Jennifer Dunn

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Waters amendment. There are many of us who share her concerns for the need to provide access to affordable HIV/AIDS drugs in developing nations. I myself have traveled to nations in Africa three times in the last year and a half, and have obviously witnessed firsthand the devastating effects of this disease on individuals. For many developing countries in Africa, the problem is not access to drugs, but it is lack of an infrastructure in place to distribute drugs to those who are in need, and it is cultural differences that continue to stigmatize those who have HIV/AIDS. But the Waters amendment goes beyond providing affordable drugs in developing countries. It will have a negative effect in other industries like software, music, literature, movies. In essence, it prevents the United States Trade Representative from protecting American innovation from counterfeits or piracy against countries most likely to be involved in violations. Piracy continues to be a problem in many countries, such as China. Once China enters the WTO, it must comply with international intellectual property rights standards. It simply does not make sense for us to negotiate China's WTO membership while simultaneously hindering our United States Trade Representative from ensuring that China comply with all the standards. International intellectual property rights standards are important, and they are essential in preventing theft and piracy of American products. We should do more, not less, to ensure compliance and enforcement of these standards. Mr. Chairman, I come from the area of the United States where the largest private foundation contributes the largest amount of money to the solution of HIV/AIDS. It is the Gates Foundation. But I also come from the area of the country where we know how important it is to protect our intellectual property on all levels from piracy. That is what I stand behind, sensitivity to solve a problem, but good, rational thinking in terms of what we allow our U.S. representative to negotiate on behalf of American business. This amendment is a step in the wrong direction, and I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the people in this body who put together what I believe is a very well-balanced and well- thought-out tax relief proposal. I believe it is very important for people to recognize at the very beginning that this amount of taxes, $1.35 trillion in revenue, is provided in tax cuts only after every other part of the Federal government is funded. In fact, in total, the Federal budget is funded at almost 5 percent of an increase. I think it is very important that we have been responsible in funding the other elements of our government; in fact, giving an 11.5 percent increase to education, setting aside Social Security surpluses, setting aside dollars for Medicare, paying down over the next 10 years, the period of this budget, $2.3 billion in debt owed to the public. I think it is also very important, Mr. Speaker, to recognize what people want around the country now. People want, for one thing, a lot more control over their dollars. That is what we are giving them in this tax relief proposal. I want to speak briefly to one provision that I am very interested in; that is, the repeal of the death tax or the estate tax. The estate tax right now is at the point of putting a burden of up to 55 percent on the backs of people who are basically folks who have bought a home, put money into it for years, provided responsibly for their retirement. This tax rests on the shoulders of middle-income people. On this estate tax relief, we will find that in the first year, 2002, the rate goes down from 55 to 50. It decreases over the next 9 years. We get rid of this death tax in 9 years. January 1, 2010, the death tax is gone. Immediately, the rate of deductibility rises to $1 million. This is a huge change from what we had before. I think that the American public is getting a very good deal with this tax relief bill. On the death tax, we are sitting there with a farm we have had in the family for generations. The time comes when the owner dies, and within 9 months one has to pay in cash up to 55 percent of the value of that property. What does a farmer do who is cash poor and land rich? He sells his land, often creating a situation where the land does not produce enough to support that family. The same thing has happened over and over in my neck of the woods, Washington State, with timber properties, and the community loses. This is a very bad thing. So we have taken into consideration small businesspeople, middle- income people, folks who own farms, people who want to keep businesses in the hands of their families. We have made it easier for them to do that. Everything will phase out by the year 2010, January 1. I do not know why they are complaining about this. They should have done it years ago. Now we have done it. It is a great plan. I want everybody to get behind it.

