health care coverage when they are laid off. Mr. Speaker, these arguments are lost on the American public. In my part of the Nation, we have not yet felt the full impact of the 30,000 Boeing workers who expect to be laid off, and yet unemployment in Washington State is over 7 percent, number 2 in the Nation and climbing. This bill would provide additional unemployment to the 13 weeks we already provide in this bill because my State of Washington qualifies under that 4 percent unemployment rate. We are at 7.1 percent. Further delay is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to act now. Let us get this bill passed and over to the Senate. Let us get the job done so we can get help to our folks at home.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to bring up one point that people continue to forget. It certainly is not emphasized in the media. And that is that as we estimated what our budget surplus would be over the last few years, we predicted that over 10 years it would be $5.6 trillion. We are still looking at a budget surplus over 10 years. It has dropped because of recession and the war on terrorism and spending that we continue to do to $1.6 trillion, but, in fact, at the end of 10 years, we will have a surplus, according to today's number, of $1.6 trillion. So let us not imply we are going to have years and years of deficits; that we are going to do as the other party did for 40 years and spend our government into a huger and huger national debt. It is simply not true. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for sponsoring this resolution. I rise today on the 91st birthday of Ronald Reagan, our Nation's 40th President, to call upon Congress to make our historic tax bill permanent. Under President Reagan's leadership, we experienced economic expansion and peace and prosperity in the midst of a Cold War. He believed that cutting taxes would increase, not shrink the Federal tax revenues, and he was right. We also know that spending did not decrease during those years because Congress did not keep its commitment. I believe as far as this permanency resolution is concerned, Mr. Speaker, that workers should not face financial uncertainty just because we fail to make their tax cut permanent. It is very important to tell the American public about the consequences of inaction. If we do not make the tax bill permanent, working Americans, teachers, small-business people, small-business owners, truck drivers will all see a tremendous tax increase. No matter what anybody says about it, if we do not make this permanent, and this tax situation comes back after 10 years to be exactly the way it was before the President signed the bill last June, that is a tax increase. Specifically, in 2011, a middle-income couple making $50,000 a year would see their tax burden rise by over $1,200 a year just because of the phaseout of the provision that now relieves married couples from the marriage penalty. I also want to point out the two central myths that are promoted by our opponents. First of all, tax relief made the recession worse. False. In fact, the tax cut had the opposite effect by putting more money in people's pockets and by creating incentives to encourage companies to invest and create jobs. The economic data indicate that consumer spending kept us from falling into an even deeper recession. Secondly, the myth that suspending the tax relief is not a tax increase. False. Make no mistake about it, rescinding tax relief would be raising taxes. That very strange item in the Senate that requires that any kind of tax decrease sunset after 10 years has already had some perverse effects. Under current law, people will have to die during 9 particular months, from January 1 to October 1 in 2010, to avoid the death tax. For anybody who passes away in 2011, however, their estate would face the punishing 55 percent rate again that we had in 2001. The resurrection of the death tax ensures that family businesses will continue to pay estate planners and buy expensive insurance policies. It is just as if repeal never existed. The lack of permanency, the lack of predictability has real consequences. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, I think it is especially symbolic that we offer this resolution today on President Reagan's birthday. We all know what a champion he was for tax relief, and we honor his legacy by supporting this resolution.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, 5,000 Boeing workers were laid off in Washington State last week. Yesterday Selectron closed their plant, laying off 345 people. Nordstrom has laid off 900 people. Thirty-eight thousand people, that is the number of how many honest, hardworking Washington State residents have been laid off this year and are now struggling to hold their families together during a tough holiday season. Yesterday my State's unemployment rate surged to 7 percent, the highest since 1995. What has been the reaction of the United States Senate to this news? Inaction. Two months ago the House passed a fair and balanced bill that provided business incentives to help our economy and to create jobs. It provided assistance to displaced workers for income and for health insurance; $257 million of that would have come into Washington State. Two months have lapsed and what has the Senate done? Nothing. We were told that we needed to do more for displaced workers and for their incomes. We agreed and we added an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits. We were told that we needed to do more for displaced workers health care. We agreed and we added $13 billion in health care assistance. In all, between health care coverage and employment assistance, we went from $12 