Ms. DUNN

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

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member, for guiding us along this road towards reforming America's education system and truly making sure that no child is left behind. I rise today, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), to offer an amendment designed to give communities greater flexibility to use their Federal education dollars to hire school resource officers. School resource officers are specially trained, uniformed policemen and women who are sent into the public schools to identify at-risk youth and serve as positive role models and mentors to students. During the 106th Congress, the gentleman from Texas and I served as cochairs of the Speaker's Bipartisan Working Group on Youth Violence. Included in the Working Group's final report was a recommendation that Congress provide adequate funds for school resource officers and other programs that bring law enforcement into the schools as mentors and instructors. Earlier this year, we witnessed the importance of having these safety officers in schools. During a recent school shooting at Granite Hills High School in Southern California, the campus school resource officer was able to stop the youth offender, and he was instrumental in preventing further violence. The school principal called the officer his personal hero and credited him for saving the lives of other students. H.R. 1 places a 20 percent cap on the amount of Federal funds local education agencies can use for authorized law enforcement and security activities, including the hiring of school resource officers. Our amendment lifts this cap and it gives local educational agencies the option to spend any portion of their Federal funds on hiring school resource officers. Mr. Chairman, our Nation's schools should be safe places. We must provide an atmosphere where teachers feel safe to teach and students feel safe enough to learn. School resource officers are an important part of any school safety plan, and every effort should be made at the Federal level to give schools greater flexibility to hire these officers as a violence prevention measure. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just make one remark before we close debate on this amendment. It is very important to remember that schools are among the safest place for children to be. We discovered that as I served as cochair of the working group here in Congress on Youth Violence. The perception that schools are unsafe, however, creates a huge uneasiness and anxiety among our children that they need not feel, but it is up to us and a responsibility of ours and an opportunity of ours here in the Congress to do those things that are positive steps towards reducing youth violence in schools around the country and towards reassuring youngsters that schools are safe places to be. Schools provide a tremendous opportunity to interact with our youth and positively contribute to their personal development. It is an opportunity that we must not miss. I urge my colleagues to support this important youth violence prevention amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, one of the previous speakers asked the question, how can we afford the tax cut? Well, I say if we cannot afford the tax cut at this time of surplus, when can we ever afford a tax cut? It is the taxpayers who created this surplus for us and it is they whom we should be rewarding by turning back some of those dollars for them to spend. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the reconciliation measure and in opposition to the substitute motion. President Bush has very wisely made rate reduction the foundation of his tax relief proposal. He wants to help all income tax payers, especially low- and moderate-income tax payers as quickly as possible and this bill embodies his commitment to give Americans broad-based tax relief. The bill is fair, it is fiscally responsible, and it is good for the economy. Rate reduction is fair. Everybody who pays income taxes will receive tax relief under this proposal. It targets no one in and no one out. In addition, it provides retroactive tax relief for people in the lowest brackets by reducing the 15 percent rate to 12 percent effective at the beginning of this year. This tax relief bill takes 6 million people off the tax rolls, and it enables a woman on her own with two children to earn up to $31,000 in a year without having to pay income taxes. Rate reduction is fiscally responsible. The tax cut is phased in over 10 years, and it represents a very small fraction of the estimated $20 trillion the government is expected to take in over the next decade. And rate reduction will help American families. Once the cuts are fully implemented, an average family of four with $55,000 in income will see $2,000 a year in tax reduction. $2,000 is the same as 10 weeks of groceries, a semester of tuition at a community college, or 2 months' worth of mortgage payments. These are real dollars that should go where the taxpayer chooses to send them. I urge my colleagues to support the reconciliation bill and reject the substitute.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 10. I think this is a fabulous bill, and I commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for the great work they did in bringing us together and consulting with us and allowing us to make our opinions heard. I think it does some very, very fine things, but I am particularly enthusiastic about the very explicit focus that this bill has taken on the sometimes unique needs of the American working woman. This bill will enable women to devote more money to retirement savings, accumulate assets more quickly, and it will enable them to keep their benefits in one retirement plan when they change jobs. So it is going to let women have a much better sense of peace of mind as they move toward retirement, and I think it will make them feel also that they are more fully participating in planning for that time, to make it a very happy time and a secure time. As we have heard from many previous speakers, women