billion to $37 billion. Now, though, we are being told that there are no disagreements with the new funds that are being added, but with the method of delivery. This is an argument, Mr. Speaker, that is lost on the American people. Families right now simply want the peace of mind that their children are going to be cared for and that we are going to be able to help them cover an injury or illness. We are now being told that individual tax cuts should not be part of any stimulus package. Why? Because a teacher in Belleview, Washington, who pays a 27 percent tax rate is considered rich. This teacher, who earns a salary of $30,000, who cannot even afford housing near the school district, and she has to commute up to an hour just to get to class every morning, she is considered rich by the Senators who have failed to act. Mr. Speaker, in my State, 660,000 people will be helped by this provision. I think it is time for the Senate to give up and to stop making excuses for their inaction. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, my commitment to the people I represent is to make sure that the economic security bill we pass will boost our economy and will provide, at the same time, help for displaced workers and stimulate the economy, but if the Senate fails to act again, Mr. Speaker, we must explore every avenue, congressional and administrative, to bring assistance to those in need. I support this bill, and I hope everybody will vote for this bill. We help my Washington State workers and their own at the same time.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3008 to reauthorize the trade adjustment assistance program and to temporarily extend new coverage for workers who were impacted by September 11. TAA is critical for countless workers who have been adversely affected by foreign competition or by terrorist attacks. Many of the people I represent in Washington State will benefit from the job training services and unemployment compensation that are provided by this provision. In 1998 and 1999, TAA provided $10 million worth of benefits to over 19,000 Boeing workers who were laid off. Many of the 20,000 to 30,000 Boeing workers who have been or will be laid off by the end of next year can now qualify for assistance from the traditional TAA and the new expanded coverage. This bill enhances income support benefits for an additional 26 weeks and it shortens the petition review time from 60 days to 40 days. These are changes that will help reduce paperwork while providing a very necessary safety net to workers. I want to assure the former speaker that I am very happy this legislation also includes provisions that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and I have added to ensure that States already providing supplemental unemployment coverage beyond the Federal mandates are not penalized. Under current Federal law, Washington State residents could not use TAA benefits until the State's regular and supplemental unemployment benefits were exhausted. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and Subcommittee on Trade chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for working with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and me to give Washington State greater flexibility by enabling the people we represent to qualify for TAA much earlier. We have got to do all we can, Mr. Speaker, to provide relief to those who are now coping with the very difficult circumstances that displaced workers face. This legislation is a positive step in providing much needed assistance to those who reside in the area. I represent the great Pacific Northwest. My constituents there are very eager to get back to work.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I represented 700,000 in the suburbs of Seattle and Tacoma. One-third of the jobs held by these people are related to trade. Reducing trade barriers has never been more important in the Puget Sound area. If we do not expand exports and open new markets for Boeing jets and Microsoft software, we lose more jobs in the Northwest. For Boeing workers, TPA means keeping the aircraft industry viable in our community. Over $18 billion worth of aircrafts were exported last year. Traditionally, half of Boeing's aircraft sales are for overseas customers, a trend that will continue in the future. For our farmers, TPA means that more people will have access to the finest products in the world; 33 percent of Washington State commodities, valued at $1.8 billion go to the international market. For our high-tech firms, TPA means strengthening intellectual property standards. The software industry loses $12 billion annually due to counterfeiting and piracy. Reducing piracy in China alone could generate $1 billion of revenue for the Northwest. For women entrepreneurs, women-owned businesses involved in international trade have higher growth rates, develop more innovations, and create more jobs in their communities. Support TPA.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3323. That is a bill to delay the administrative simplification rules for 1 year. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), and particularly my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) for working very, very hard to put a compromise together that we could live with. They worked diligently and provided a 1-year delay without implementing a user fee. I would like to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) for working with me earlier this year when we introduced legislation to provide for a 2-year delay. While I would have preferred our bill, I recognize that the compromise we have today balances the need of maintaining oversight and encouraging all providers to comply with the regulations. I am very pleased that the user fees were removed from this legislation. Like many of my colleagues, I was concerned about requiring some physician to pay a user fee when they will experience a reduction in Medicare payments next year. This delay is vital to help those struggling to meet the challenges of compliance. The people I represent, the doctors, the hospitals and the health plans, support a delay. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. It is good legislation. Let us get it to the President's desk before the end of the year.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to provide regulatory relief to doctors throughout the Nation. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for being involved in developing this legislation; but I want to give special kudos to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), her ranking member, because they worked together. This is bipartisan and we are very pleased with the result of our work. It will cost nothing, but it does true regulatory reform. I also want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), for working with me to ensure that in this bill our seniors have access to the latest clinical laboratory tests. I am very pleased that this regulatory relief bill creates a transparent, timely and public process at CMS to evaluate and to incorporate new technologies into the Medicare program. This is a critical step in ensuring that doctors have every tool available to assist our seniors. Medical innovations are moving too fast to wait for Medicare's coverage and payments. This is especially true for new laboratory tests, a field that has been rapidly advancing in innovations exponentially. The quality of our health care system here in the United States depends on our ability to prevent, diagnose, and treat illnesses and diseases. Support this legislation so that our Nation's seniors will be able to access breakthrough tests that can help save their lives.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Dr. Lee Hartwell, President and Director of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, for winning the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. More than thirty years ago, Mr. Hartwell conducted his groundbreaking research on cell cycles at the University of Washington. His work has contributed to our scientific understanding of cellular biological processes that have led to new discoveries in the fight against cancer. He is an inspiration to his community, colleagues, and future scientific researchers. Dr. Hartwell joined the University of Washington faculty in 1968 and has been a professor of genetics since 1973. In 1996, he joined the Hutchinson Center and has became president and director in 1997. He has won many national and international scientific awards for his work including the Leopold Griffuel Prize, the Albert Lasker Basic Medical Research Prize, the General Motors Sloan Award, and the Gairdner Foundation International Award for Achievements in Science. On December 10, 2001, Dr. Hartwell will join a distinguished list of scientists who have achieved the highest honor in their field when he is awarded the Nobel Prize. His greatest achievement, however, is not measured by the number of awards he receives, but in the number of lives that he has saved. He embodies the true spirit of past Nobel Prize recipients whose contributions have inspired others and improved humanity.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3009, which is a bill to extend the Andean Trade Preference Act through 2006. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for their work in helping our friends in South America. This legislation gives to the President the authority to grant duty- free treatment for certain imports from Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia, and Peru. We know that trade is a vital part of our comprehensive strategy to fight the production and exportation of illegal drugs. But I thoroughly agree with the preceding speaker, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDERMOTT), that this is a very important tactic that can be used in many different ways. We can use trade, for example, to encourage Andean nations to pursue legitimate business activities that promote jobs and maintain economic and political stability in that region. This legislation also includes provisions to amend the African Growth and Opportunity Act that we passed last year that helped Sub-Saharan African nations. The inclusion of preferential treatment for knit-to- shape articles, for example, a completed sweater, will help apparel companies in my part of the country, the northwest of the United States, that are now suffering from the slowdown in our economy. It is my hope that we can address asparagus as this legislation moves forward. As the chairman is aware, Washington State has a huge asparagus industry that could be affected by increased imports from Peru. We need to find the answer to that problem. In 1992, Peruvian asparagus imports amounted to only 4.1 percent of total United States production. In 2000, those same imports equaled 34 percent of the United States production. In 2000, asparagus production in 22,000 acres in Washington State added $51 million to the ag economy; and this represent 32 percent of national production, making Washington State the second largest producer in the Nation. This is a vital agricultural product for my State, Washington State; and I look forward to working with the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), as we try to find an answer that will help growers in California and Washington and Michigan. Nevertheless, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we need to move forward with this measure. We need to do it now before the current agreement expires. And so I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 3009.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Majority Leader very much. I want to thank the Majority Leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), for organizing this public explanation of the stimulus package. I think it is terribly important that we get the message out to people all over the country that there is a difference, and it should not be surprising that there is a difference in the way this body and the Republicans versus the Senate and their Democrats approach stimulating the economy. If you look at it very carefully and you review the approach, as the gentleman from Texas has done, it is very clear the debate we are having today is a debate about private sector growth versus growth in government spending. That is what this really is about. I think the House bill is a very balanced bill. I think it is a responsible bill. It is a bill that is balanced between assistance for people who are out there earning in the job market and business tax cuts that will generate economic growth, and do that through creating new jobs or keeping jobs that are currently in the economy and are currently threatened by our lagging economy. The business tax cuts have been demonized, as the gentleman from Texas said, by the opposition. They have been called giveaways to wealthy corporations. In reality, the expensing and depreciation provisions actually give companies a greater incentive to invest, and we believe that private investment is the linchpin for economic growth. That is why we have focused our time and attention on this and developed a plan that produces some very, very serious incentives for investment. The corporate AMT repeal has drawn a whole lot of criticism from our opponents. It actually rids our Tax Code of a very unnecessary-now layer of taxation that ties up needed cash. In 1987, roughly 15,000 companies paid the AMT, or the Alternative Minimum Tax. Fifteen years later, 30,000 companies are caught up in this very complicated tax regime. The exemptions which earlier provided an incentive for corporations not to pay taxes to avoid paying regular income taxes now are gone, and there is no reason to keep this AMT, because it just forces a company to calculate taxes in two different ways. It takes their time, it takes their money, it takes their manpower that they should be focusing on other things that will make their companies successful. That is why the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has identified the repeal of the corporate AMT as a way to make the Tax Code more equitable and more efficient and, of course, simpler. Worst of all, as the economy continues to slow down, companies will be caught up in this very complicated calculation, and that is the last thing that we should be doing today, especially for small businesses and especially during a potential recession period. We should not be punishing our companies with complicated, expensive, unnecessary paperwork. The House bill also directs personal tax relief to hard-working, middle-class Americans. We have reduced the 28 percent tax rate to 25 percent immediately, immediately, and that means that a family with $55,000 in earnings could save several hundred dollars in taxes every year from now on. This is money that can be used to pay for clothes or buy braces for children or make a car payment or buy a new washer or dryer or buy children's tennis shoes to prepare for school in the fall. In my own home State of Washington, 660,000 taxpayers will benefit from this reduction in the marginal rate from 28 percent to 25 percent. A further huge simplification of the Tax Code takes place through the reduction in the capital gains tax, eliminating that 5 year holding period that has complicated the Tax Code down to a holding period of 1 year. It allows almost everybody to be able to pay capital gains at the rate of 18 percent. It is 2 percent, but it is a lot of dollars if you are thinking about selling your house. I think it will unlock assets that might have been held before to wait for a lower capital gains. This bill includes that. The House bill also addresses the needs of unemployed workers. In my part of the Nation, this is terribly important. We are losing up to 30,000 jobs at the Boeing Corporation alone. Another 900 at the Nordstrom Corporation. We know that these people want to work, and we know that their most pressing needs are in the short-term. So our bill, very much unlike the Senate bill, does not create another health care entitlement program, but it directs dollars in the form of block grants to the governors of the states all over the Nation, and eventually to the workers themselves, the flexibility to face their specific needs. So they can cover those health care premiums and they can cover the retraining that is necessary if somebody has lost a job. Washington State, wracked by recent layoffs, will receive about $256 million out of this grant that will aid unemployed workers through retraining programs and health care coverage. In comparison, the Senate bill is a road map to bigger government. The Senate bill is a road map to greater spending. We have already spent since September 11 $100 billion to increase spending and to give help to New York City and to other parts of our Nation. We know that is very important. The Senate bill is more spending, and we do not need additional spending. What will providing tax exempt bonds for Amtrak do to benefit our economy in the short-term, which is the goal of this stimulus package? What about the host of emergency agricultural subsidies? The