choose to leave the workforce for many reasons, including to raise a family or to take care of their loved ones. I left the workforce for 8 years to raise my little children. I was a lucky person. When I came back in, I would have appreciated the opportunity that this bill provides to catch up with the losses sustained during those years to my IRA. Women are often unable to take full advantage, for that reason, of employer-sponsored pension plans as well. H.R. 10 helps women make catch-up contributions to their pension plans. Right now, for example, you are able to contribute $2,000 each year to an IRA. This bill says that if you are over 50 years old, a man or a woman, but specifically interesting more, I think, to women, you can begin to contribute up to $5,000. That is $3,000 additional dollars each year you can put away in your IRA. Also when it comes to the employee pension plan, a 401(k) or a thrift savings plan, women like me can begin, as soon as this bill is signed, to contribute $5,000 more every single year into their pension plan. Current law also makes it very difficult to consolidate retirement funds from different plans into one plan. Removing these restrictions is very important, considering the fluid employment situation in America today. This is especially true for working women who change jobs more frequently than men do. The portability provisions in H.R. 10 will ensure that retirement benefits follow the employee as the employee changes jobs. H.R. 10, Mr. Speaker, is a very well-crafted bill. It has strong bipartisan support, and I am among the many who urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very good that the Democrats want to be bipartisan on this, and I expect in our final legislation we will see that. My great friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), has talked about the death tax and why he believes a repeal is not the way to go. Let me just respond that I think it is very important to be very truthful on what we are dealing with. In the bill that the ranking member discussed, he said that repealing the death tax today would cost $660 billion. That is accurate, but that is not the bill we are talking about. The bill we are talking about today is H.R. 8. The reason we phased it in is because we want to make it easier to accept the loss in revenue over a period of 10 years. Obviously, at $200 billion over 10 years we are not repealing the tax as rapidly as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has suggested. I mean, if we were and we were doing it today, it would be a lot more expensive because each year some of that revenue is lost that is coming in. That is not the bill we are talking about. The bill we are talking about today is a phase-out of the death tax over 10 years. It will eventually repeal the death tax. Repeal is where we want to go because we all know that if we leave any portion of this tax intact and we are not on the train toward repeal, this tax will grow back. This tax began in 1916, the fourth time in our Nation's history. At that time, if one were calculating in today's dollars, the exemption amount that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is putting at $2 million in his bill, his substitute today, the exemption in 1916 is worth $9 million in today's dollars. So I think his bill is a very lethargic way to go at eliminating this burden, and certainly his description of his other bill does not reflect what we are considering today.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, only in America are we confronted with a certificate at birth, a license at marriage, and a bill at death. I rise today in support of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act. Americans spend most of their adult lives paying taxes in various forms. We have an opportunity today to do something good for American businesses and families by ending the practice of paying a tax that is triggered only by death. Why do we talk about repeal instead of about the exemption level that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has suggested? The reason is that if you do not repeal this tax, it will grow back. This tax began in 1916. A Democrat President, Woodrow Wilson, started this tax. It was the fourth time in history this tax existed. Before, always for fewer than 8 years to fund a war and then it was phased out. This time, the government got its hand in the people's pocket and it never took it out. I will tell you one other thing, Mr. Speaker. From 1916 to now if you calculated today's dollars and the exemption level in 1916, you would come out at $9 million in 1916. So our substitute is very, very unfair to people who are trying to do the right thing by providing for their retirement. Critics of repeal often ask, why not just increase the exemption? The Democratic bill raises the exemption to $2 million. This is an arbitrary number. It rewards winners and losers arbitrarily. It is especially harmful to businesses that are capital rich and cash poor. Trucking companies, grocery stores, hardware stores, family-held newspapers and family farms would all easily exceed the $2 million exemption. In fact, a recent study of black-owned businesses found that 60 percent of black-owned firms are valued at over $2 million. The opposition claims that only 2 percent of Americans who die pay this tax. It does not begin to take into consideration the cost of compliance during the lives of those people, the cost of paying for life insurance policies and estate plans, or it does not take into consideration how many of those businesses sell off before the owner dies because they cannot afford to pay the death tax. What about providing a special exemption for small businesses and farms? Our experience with the current exemption proves this to be a very poor choice. It is too complicated. It is too onerous. In fact, we tried with the best of intentions in 1997 to provide such an exemption. It was so complicated to be able to reflect family relationships in legislative language that only 3 to 5 percent of family businesses were able to qualify for this exemption. Not only is this a repeal that we can afford, it is a repeal that will boost economic growth. A recent study by economist Allen Sinai shows that if the death tax were repealed, GDP could increase by $150 billion over 10 years and lead to 165,000 new jobs. And it makes sense. The dollars that are being used to pay estate taxes and pay for compliance could be used to hire more people or provide health benefits. The assumption is confirmed by a recent survey of women business owners where 60 percent of the respondents indicated that the death tax will hurt expansion plans. Minority business owners recognize the death tax as a bad tax. It is a threat to their legacy. They say, and this is why it is endorsed by the Black Chamber of Commerce, that it takes about three generations to build a family business, to allow them to have a standing and a foothold in their community. They say that the death tax is an enemy, an obstacle that will keep these fledgling businesses from being able to survive. That is why the Black Chamber of Commerce and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce supports our bill on the floor today. People who oppose repeal like to claim that it will only benefit the rich. We know this is untrue. This is a tax that punishes good behavior and savings. It is a tax on virtue. It is a tax on the people who work hard, pay attention to their savings, provide for themselves so they do not have to lean on the government during their retirement and in most cases have already paid taxes once, maybe two times. We need to promote business growth and not limit it. We need to encourage savings. I ask my colleagues to support the repeal of this tax. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. In response to the gentleman, I think it is important that we hear people talking about this is going to decimate the future of the children. We are talking about a tax that will phase out over 10 years and will hardly at the very end be more than 1 percent of the budget. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman fails to mention that his proposal to increase the exemption does not tell the story that on the first dollar after that exemption, taxpayers will be paying at a rate of 49 percent, as opposed to the 18 percent in the bill that we propose. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the author of the lockbox that sets aside all dollars for Social Security and Medicare.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic substitute is short term fix masquerading as real tax relief. It will not solve the problem. Here is why: First, it does not address the high death tax rates. On the first after their $2 million dollar credit, the family is forced to pay taxes starting at a 49 percent rate on every dollar over the credit. For businesses valued at 6 million dollars, this could mean a tax bill approaching 2 million. Under the substitute the U.S. will still have the second-highest death tax rates in the world--behind bastions of free market capitalism such as France and Sweden. Second, every attempt to provide relief from the death tax has been a failure. In 1997, with the best intentions, we fashioned the Qualified Family-Owned Business Exemption as a way of addressing the concerns of small businesses and farmers, but it has not been the solution we envisioned. It is so complicated and onerous that the American Bar Association has called for its repeal. It also has a limited reach. According to Treasury estimates, only between 3 and 5 percent of estates qualify. In short, our experience shows that reform will only prolong the problem. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the substitute affirms the flawed notion that it is fair and reasonable to tax people at the end of their life. Instead of rewarding them for saving or for building a business, we punish them by assessing a burdensome tax. I urge my colleagues to reject the substitute and eliminate the death tax once and for all.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, the Federal tax burden today on American families is an intolerable 34 percent of personal income, so it is especially appropriate today that we are debating a bill that would be getting rid of a tax that penalizes two pillars of our American family, and those are marriage and children. By alleviating the impact of the marriage penalty and doubling the per child tax credit, this bill will provide nearly $400 billion in family-friendly tax relief over the next 10 years. In my district in Washington State alone, 73,000 couples will be helped by this bill and 122,000 children by the bill that we will be passing today. The marriage penalty is a particularly strong attack on working women. Currently, the Tax Code creates a disincentive for women to go to work at all, or, if they do, to earn much above the very low threshold. Women who make a salary on a par with their husbands are taxed at an extraordinary rate, a marginal rate that is higher when you combine incomes. It pushes that rate up. This is not a problem for couples with a single breadwinner so much, but in today's society, where both the husband and wife work in most households, it is a huge problem. Conservative estimates put this problem at about 25 million American couples who are paying an average of 1,400 in additional taxes just because they are married. This is wrong, Mr. Speaker. This bill represents real relief for couples in our society. As newlyweds start out on their new life, they should not face a punishing tax bill. The incentives are wrong. The tax is unfair. Mr. Speaker, we should honor marriage, not taxes. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help couples and young families by supporting H.R. 6.