narrow tax benefits that are aimed at bison ranchers and citrus growers, they are not what the President had in mind when he outlined his approach to the stimulus. The Senate bill's greatest failure is it really does, when you get down to the bottom line, leave out the average taxpayer. There is not one single American income tax payer that will receive a benefit from the Senate bill. That is terribly important. It is just the contrary of what we try to do in our immediate stimulus by putting dollars back into the pockets of the folks who earned these dollars. Compare this to the House bill. For example, simply from that reduction in the 28 percent tax rate to 25 percent, 25 million Americans will be immediately benefited by a decrease in their withholding taxes. By any objective measure, Mr. Speaker, the House bill will stimulate growth in the private sector. I do hope that the Senate will realize that the best way to increase consumer spending is to put more money in the pockets of working Americans, not into new government programs. I hope that we can bring to conference two strong bills so that the result will stimulate this lagging economy and stimulate it immediately to help all Americans help us get back on our feet.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, November 1, 2001, I was not present for rollcall votes 415 through 425 due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 415, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 416, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 417, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 418, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 419, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 420, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 421, ``No'' on rollcall No. 422, ``No'' on rollcall No. 423, ``No'' on rollcall No. 424, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 425.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall votes 412 through 414 due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 412, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 413, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 414.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, we have just heard from the previous speaker about the airline safety bill. We are working very hard on that. Unfortunately, that is not the bill before us on the floor today. The Economic Security and Recovery Act is the bill that we are discussing today and it contains some very important features. I just want to say that I am delighted by the acceleration of income tax cuts that appears in this bill. This means that people who are working all over the country will see an immediate drop in their withholding tax. That will provide them more dollars they can use for whatever they wish to spend that money on. I am also very pleased with the reduction in capital gains. Effectively capital gains rates fall from 20 to 18 percent immediately. This means more unlocking of assets, it allows for the sale of assets at a lower tax price, and eventually more assets being turned over means more taxes paid to the government, so it actually brings in revenue rather than cost revenue. But what I am particularly interested in, Mr. Speaker, is the amount of money that this bill includes for people who are dislocated. These are workers who have lost their jobs all over the country, not workers in one particular line of work but people from the Boeing Company in my neck of the woods, for example, where we are due to lose about 30,000 jobs over the next year and people from the Nordstrom Company where we are due in our area to lose 900 workers and people from all kinds of industries that were touched by what happened on the 11th of September. This bill that we have worked on with great sensitivity, Mr. Speaker, contains $12 billion in dislocation dollars to help people who are unemployed as a result of 9/11. $9 billion of that money goes directly to States in the form of block grants to be administered locally through the offices of the governors, Republicans and Democrats alike, to go for training, for unemployment extension, for whatever it is that their State needs this dislocation money for. An additional $3 billion goes to the States in the same form, through block grants, to cover health care premiums. This is a very good way to do business, Mr. Speaker, because it does not, as in the Democrat substitute, merely meet the needs of the COBRA plans, which can be terribly expensive plans but it allows for more options. And so you are going to see people enrolling in the CHIPs program or Medicaid or whatever the programs are that are offered in their States, and the governor will have the influence and the ability to help to subsidize these programs. The third thing that is done to help dislocated workers, on a short string no doubt, because it phases out the end of next year, is to be able to use their pension funds, their private pension funds, their retirement accounts, for a short period of time but without the 10 percent penalty that is paid now if you take out those funds before the time. We have done great thought on this bill. It contains a number of tax relief provisions, but these provisions are worth a huge amount of money. In my State alone, $256 million goes into Washington State to help workers who are dislocated. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about an impression that is being created by our opponents in this debate over our Economic Security and Recovery Act. They talk as if the money they are going to use to offset the COBRA payments is the best way to help people who are out of work and need to be covered by health insurance. In fact, we have had many deep and thoughtful discussions about how we wanted to approach this issue, because certainly we appreciate that people have lost their jobs as a result of the September 11 tragedies, and we want to make sure that they understand that they can count on some Federal help to get them through what we hope will be a very short period of unemployment. In actuality, the block grants that we grant to the States are the grants that are best able to cover everybody's, every displaced worker's, health insurance. For example, the COBRA system is not available to displaced workers who have worked for a company with fewer than 20 employees, so the money one puts aside will not even touch those folks. It eliminates a large number of people who work for small businesses. Also, it is the truth that unemployed workers may wish to have coverage by other types of health care that is available in their States, like the SCHIP program or Medicaid, or they can get subsidized coverage in private health plans, including medical savings accounts or individually purchased policies, plus COBRA. So our proposal to award $3 billion immediately to the Governors of each of the 50 States to use in the way that they believe is the best for their particular needs in their State actually is a far better way to use these Federal dollars than limiting the subsidies to people who wish to continue or only continue in COBRA plans.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I was not recorded on Rollcall number 355. I was unavoidably detained and therefore, could not vote. Had I been present, I would have voted aye. I ask unanimous consent that this statement be printed in the appropriate part of the Congressional Record.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. There is no question that the Government's decision to ground aircraft on September 11 was brilliant. It was the correct choice. The quick actions of the President, the Secretary of Transportation saved countless lives. When the President spoke in this Chamber last night he said, ``We will come together to take active steps that strengthen America's economy and put our people back to work.'' He was talking about the airline industry and all our Nation's workers who are affected by this crisis. But I am particularly concerned about how the impending Boeing layoffs will affect the 25,000 Boeing employees I represent here on the floor of the House tonight. Mr. Speaker, as the Speaker has said, we will address the various needs of our workers in next year's legislation. That has been his commitment. He is talking about the health care needs and the insurance needs and the job training needs, all of which we take very seriously and we are putting serious work into right now. The first step toward addressing the stability of our economy is to stabilize the airline industry. It is critical that Congress act now, tonight, to ensure the solvency of our Nation's airlines, because doing so will protect the livelihoods of every American who relies on a vibrant air transport system.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution not only as a Member of Congress but also as an American citizen who is deeply saddened by the heinous acts committed yesterday against the United States. These are acts of hatred. They are acts of violence. They are acts of war. Today, after hearing more accounts of what thousands of individuals endured yesterday, it is clear that yesterday's events will live forever in the memory of every American. One thing is certain, the President, Congress, and military leaders have launched the greatest manhunt this country has ever known. There will be serious consequences for these unconscionable acts of aggression. I can assure the people of my State of Washington, many who have lost friends and loved ones, that in their names I am fully committed to working with our President and our military and intelligence leaders in supporting them in any actions they believe are appropriate. As the President has said, we are a nation of spirit and strength. We will prevail. From blood banks that were overflowing with donors to the thousands of rescue workers who traveled to Manhattan and to the Pentagon to help with relief efforts, we have shown that we are one strong nation. We will be united as we deal with this tragedy. I have no doubt that those responsible for yesterday's actions do not understand the American people. They believe that they can destroy our values and our freedom by destroying our buildings. They forget that our heritage is the heritage of patriots, and freedom, democracy, and liberty are instilled deep in the hearts and the minds of every American. Mr. Speaker, this flame of patriotism will not be extinguished. In fact, today, it burns more brightly than ever before.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this joint resolution to approve the United States-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement. I am very happy to see that we are finally passing this important trade agreement with the third largest nation in ASEAN, which is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and the second most populous country in Southeast Asia. This is an historic agreement. It will reduce tariffs and it will improve market access for United States services and for our products. I am also very pleased with Vietnam's commitment to adopt international standards to protect intellectual property rights. This is a very important step for Vietnam, and it will help very much in reducing piracy and in safeguarding American innovation. For the State that I represent, Washington State, this agreement could mean more high-paying jobs. The Vietnamese Government has made a commitment to purchase four 777 airplanes. These are commercial aircraft. Their construction will be directed by people who live in the district I represent. For our farmers in eastern Washington, lower tariffs and better transparency rules will reduce the red tape that has caused us great trouble in finding markets abroad, and it will expand the exports of our apples, potatoes and wheat to Vietnam. I think it is very important, as we continue this debate, to reaffirm that continuing economic engagement with Vietnam does not diminish our commitment for a full accounting of American soldiers still missing in action. I would say to the gentleman from California that engagement with Vietnam also does not diminish our commitment toward pressing the Vietnamese Government to respect basic human rights. This is important to all of us, and we will not take our eyes off the interaction between our governments. We appreciate that much must be done before Vietnam can join the global community, but by expanding economic freedom, I think that we can foster an environment for further political reforms that can lead to greater openness and tolerance. It seems to me that it is time that we no longer view Vietnam simply as a war. We have got to begin seeing the Vietnamese as a people who want to build a stronger relationship with us and who will provide enormous economic opportunity for our American producers. Continuing our policy of engagement is the best way, I believe, to help both our people and the Vietnamese people. I ask my colleagues to support this joint resolution.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, they say that success has many parents, and certainly in this very important debate over the Nation's health care, we have found many of those parents. I think today that special credit ought to go to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and to President Bush. Through the whole decade of the 1990s we debated these health care issues; only now have we been able to put in place the people who understand that they may have to give up a little to get a lot. As of last night, we are thrilled that these parties have come together and provided us with what I think is a very good piece of legislation. What do we mean when we talk about patient protection? What is the Patients' Bill of Rights supposed to add up to? I want to speak to it from the point of view of a woman. Woman usually schedule their children and their family's health care. What are they looking to be protected from as we look at their health coverage? Everybody supports improving patient protections like prohibiting gag clauses which prevent doctors from talking to their patients about options in their health care that might not be covered by their particular plan. We do this in this bill. Women are interested in finding a way to get immediate access to their pediatrician or OB-GYN. We do that in this bill. We do not require a gatekeeper to allow that person to pass through to where she needs to end up. She is looking for a review process of people like physicians who really care about her best health interests. She wants her family to be safe and well cared for. We provide this kind of recourse in this bill, a truly independent group of health caregivers who are willing to talk with the individual, know her history and her family's history and want the best for her instead of requiring her to pass on to litigation and the courts. We are looking for access to affordable health care. She often pays the bills. One way we provide accessibility to health care is by expanding medical savings accounts, something which is very popular in this Nation, which allows catastrophic coverage for people who generally are healthy. This woman wants to control costs and keep premiums affordable for her family. We support medical malpractice reform. That is in this legislation. The physicians I represent already feel under siege by excessive regulations and spiraling liability insurance costs. Often they feel compelled to do tests that may not help this woman, but will keep these physicians out of court. Today, we take the first step in reducing frivolous litigation by passing the Thomas malpractice reform amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think it is time that we pass patient protection. It has been almost a decade that we have debated it. We have heroes now with us who have taken all of their time, all of their caring, President Bush and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood). I congratulate them for their leadership roles by ending gridlock and by placing the American people first.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy that the bill we are debating today promotes energy conservation and efficiency. These elements are critical, especially in my home State of Washington, where many continue to suffer from the high cost of utility bills. In times of energy supply shortages that result in retail rate increases, it is the role of the Government to empower families and businesses around America with the information that they need to make choices regarding their power usage. As public servants, we can encourage efficiency by providing incentives for the use of ``smart meters,'' in this case for the use of smart meters installed at the cost to the company in many homes throughout my district. These are high-tech devices that tell consumers what time of day is most cost effective to flip on the switch to run their washers, their dryers, their sprinkler systems. Smart meters serve as evidence that conservation does not need to be dictated by the Federal Government, but rather can be learned, and with the right motivation and structure, conservation can work. I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), for including the smart meter provision I offered as part of this comprehensive bill and urge its passage.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, on Friday, July 27, 2001, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 286 through 289. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 286, ``no'' on rollcall No. 287, ``no'' on rollcall No. 288, and ``no'' on rollcall No. 289. Personal Explanation

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. I thank our gracious chairman for yielding me this time and thereby allowing me the opportunity to speak. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this joint resolution to disapprove normal trade relations with Vietnam. I believe that we need to continue our policy of economic engagement with Vietnam. President Clinton already signed a historic bilateral agreement that will require Vietnam to open its markets, to reduce tariffs, to ease barriers to our products in the United States and our services. I am very pleased that the Committee on Ways and Means will be considering this agreement today in committee. Twenty-six years after the end of the war, many of us are still haunted by Vietnam. It touched my generation. I saw boys go away from college and from our communities to fight in Vietnam; and we also saw our colleague, Sam Johnson, and former ambassador to Vietnam, Pete Peterson, our good friends, people we care about, who served our Nation honorably in Vietnam and made terrible sacrifices as prisoners of war. But I believe we can honor their service while still strengthening our economic relations with Vietnam. Renewing normal trade relations does not diminish our commitment to address POW/MIA issues. I am from Seattle, and we have a large Asian/ Vietnamese community. Many have become citizens, contributing to our communities. I do not think establishing normal trade relations with Vietnam diminishes the commitment that we all believe in our communities and in this Congress to POW/MIA issues, to human rights issues, and to issues of religious liberty. Trade is an effective tool to pressure Vietnam to make economic and social reforms. I ask my colleagues today to oppose this bill and to support trade with Vietnam.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in this discussion of India, and I appreciate the sensitivities of it and feel great sympathy; but I have been watching on television this morning the debate that is occurring on the Ex-Im Bank and I really am very alarmed. So at this moment I rise in concern over the several amendments, two of which we will be voting on to cut or eliminate the Export-Import Bank. Mr. Chairman, it is vital to restore this amount of money that already has been reduced by $107 million from the 2001's budget allocation. It is also important for us to think in terms of loans rather than subsidies. The Ex-Im Bank provides loan guarantees, not subsidies, to foreign nations. But the Ex-Im Bank support particularly is critical to the world's developing and emerging markets and nations that otherwise would not be able to receive private commercial lending guarantees to finance their sales. I think anybody who lives in the Pacific Northwest has to be known as a fan of Boeing, and I am one of those. In fiscal year 2000 alone, the Export-Import Bank guaranteed aircraft loans for the sale of more than 60 aircraft to airlines in 15 different countries. In the last 2 years, Ex-Im Bank has guaranteed loans for 185 aircraft that are worth $11 billion. In my corner of the world, that means 17 percent of Boeing's commercial business. The Ex-Im Bank is indispensable to the global competitiveness of United States exporters like Boeing and many other companies. I think this bank helps in its loan guarantees to level the playing field with our European competitors in many overseas markets. So I would certainly hope that the Members of this body, in their great wisdom and with great thoughtfulness, would maintain our competitive edge by opposing these amendments when they come to a vote.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, Americans in communities across the country give their time, their talents and their money to help worthy causes. We have always been a generous people. DeTocqueville noted this in the mid-1800s when he spoke of the unique American tradition of volunteerism. No matter the social or economic burdens, the average American takes extraordinary actions to make a difference and to help those in need, not because they must but because they care. H.R. 7 is a reflection of President Bush's vision to tap into the generosity of average Americans by expanding tax relief for charitable donations and by encouraging all organizations to participate in caring for those in need. Currently, taxpayers who itemize their returns get to take a charitable deduction. Unfortunately, the Tax Code leaves out the nearly 70 percent of taxpayers who do not itemize. H.R. 7 eliminates that restriction. It puts a toe in the door. It rewards the taxpayer's charitable choice and will lead to a corresponding boost in donations. The bill also allows wealthy retired individuals to donate more money from their IRA without a tax penalty. Older people with means who want to help the community by donating to charity should be encouraged and not punished by the Tax Code. Lastly, we should continue developing public-private partnerships between the government and charitable organizations. Some critics claim that this is a dangerous blurring of politics and religion. With great respect, I disagree. I believe that by supporting this bill we honor our common commitment and belief in helping our fellow human beings.