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, parents continue to see tragic examples that reinforce the need for immediate action to stop the violence in our nation's schools. During the 106th Congress, twenty-four Members-- twelve Democrats and twelve Republicans--worked together as part of the Bipartisan Working Group on Youth Violence. As Co-Chair of the Working Group, I was involved in identifying causes and advancing through consensus solutions to fight the rise of youth violence. During our weekly meetings we reviewed studies and listened to testimony from expert witnesses from academia, law enforcement, the judicial system, and advocacy groups. Today I am re-introducing a school safety measure that emerged as a recommendation during our Working Group discussions. Specifically, my proposal will give schools the flexibility to use their federal education dollars to hire School Resource Officers. The School Resource Officer program sends specially trained police officers into public schools to identify at-risk youth and serve as positive role models to students. One adult can make a difference in the life of a child, students can trust and count on these officers. Just last week at Granite Hills High School in Southern California, the nation was shocked by another school shooting. The youth offender was ultimately stopped by the campus School Resource Officer. The school principal called the officer his personal hero and said that if he weren't there, a lot of people would have died. School Resource Officers clearly play a critical role in keeping schools safe. Nevertheless, local school officials currently face red tape when it comes to spending federal money for School Resource Officers. Under the federal Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act, schools can only spend twenty cents of each federal dollar for School Resource Officers. My initiative would lift this cap and allow schools to spend any portion of its federal funds on School Resource Officers. Early this year, I joined King County Sheriff Dave Reichert in announcing that Dimmit Middle School in Renton, Washington will receive a School Resource Officer in response to a student firing a gun in the school cafeteria. Our nation's schools should be safe places. We must expel fear from our classrooms and do everything we can to keep our children out of danger. School Resource Officers are an important part of any school safety plan, and every effort must be made on the federal level to give schools greater flexibility to hire these officers as a violence prevention measure.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, we continue to see tragic examples that reinforce the need for immediate action to stop the violence in our nation's schools. Today I am reintroducing, along with my colleagues Peter Defazio and Zach Wamp, the Schoolyard Safety Act. This legislation is aimed at keeping America's youth safe in their schools by establishing an incentive program for States to create a 24-hour holding period for students who bring guns to school. The tragic May 1998 schoolyard shooting in Springfield, Oregon best illustrates the need for this bill's incentive program for States to impose a 24-hour holding period. As you may recall, a student showed up at school with a gun. He was immediately expelled and sent home. He was not, however, held to undergo psychological evaluation, nor was he placed in juvenile detention for further questioning. The next day, the student returned to his high school with a gun and used it to kill two classmates, and later, his parents. Several hundred times a year, young people bring guns to school, and disciplinary action is taken. But we know that simply expelling a child does nothing to protect innocent students, communities, or the troubled youth himself. When a student brings a gun into the classroom, concrete steps must be taken immediately to deal with the problem. A 24-hour holding period would put the student into a secure environment where he can receive the attention he needs. This will not only protect the safety of other students and the public, but will ensure that the student carrying the gun receives proper counseling. The Schoolyard Safety Act gives States access to Federal Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs if they seek to create a 24-hour holding period. It does not mandate another burdensome Federal program; rather, it gives States greater flexibility to use their Federal dollars how they see fit. We believe local officials and educators know best how to solve the problem of youth violence. School shootings show us how easily gun violence can break the heart of a community. Every man, woman, and child across America have the right to expect to live on a safe street and send their kids to a safe school. Children who learn in fear are learning the wrong lessons and we have a responsibility to do whatever we can to prevent future tragedies.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, there are two reasons for the tax relief bill that we are considering on the floor this afternoon. First, as the Federal Government continues to amass surpluses, we must share this reward with the people who produced it. The longer we delay providing tax relief, the less likely it will materialize. Because we know that it is a fundamental fact that, if that money stays in Washington, D.C., it will be spent. Under this bill alone, a typical family of four with an income of $55,000 a year would see a tax cut of nearly $400 this year; and under the entire bill, which we will be addressing later on, $2,000 once the plan is fully implemented. Second is, as the economy softens, tax relief will provide critical stimulus to prevent this country from going into a prolonged recession. Wait for the budget. Sure, we could do that. But H.R. 3 would increase family income. It will boost economic activity, and it will contribute to job growth. We need to get this tax relief moving now. Why wait? The critics and doomsayers claim that H.R. 3 is too large, it is reckless, it is unfair. I respectfully disagree on all counts. The bracket reduction represents 25 percent of the projected budget surplus. It is also fair. Under H.R. 3, every taxpayer will receive relief, every taxpayer. It targets no one in and no one out. Indeed, those in the lowest bracket will garner immediate benefit retroactive to the beginning of this year. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore