Jennifer Dunn

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today in enthusiastic support for H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. It is really a joy to be on the floor and be debating this bill in concert with the minority. It is a great feeling that we all believe this is something that needs to be changed for the fairness of our Nation's valued seniors. The Social Security earnings penalty is yet another aspect of the Social Security System that just no longer applies to today's society. It is a 60-year old system. It was written in the 1930s, and it just does not work any longer, and that is why we unite today in wanting to change this provision. Seniors are living longer, healthier lives and we need their strength and their experience in our communities. We need their examples and their institutional memories to provide the example to young new workers who are moving into the job market. In my State, Washington State, some of our very best workers right now are sitting in rocking chairs because they cannot afford the loss of their Social Security income that would come with their continuing in their jobs. Thirteen thousand seniors in my State are being forced to choose between the jobs that they love or need and losing the retirement income for which they have worked all their lives. This is not only wrong, as our chairman said, but it keeps an intelligent and productive part of the work force at home. Seniors who are currently retired have been called the greatest generation for the sacrifices they made in defending freedom and building America into the world's only remaining economic and military superpower. It is time that we honor their contributions to America by allowing them to continue to give one of the most precious gifts of all to us: Their work ethic. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very important bill.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, working Americans across the country are paying the highest prices at the pump at any time since World War II. More and more of their hard-earned dollars are spent on gasoline, leaving far less dollars to be spent on their loved ones. But the lack of any energy policy by the Clinton-Gore administration has put not only our economic security at risk but our national security as well. The United States relies on foreign imports at this point for 56 percent of its crude oil needs today. That compares to 35 percent during the Arab oil embargo in 1973. Think what that would mean to the United States if that supply were suddenly cut off. The Clinton-Gore energy policy will just make things worse before they get better. The Department of Energy estimates that in 20 years the United States will be dependent on foreign imports for 65 percent of our crude oil needs. We must have a sound energy policy to provide for America's economic and national security interests and lower prices at the pumps.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and all of the other people, Republicans and Democrats, who worked so hard and so fairly to put the provisions together that we will be voting on today. This bill provides essential relief that is a down payment toward the ultimate repeal of the devastating death tax. The freedom to attain prosperity and to accumulate wealth is uniquely American; and when unfettered, it is a wonderful thing to behold. Yet, the current tax treatment of a person's life savings is so onerous that children are often forced to turn over more than half of their inheritance to the Federal Government, in cash, within 9 months of the death of the parent. We all know stories about the basic unfairness of this tax. It is just as wrong as it is tragic, and it dishonors the hard work of those who have passed on. As a result, in the past, Congress has tried to provide targeted death tax relief to certain people. In 1997, a new death tax provision was enacted to provide additional relief to smaller family-held businesses and farms. Although it was a good idea at the time, this exemption has proven to be a boondoggle for attorneys who are hired by families trying to navigate their way through the 14-point eligibility test. The Democrats now propose to increase this family-owned business exemption under the guise of relief. Well, it will not work. Many estate planners have told us that this exemption is so complex that fewer than 2 percent of businesses or farms even qualify. As much as we try, it is simply impossible to duplicate in law the complex family relationships that exist in the real world. Democrats will also argue today that this tax only hits a select few. This argument is misleading because it only focuses on a portion of the debate: who pays the tax. What they do not tell us is that the mere existence of the tax forces businesses to spend an average of $67,000 per year in life insurance premiums and attorneys and accountant fees in order to prepare for the tax. The total cost of compliance in the private sector alone is about equal to the total dollars collected in this tax each year. In addition, their argument does not account for the number of businesses who sell before the owner dies in order to pay a lower capital gains tax. The Chicago-based Vanguard, one of America's last remaining black- owned newspapers, was forced to sell last year because they could not pay the millions of dollars they owed in death tax. As a result, that community lost an important voice. This is typical of what happens when a family-owned enterprise cannot afford to pay the high after-death taxes. That is also why the Black Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the National Indian Business Council all support the repeal of the death tax. They argue that it takes 2 or 3 generations to gain an economic foothold in the community. To them, the death tax is an enemy. Mr. Speaker, I urge every single one of my colleagues on the floor of this House to vote against the repeal of the unfair death tax that we can do away with in this bill.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, as Co-Chair of the Bipartisan Working Group on Youth Violence last fall, I heard numerous witnesses from law enforcement and the education field testify about the importance of Schoo Resource Officers. Despite public perception, schools remain one of the safest place for children to be. Nevertheless, we must continue to make violence, and the perception of violence, rare in schools, and School Resource Officers are an integral part of this effort. For this reason, I am introducing the School Safety Act. Under current law, there is a 20% cap on the amount of federal funds that a state may spend on School Resource Officers from the federal Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act. The School Safety Act eliminates this cap so schools will have the flexibility to spend more of their Safe and Drug Free federal funds on a school resource officer, if they choose, in order to provide greater security for their schools. One adult can make a difference in a child's life by taking an interest and nuturing him or her. While there are many people working at schools today who can be a positive influence, School Resource Officers also play a crucial role. Students with behavioral disorders account for a majority of problems encountered in schools today, and these officers are needed, not only to identify these students, but to work on developmental skills and relationship building. By being a positive role model and working to instill values in troubled students, School Resource Officers often stop problems before they have a chance to start. Additionally, these officers can provide consultation with parents and teachers about student behavior and emotional difficulties, and provide parents with greater peace of mind about the care and safety of their children at school. Schools need to be safe places where students can learn, free of intimidation and fear. School Resource Officers are an important part of any school safety plan, and every effort must be made on the federal level to allow schools to choose whether their school safety plan will include this officer. I invite you to join with me in this effort and cosponsor and support this simple yet important legislation.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the seniors and near seniors in the Congressional district that I represent, I rise today in enthusiastic support of H.R. 5, the Seniors Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. The Social Security earnings limit is another aspect of a 60-year old Social Security system that no longer applies to modern society. These days seniors are living longer. They are healthier, and yet too many of our Nation's best workers are sitting in rocking chairs. We need their strength. We need their experience in our communities. And young people starting new jobs need their example, their example of the value of work and the discipline of work. Unfortunately, by denying retirement benefits for those who choose to work, Social Security penalizes seniors who want to be productive and teach the values of hard work to younger generations. Mr. Speaker, this bill is also very important to women who, 75 percent of the time, live longer than their spouses. And they ought to be able to have the peace of mind that they can supplement their retirement earnings if they wish without being penalized. In Washington State alone, more than 13,000 seniors have been forced to choose between keeping the job they love or losing the retirement income for which they worked all their lives. This is wrong. It also keeps an intelligent and productive part of our work force at home. Seniors who are currently retired have been called the greatest generation, for the sacrifices they made in defending freedom and building America into the world's only remaining superpower. It is time that we honor the contributions to America, their contributions, by allowing them to work, if they wish, and to give one of the most precious gifts of all, that they can offer their work ethic. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) for persevering in this cause. I want to urge my colleagues to support this bill and the President to sign it.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, women are changing the face of America's financial success. Today, there are nearly 8.5 million women-owned businesses in the United States, and they are increasing in number, range, diversity, and earning power. As their companies expand, women business owners employ 18.5 million individuals and produces $3.1 trillion in sales. Since 1994, the Republican-led Congress has diligently worked on behalf of women business owners. We have instituted a variety of reforms from achieving a balanced budget and modernizing financial services, to easing the burden of unnecessary regulation and taxation. In this new century, we must do everything we can to keep the economy growing and enable women to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. I would like to take the opportunity to submit an insightful interview, conducted by the Center for International Private Enterprise in their magazine Economic Reform Today, highlighting the positive contributions of women-owned businesses to the U.S. economy. Businesswomen in the Mainstream ERT: In recent years, the US and a few other industrial nations have seen very impressive growth in the number of women-owned firms. What do you think is the reason for this rapid increase, and what impact is it having on the US economy? Mr. DONOHUE: It's very true that the number of women-owned firms has increased phenomenally. In 1997, the US Small Business Administration (SBA) found that women owned 8.5 million small businesses in this country--that's one in every three small businesses! Together, they employ more than 23.8 million people and generate up to $3.1 trillion in sales. There are many reasons why there has been such a rapid expansion in the number of women in business. First of all, women in general are increasingly better educated than they were a few decades ago. According to the US Department of Commerce, in 1970 only 8% of women completed college, compared with 14% of men. By 1990, that number had risen to 17.6% (compared with 23% of men). Women's educational attainment increased by 4.8% while men's rose by only 2.8%. In addition to being better prepared, women are also delaying marriage and childbearing in order to enter the workplace--a trend that started in the 1970's. The percent of never-married females ages 20 to 29 rose, in average, by 11.4% between 1980 and 1990. This helped power an increase in productivity from which we are benefiting today. The impact of these twin social trends has been to increase the influence of women in business--particularly small business. For many women, owning a business and setting their own schedules has been a way for them to reconcile their personal and career goals. Between 1987 and 1996, the number of women-owned businesses grew 78%--and, according to the National Foundation of Women Business Owners, women are starting businesses at twice the rate of men. As a result of this incredible productivity and activity, women-owned firms now employ more people than do the Fortune 500 companies! ERT: The US Chamber has seen a significant increase in women-owned businesses Mr. DONOHUE: In recent years, the US Chamber has approached this positive situation in two ways. First, we have worked hard to provide resources for businesswomen. For example, throughout 1999 the Chamber is cosponsoring three national satellite conferences designed to help women entrepreneurs develop winning small business strategies. These conferences are intended to present women business owners with an excellent opportunity to grow and learn from fellow entrepreneurs and to share their knowledge and experience with colleagues. These conference programs also include a question-and-answer session with the studio audience and call-in participants. Co-sponsors of the series include Edward Jones, the US Small Business Administration, the Small Business Development Center Program, IBM, the American Business Women's Association, and Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE). We have already held two conferences. The first was held May 17, 1999 and offered ``Practical Tips for Today and Tomorrow.'' It featured Jay Conrad Levinson, author of Guerilla Marketing: Secrets for Making Big Profits from Your Small Business and Flori Roberts, an ethnic cosmetic pioneer who now runs motivational seminars. The second satellite conference was held August 30 and focused on how to expand a business. The third in the series--on financing for stability and growth--is set for November 2. Networking opportunities and new resources have always been a key reason that women have joined the Chamber. But let's face it--wehther you're a male business owner or a female business owner, you're still going to have the same interests and concerns when it comes right down to it. You're still going to worry about high taxes, health care mandates and onerous workplace and environmental regulations that cost business well over $700 billion every year. We understand this, and we fight for all of our members' interests before the US Congress, regulatory agencies, in the courts--and in the court of public opinion. And in our view, that's the main reason why women-owned businesses--and indeed, all of our business members--join together with us. ERT: How can women business leaders help to shape public policy, and what is the role of public policy in promoting the involvement of women in business? Mr. DONOHUE: Most women business leaders are so busy running their businesses that they have little time for public policy. But the most important public policy effort that women business leaders can make is to recognize that their interests lie in protecting and improving our system of free enterprise. Taxes, health care mandates and regulations impact every business, and it's important for women--and their male counterparts--to recognize this. My advice to businesswomen in this country is to get involved. Join your local and state chambers of commerce. Become a member of the US Chamber of Commerce! Find examples of other women who have successfully fought for business and emulate them--for example, the Treasurer of the Board of Directors of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is Carol Ball, the Publisher and CEO of Ball Publishing Company of Greenville, Ohio. She is a tough, ardent advocate for a pro-business agenda, and we are lucky to have her on board. When it comes to promoting women in business, I believe that the US government ought to do two things. First, through agencies like the Small Business Administration, it should provide information and act as a clearinghouse for different resources that would be beneficial to women. Second, I believe that the federal government should create a better climate for enterprise creation. From serious regulatory reform to better bankruptcy laws, pro-business policies will help all business owners, but they will aid women in particular, who, as I previously noted, start businesses at twice the rate of men. ERT: Women's business associations appear to be growing around the world. How can they make a difference? Do they address special needs of business-women that traditional business associations do not? Mr. DONOHUE: Women's business associations are an invaluable resource for women at all stages of their careers. The networking possibilities alone make them worthwhile. In addition, some associations offer member benefits such as loans and discounts on business products. These benefits, other resources and networking are major draws for women enterpreneurs. For example, the American Business Women's Association (ABWA) offers options for every phase of a career. Whether a woman is looking for a promotion, career move, her own business or a way to stay active in retirement, ABWA offers a specific membership program tailored to get her on her way. But remembers, women's business associations and organizations like the Chamber can work together! The Chamber offers conferences and leadership forums to help prepare women for the world of business. And, as I've mentioned before, we also fight for pro-business policies that benefit both men and women. ERT: In many nations, wowen-owned businesses are confined to cottage industries and the informal sector. Do you see this changing over time! Mr. DONOHUE: Yes, I do. As more women in those societies enter the workforce, as they become better educated and as societies become more open, you will see greater numbers of women assume top corporate leadership posts around the world. ERT: Many women business owners-- Mr. DONOHUE: I'm very glad you asked that. The scale of international trade today is such that even the smallest of companies, be it an importer or a manufacturer, is operating on a global scale. The US Chamber has long been committed to policies that make it even easier for companies of all sizes to trade. Right now, we have a major international trade education project under way, in which we hope to communicate the benefits of increased trade to the public. By looking beyond our borders, women business owners have an excellent opening to grow their businesses, especially with the advent of information technology, the Internet and e-commerce. At the Chamber, we aim to create an environment so that these companies prosper, and that they take advantage of the opportunities available to them. ERT: Speaking of technology, how do you foresee the Internet and other information technology boosting the ability of small-scale entrepreneurs--like many women-owned firms--to access international markets? Mr. DONOHUE: The Internet is one of the most profound inventions of this century. It enables the smallest of small companies to compete with the biggest ones--if they can figure out how to do it. The Internet confers many advantages on small businesses. For example, small companies can use it to monitor orders and other customer services--and cut costs dramatically. Network connectivity makes it possible for you to hook up your local area network (LAN) directly to the Internet. And a wide-area network (WAN) connection offers multiple simultaneous connections through a dedicated data line, at tremendous savings over individual modems and standard telephone lines. This makes your existing internal email address work as Internet email addresses, and allows you to set up your own Web server (with your own domain name) to provide volumes of information to existing and potential new customers and to take orders on-line. The Internet also offers small businesses a much wider consumer base. There are 92 million Internet users in North America. The number of women Internet users jumped by 80% in only nine months, passing the 10 million mark. And 55 million people have shopped on the Web for products ranging from books, computers, clothing, CDs, and videos, to cars, car parts and even houses. Those consumers spent $12 billion this year, up from $7 billion last year. Moreover, the biggest business is . . . business! Companies have spent even more than consumers--about $43 billion on Internet purchases according to Forrester Research. This year, that figure will likely jump to nearly $110 billion. It's no wonder, as the University of Texas reported, that the Internet economy generated $301 billion of revenues in 1998 and created 1.2 million jobs. In short, to connect with people and businesses in other countries, the Internet can't be beat. And there's nowhere to go but up as more and more nations get wired and go online. E-commerce will be the story of the next century.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. To respond to the gentleman who preceded me, the Joint Committee on Taxation has rated the Democrat plan at providing zero in relief for the marriage penalty over the next 5 years. Mr. Speaker, let us take a close look at what happens with the marriage penalty. A young couple is thinking about marrying. Each of them already has a job. They bring in an income and pay income tax on that income. They decide to marry. As they file together, instead of separately, the way they were doing before, all of a sudden the joint incomes push that lower-income earner into the higher-income spouse's upper tax bracket. Therefore, they end up paying taxes on a larger amount in a higher bracket. That is the penalty. The penalty on average is about $1,400 per year per couple. I think it is about time that we end this penalty. Uncle Sam should not be able to say, with this ring I thee tax. This is exactly the case for the 7,200 married couples in my district that I represent in the State of Washington, and for 25 million working couples around this Nation. We were overtaxing them. We understand that the rewards that come with working can be abundant, and we also understand that this new economy is being driven in large part by women, because women are starting businesses at twice the rate of men. These are enterprising women. They want to use their talents, as they should. But they are also having to balance the demands of work and family. I will tell the Members right now, Mr. Speaker, 70 percent of mothers are out there now in the work force. I think they deserve a little relief, but $1,400 so they can work, than if they were staying home, it is not fair. Republicans believe that that $1,400 can be spent a lot more wisely by a couple at home, so we want to redirect that dollar back into the couples' pockets so they can spend it on a washer, a dryer, the kids' education, a family vacation in the great Pacific Northwest. Republicans also believe in choice. We think it is very important that the Tax Code neither discourages nor encourages people as to what they do with their lives, whether they go back to work or they stay home and choose to be at home raising their children. That is what I did for about 8 years before I returned to the work force, and nobody can tell me that work at home raising a family is not hard work. That is why we are looking at this. Both families should receive benefits, whether they are staying in the home working and raising children, or going out into the work force. Our marriage penalty tax relief provides just that, equal treatment for married women, so they can make the choice as to whether they work or they stay at home and raise their children. I think we have a great opportunity today to help women reach their goals, whether it be pursuing a successful career or raising their little ones. We hear a lot of talk about whether the President will veto this bill or not. I think he will sign this bill. I have great faith in him. Even though Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers sent him a letter advising him to veto the marriage penalty, I think he will see the fairness. I think as he really listens to the voices of folks that I and my colleagues represent all over this Nation, that he will sign this bill. The President has a bill. I think there are some problems with his bill. For example, in the President's plan, he says that he will decide when the time is right for marriage penalty relief. Under the House proposal, a couple earning a combined income of $60,000 would receive just about $750 more dollars in relief than under the President's plan, because it is a very narrow plan. It would help 16 million fewer couples than our bill does. I think if we get behind this bill, the fairness of it, and folks write to the President and say, let us go for this, I think the President will be very wise and sign this fair bill.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, on February 6, Ronald Reagan will be celebrating his 89th birthday. To commemorate this occasion, I will be joining my colleague, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), in introducing legislation to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Ronald and Nancy Reagan. Together with his devoted First Lady, Ronald Reagan believed in the promise of the American dream. In an era of growing cynicism, the Reagans worked in their own optimistic, upbeat way to make America a place where everyone can rise as high and as far as her ability will take her. In 1989, I had an opportunity personally to thank Ronald Reagan for his contributions to America. This was shortly after the Berlin Wall was taken down and the land he once declared an ``evil empire'' began to be dissolved. Now is the time to broaden this ``thank you'' so that it comes from all the American people. Mr. Speaker, we can begin this process here in the Congress in a bipartisan way by awarding him and his First Lady the Congressional Gold Medal. Mr. and Mrs. Reagan, this ``thank you'' is long overdue.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, President Calvin Coolidge once said, ``The nation which forgets its defenders will be itself forgotten.'' Americans have not forgotten the veterans who risked their lives and, in many cases, sacrificed their health and goals for this great country. The United States maintains its coveted position as the world's only remaining superpower because of the countless men and women who, throughout history, selflessly put themselves in harm's way to defend America's freedom across the globe. On this Veterans Day, I would like to pay a special tribute to a particular group of veterans who are many times overlooked--the more than 400,000 women who served in the U.S. military during World War II. In order to properly show my gratitude to these unsung heroes, I lent my name as a proud cosponsor of H. Res. 41, Honoring American Military Women For Their Service in World War II Resolution. This measure pays tribute to the women pioneers who partook in a career traditionally reserved for men and recognizes the high standard of military excellence they set for future generations to admire. I am pleased that we are taking time to give these military women due credit and thanks. On this special day, it is important for Americans across the nation to recognize all veterans for their selfless dedication to our great Nation. Many put their life's dreams on hold to ensure American freedom and security. To them, I humbly say, ``thank you.''

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my voice to those who enthusiastically support H.R. 3073. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for her commitment to helping encourage fathers to be involved in their families. The best hope for our children is the daily involvement of both parents in their lives. For too long, we have tolerated the unfortunate trend of fatherless homes to the detriment of our youth. Too many children are being born out of wedlock. A recent census study found that the number of babies born to unwed parents has increased fivefold since the 1930s. Both mothers and fathers are important to raising children and helping them achieve their full potential. Too often, fathers who are not custodial parents have difficulty meeting their financial obligations to their children, or have trouble spending time with them. We have got to encourage efforts that help men get more involved in the lives of their children, especially when they are not around on a day-to-day basis. This Congress has rightfully promoted improving the lives of families through attempts to lower the historic tax burden they shoulder. Now it is time to help men who may not be a part of the home but who are struggling to be a part of the family.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to make major progress in reforming programs to make sure there is greater access in health care, we want to also make sure that nobody falls through the cracks. So that is why I rise in enthusiastic support today for this bill to provide essential relief to seniors that are affected by unintended reductions in Medicare under the BBA. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) for his willingness to work with me on several provisions that are important for women's health and to the pace of medical innovation. First, this bill doubles the reimbursement for Pap smears. This reimbursement rate has not been increased in over a decade. It really is essential to maintain access to one of the most important preventive measures for detecting cervical cancer. Secondly, the bill extends Pap smear reimbursements to automated screening technologies. These are important innovations in health care that will make it possible to identify cervical cancer at an early stage and with greater accuracy. Mr. Speaker, providing incentives to protect the health of women as they grow older is one of the most important public policy decisions we can make. This bill recognizes that fact and goes a long way toward making innovative new treatments available to women.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, since I was first elected in 1992, I have had great pleasure in witnessing the tremendous growth of women in business. Women now are starting businesses at twice the rate of men and employing more than all of the Fortune 500 companies worldwide. In my home State of Washington, there are 188,400 women-owned businesses, including part-time firms, employing 509,800 people and generating $61.6 billion in sales. As Co-Chair with Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez for the Congressional Circle for the Foundation for Women Legislators, I am pleased to designate Tuesday, October 19th as Global Businesswomen's Day. We are proud to make this proclamation on the historic occasion of the Business Women's Network Global Summit in Washington, DC. It is an honor to salute the 1,500 delegates who have come from 97 countries around the globe and 47 states spanning the United States. Thanks to the Business Women's Network for focusing on diversity; the theme of the summit on October 19th is One America, One World. Recognizing the importance of businesswomen and the BWN Global Summit, we are honored to show congressional recognition of the Global Business Women's Summit. How fitting it is that it is also National Business Women's Week. This proclamation salutes these women from across the globe who are symbols of hard work, dedication, and success in the new millennium. In partnership, the Businesswomen's Network and the National Foundation for Women Legislators have created a strategic alliance: 2000 by 2000. The goal is to connect 2,000 elected women to work in partnership with 2,000 business leaders by the year 2000. Such a partnership between women legislators and women business owners has never been established. Yet businesswomen are the engines that empower women legislators. Think of the synergy--businesswomen and women legislators working hand-in-hand toward the common goal of empowering women everywhere. Another major thrust of the summit is using cutting-edge technology to create more business for more women across more borders. By connecting globally, women can grow their businesses in new markets regardless of the size of their company. Fostering free and fair trading practices worldwide is particularly important in my home State of Washington, where nearly one in three jobs are trade dependent.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this irresponsible and unnecessary package of tax increases on the American public. In an era of budget surpluses and fiscal restraint, the President's proposal to raise taxes in order to increase spending is just wrong for America. In addition to raising taxes on lower income people throughout the country, this proposed set of initiatives that we are debating today institutes a new tax on ships calling on United States ports. For the first time the President would place the entire financial burden for harbor maintenance on commercial vessel operators. In Washington State this new tax would devastate the ports of Tacoma and Seattle, would cause vessels to go to Canada or Mexico to unload their goods. In our State nearly one out of three jobs is linked directly to international trade. But implementing the President's new harbor maintenance tax would cripple our trade economy by making our ports uncompetitive when compared to nearby foreign ports. Mr. Speaker, the American people are already overtaxed. I urge my colleagues to reject these Clinton tax increases.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, the State of Washington and the Northwest seafood industry lost a valuable friend with the death of William G. Saletic on September 9, 1999. Bill had been a very important part of my state's commercial fishing industry since 1960 when he first represented the Purse Sein Vessel Owners Association. Over the next forty years he became both a leader in the industry and an important advisor to many Presidential Administrations and to all who served in the Washington Congressional delegation during that time. At the time of his death, Bill had just recently retired from his position as President of Peter Pan Seafoods, one of the premier commercial seafood processing companies in the United States, and one of the largest in the Northwest. While at Peter Pan he found time to not only build the company into a marketing powerhouse, but he also remained involved in fishery politics through his membership on numerous boards, commissions, advisory panels and trade associations. Among these were the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, the Committee for Fisheries of the Law of the Sea, the International Pacific Salmon Fishing Commission, the Board of Directors of the National Fisheries Institute, the Board of Directors of the National Food Processors Association, the Board of Directors of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, Chairman of the Pacific Seafood Processors Association, and member of the Board of the Independent Colleges of Washington. Bill's involvement in the fisheries of the Northwest and Alaska predates all those who are currently in the Congressional delegations of either Washington or Alaska. He had the chance to assist Senators Magnuson and Jackson in crafting legislation which helped to protect our domestic salmon industry. In the 1960's and 1970's he worked with the Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter Administrations in negotiating international fishery agreements to balance access to the resource against the need to limit harvests to a sustainable level. He worked with Senators Magnuson and Stevens and Congressman Don Young in the 1970's developing the legislation which extended American fishing jurisdiction out to 200 miles. And he remained active during the 1980's and 1990's as we successfully developed a whole range of commercially valuable species in the North Pacific, species which now provide employment to thousands of Washington residents. Bill was very proud of his long involvement with the commercial fishing industry, but he was perhaps even more proud of the years of hard work that he put in working toward both a degree in Business Administration and a Masters in History from Seattle University, an institution for which he had a special fondness. Education was always an issue of great importance to Bill, and he conveyed this value to his six children who were a great joy to him during his lifetime. He will be greatly missed by them by his wife Dolores who, sadly, had only been able to enjoy one year of retired life with Bill prior to his sudden and tragic death. I feel that I have lost both a close advisor and a friend with the passing of Bill Saletic. He will be missed by me and by all those who had the opportunity to know him.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Quality Care for the Uninsured Act, a bill that will address the most critical issue facing our Nation's health care system today, that is, the issue of access. The total number of uninsured Americans in the United States today is 44 million people, 706,000 people in my home State of Washington. As we proceed with this debate, we must remember that maintaining the world's finest health care system is a balancing act. How do we sustain the quality of health care that most Americans enjoy and still extend the benefits of that system to those who lack coverage? The first principle we must accept is that the marketplace, not the Government, must be the focus of our support efforts. Our health care system is the envy of the world, and American businesses, hospitals and researchers are on the forefront of medical innovations that are bringing a better quality of life to the people of the United States. In my home State of Washington hundreds of companies are researching new ways to combat illnesses through biotechnology, through new medical devices, and through automated testing. Many of these treatments will be the foundation of a new health care system, one that increasingly relies on groundbreaking technology to replace traditional treatment methods. We must not overly burden this system with new costs that will lead to more uninsured Americans or redirection of precious resources away from investing in critical new technologies. Helping people purchase private-sector insurance is the most important first step we can take to improve our system. Mr. Speaker, the American people need access to coverage that keeps them healthy more than they need mandates to government. Please support this bill.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Representative Johnson's amendment to provide grants to train medical residents at independent children's hospitals. I commend my friend for her leadership on this important issue and ask my colleagues to support her amendment. The problem is simple: the federal government provides funding for graduate medical education through Medicare. Independent children's hospitals throughout this nation treat children under the age of 21, which is primarily a Medicaid population. Consequently, these hospitals do not receive Medicare funding for the medical professionals they train. To rectify this discrepancy, this amendment will provide funding to children's hospitals that train medical doctors to be pediatricians. These hospitals are critical to serving sick children and providing important research to improve the quality of children's lives. Earlier this year, Speaker Hastert joined me in visiting the Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle, Washington. With 72 pediatric residents a year, Children's Hospital in Seattle is the dominant provider for training of pediatricians in the Pacific Northwest, covering the region of Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana and Idaho. In 1997, Children's Hospital invested $8 million in its medical education program and was reimbursed only $160,000 from Medicare and $2.4 million from Medicaid. This hospital cannot meet the needs of our community if it is forced to reduce the number of residents it trains. This amendment will improve quality of care by continuing to provide doctors who specialize as pediatricians or other pediatric subspecialties. Independent children's teaching hospitals are less than 1% of all hospitals, but they train nearly 30% of all pediatricians. More importantly, we can continue our commitment to helping the sickest and poorest children in our communities. As a parent of two sons, I know the importance of good quality health care for our children, and we must be very careful to leave no child behind. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. It is an investment in our children's health.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important objectives of this Congress is the elimination of the federal estate tax, or death tax. It is unfair to tax people because the head of a family dies and leaves a family business or other asset to his or her children. We should reward savings, investment, and hard work. We must be fair in our tax system. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have focused on phasing out the onerous death tax. Despite the efforts of individuals working a lifetime in building a business, the federal government can take more than half of these savings upon the death of the owner. The publication ``Investor's Business Daily'' (August 19, 1999) ran an excellent article entitled ``Time to Chop Down the Death Tax?'' I commend it to the attention of my colleagues as it outlines the problems the federal estate tax causes. Time To Chop Down the Death Tax? It Leaves Many Heirs Hanging With Sudden Debt (By Peter Clearly) Chester Thigpen's wealth is in his land. Thigpen, an 87- year-old grandson of slaves, has spent his entire life building an 850-acre tree farm in Montrose, Miss. He'd like to leave the farm to his family. There's one problem: Thigpen's farm would be assessed at a value much higher than the $650,000 exemption allowed by the federal estate tax. When he dies, his family will face a hefty tax bill. That's why they're unhappy with President Clinton's threat to veto the tax-cut plan passed by Congress. The GOP-backed plan would phase out the estate tax, also known as the death tax, over the next 10 years. If Clinton vetoes the bill, Thigpen's heirs say they won't have enough cash to pay the tax. They aren't sure what they'll do. Critics of the estate tax cite cases like the Thigpens' to argue that the estate tax has little value. It accounts for only 1% of federal revenue. And it causes heartache for lots of folks like Chester Thigpen. They've spent their lives building a legacy for their families, only to face the prospect that the Internal Revenue Service will force their dreams to die with them. The estate tax does have its fans. Some vocal backers, like the lobbying group Citizens for Tax Justice, say the Thigpen family's story isn't typical--only one of 20 farmers leave a taxable estate. Nonfarm family businesses are only a small part of the people and businesses subject to the tax. Citizens for Tax Justice also notes that only the wealthiest 1.4% of Americans pay the estate tax. The tax's progressive nature is reason enough to keep it. Gary Robbins, an economist with the Institute for Policy Innovation, counters that even if you take CTJ's figures at face value, the death tax is discriminatory. ``Only about 1% of Americans are subject to the death tax, but according to CTJ's numbers, you are twice as likely (as that) to be forced to pay the tax if you are a farmer and three times as likely if you own a small business,'' Robbins said. Robbins also notes that farmers and small-business owners are usually asset rich and cash poor. That makes the death tax a toucher burden on those who must pay it. For many, he argues, the only way to settle the estate tax obligation to the IRS is to sell off assets or land--parts of the businesses that are critical to keep those family operations viable. A law that forces people to sell their farms and businesses when a family member dies: How did we get to this point? In the early 1900s, politicians became concerned about the growing concentration of money in a few families. Lawmakers called for a ``progressive tax'' on rich families to prevent them from passing down their wealth from one generation to the next. In 1916, the estate tax was enacted; it was meant to fund national emergencies. Then in 1924, Congress passed the first gift tax, after people started giving away their estates so their heirs could avoid paying the estate tax. From 1932 to 1941, as part of the New Deal, estate tax rates were raised to help pay for the new spending programs. At that time, estate taxes reached records, accounting for as much as 9.7% of federal tax revenue. Here's how the estate tax is now assessed: Estates valued up to $10 million pay taxes on a graduated scale: rates range from 37% to 55%. The first $650,000 is exempt--and not indexed for inflation. Estates valued between $10 million and $21 million are taxed at a 55% rate, plus a 5% surcharge. As the value of an estate approaches $21 million, the surcharge effectively phases out the $650,000 exemption. Estates values at more than $21 million face a tax rate of 55% with no exemption. The 60 Plus Association, a lobbying group whose rallying cry is ``dying should not be a taxable event,'' says the estate tax is an ineffective way to raise money. ``Federal revenue raised from death taxes as a percentage of total revenue has been on a steady decline since 1940,'' said Jim Martin, president of 60 Plus. ``The death tax now brings in about 1% of total federal revenue, and it costs the government 65 cents for every dollar raised for enforcement and compliance costs,'' he said. ``Taxes are a necessary evil, but a tax should have some sort of socially redeeming value.'' Martin added. ``The death tax just sets up an industry of lawyers, accountants and insurance brokers to help people protect their after-tax assets.'' Some lawyers counter that the estate tax is really voluntary. It's paid by people who can't afford legal or accounting services or who don't realize the IRS will consider them rich at the time they inherit estates. ``That's just what the American people want to hear--hire more lawyers so you can keep out of trouble,'' said Rep. Jennifer Dunn, R-Wash., one of the estate tax's most forceful opponents. ``The cost of compliance is extraordinarily high for the death tax.'' Dunn said. ``For the amount of money that is raised by the Federal Government, an equal amount is spent on hiring CPAs, lawyers and so forth. . . . This is money that should be spent much more wisely, and would be, if families did not have to spend so much money on compliance.'' House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, agrees. ``I've seen time and time again sons and daughters whose grief has been ameliorated by the thought of keeping their parents' legacy alive,'' he said. ``And when that family is forced to sell off Mom and Dad's business that they spent their entire life building to meet the needs of the tax man, you can hardly call that voluntary or just.'' GOP pollster Kellyanne Fitzpatrick says most people think the estate tax is unfair--even though it hits mainly people the IRS considers wealthy. In a poll she did for 60 Plus, 77% considered the tax unfair. The tax was unpopular among many groups. For example, 86% of women age 18 to 34 who don't have kids said the tax is unfair; so did 84% of 55- to 64-year olds, 82% of Protestants and 82% of Republican women. ``You don't have to be directly affected by (the tax's) unfairness or unjustness to oppose it.'' Fitzpatrick added. Getting rid of the estate tax could have an unintended consequence: protecting the environment. Dunn says some environmental groups are warming to the notion of repealing the estate tax. Those who oppose suburban sprawl complain that many family farmers who have to pay estate taxes must sell at least part of their land, often to developers who may not be as friendly to the environment. That brings us back to tree farmer Chester Thigpen. He has spent more than 55 years building his family business. He has won a number of awards for his sound environmental stewardship. In 1995, Thigpen was named Mississippi Tree Farmer of the Year. The next year, he was National Tree Farmer of the Year. He received that award for his exceptional management practices, including reforestation, taking care of his timberland and maintaining wildlife habitat. In addition, in 1998 the National Arbor Day Foundation gave Thigpen its Good Steward award. ``He (Thigpen) is commended for a lifetime of agricultural and forestry work, as exemplified in his conversion of 850 depleted acres of soil into a lush area of tree farms,'' said an Arbor Day Foundation press release. If Clinton vetoes the GOP's tax plan and leaves the estate tax in place, the Thigpen family may not be able to maintain that sound stewardship after Chester dies. Family members say they may be forced to clear-cut several stands of timber and sell the lumber just to pay the estate tax. As they say, money, especially when it's meant to pay the tax collector, doesn't grow on trees.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, over the next 10 years, Americans on average, each American, will pay $5,300 to the Federal Government in income taxes, more than it costs to run the government. This is above and beyond the Social Security surplus which we save in a lockbox. This is a fair tax bill. This bill reverses the Clinton tax increase of 1993 by reducing income tax rates for every single person who pays them and by reducing taxes for lower-income Americans by expanding the 15-percent bracket. It also will save married couples an average of $1,400 a year by doubling the standard deduction and keeping couples whose combined earnings are up to $5,100 in the 15-percent tax bracket. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it eliminates the death tax. This unfair tax has caused often tragic hardship for families who are trying to build a legacy to pass on to future generations. We should honor the values of the hard work, not tax them. I call upon the President to help us roll back the 1993 tax increase, which he himself admitted was too much. Join us, Mr. President. Let us do this bill together. Give something back to the American people. It is their money. Give it back.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution and in support of our continuing policy of engagement through normal trade relations with China. The open exchange of goods and services has been a critical component of fostering understanding between nations for centuries. Creating an environment of normal relations and ongoing engagement only serves to lower the walls of fear and suspicion while building a spirit of cooperation through joint venture. Make no mistake, our relationship with China is complex and evolving, a road filled with obstruction. We have legitimate concerns about nuclear proliferation: our own security protection, the security of Taiwan and the rest of the region, and human rights. So what should be our objective with China with respect to trade relations? I believe that liberalized trade with a Communist society in the process of opening itself up to the community will some day deliver to our trading partners our most precious gift, and that is the gift of freedom. There is important work being done in China by western groups attempting to fan this flame of democracy. The National Endowment for Democracy and the International Republican Institute are just two such groups sowing the seeds of freedom inside China. Ned Graham, a resident of my home State of Washington and son of evangelist Billy Graham, has been very successful in spreading the message of religious freedom in China. His group, Eastgates, International, has distributed 2.5 million Bibles in China since 1992. According to Mr. Graham, he can communicate freely with his contacts in China because of the proliferation of information exchange technology, a development that has been made possible by trade and economic reform. Continuing normal trade relations with China, the United States' fourth largest trading partner, will only serve to build on this success. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my enthusiastic support for the Financial Freedom Act of 1999. This bill provides essential tax relief for every American who wants to secure a better future for himself or herself and for their children. No other provision, Mr. Speaker, is as historic in this bill as the elimination of the death tax. The freedom to obtain prosperity and to accumulate wealth is uniquely American; and when unfettered, it is a wonderful thing to behold. Yet, the current tax treatment of a person's life savings is so onerous and so burdensome that children are often forced to turn over half of their inheritance to the Federal Government. It is as wrong as it is tragic, and it dishonors the hard work of those who have passed on. Today, Mr. Speaker, less than half of all family-owned businesses survive the death of the founder, and only about 5 percent survive to the third generation. Under current law, it is cheaper for an individual to sell his or her business prior to death and pay the capital gains than pass it on to their children. This is indeed terrible public policy. As a result, Congress has tried over the years to provide targeted death tax relief to certain people. First, we adopted a unified credit to protect small estates from taxation. With the rising tide of small business growth and the proliferation of retirement annuities, however, many middle class families are being pushed above this exemption. Secondly, Congress, in 1997, adopted a family-owned business exemption in addition to provide additional relief to families and to small family farms. It was a good idea at the time, but this exemption has proven to be a real boondoggle. It is a boondoggle for attorneys who must be hired by families trying to navigate their way through the 14-point eligibility test. I recently asked an estate planner who advises 200 family-owned businesses how many of his clients qualify for this new relief. His answer was 10 out of 200. On average, only about 3 percent of family- owned farms can qualify under this provision. As much as we try, it is just impossible to duplicate in law the complex relationships that exist in families in the real world. It is time to be bold. The Financial Freedom Act offers the only true relief that will work to complete the elimination of the death tax. The death tax is not a tax on wealth, it is a tax on the accumulation of wealth. That is why it is supported by the Black Chamber of Commerce, who feel that they have 3 generations to put together a legacy to create their power base in this society, and the death tax is their enemy. It is supported by the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the National Indian Business Council. These groups understand the truly devastating impact that the death tax has on the pursuit of wealth and power in our society. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Financial Freedom Act. It encourages savings, investment risk, and the creation of wealth. It is also time, Mr. Speaker, I believe, to honor our most fundamental values, not tax them.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I support the passage of the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Appropriations Bill. This legislation effectively addresses the growing quality of life, readiness, and modernization shortfalls facing today's military. It attempts to manage the competing pressures and risks associated with an expansive U.S. national security strategy and diminishing defense resources. I am particularly pleased that the House Appropriations Committee found merit in two worthwhile programs managed by innovative companies located in Washington State's 8th Congressional District. This bill allots $8 million to Asymetrix Learning Systems, Inc. for the development of an online education program for the Washington State Army National Guard. Additionally, it allocates $4 million to Adroit Systems, Inc. to develop Pulse Detonation Engine technology, which will allow the Navy to improve missile capabilities while reducing future procurement costs. Despite the positive steps this bill takes to improve our national security, I would like to take the opportunity to express my concern regarding the $1.8 billion reduction for the procurement of the F-22 fighter. The F-22 Raptor is the Air Force's next-generation air- superiority fighter, the aircraft that will take the lead in seizing control of contested airspace in wartime so that other aircraft can do their jobs. It is the only air-superiority fighter that the Air Force has in advanced development, and the first such aircraft developed since the 1970s. Recent trends in warfare suggest that whoever owns the sky and space above it will own the future. According to the Lexington Institute, the F-22 gives the only opportunity the Air Force has to ensure America's military continues to control the sky during the early decades of the 21st century. No other tactical combat aircraft in service today has a similar capacity to successfully operate amid the emerging foreign-made air-to-air missile threat. And because it is survivable, no other American aircraft will be able to effectively engage in battle as close to the enemy as the F-22 Raptor. An April 27 statement by seven former defense secretaries emphasizes that continued development and production of the F-22 is essential to preserving U.S. command of the air. Additionally, even in a period of diminished threats, other nations will gradually overtake and surpass the fighting effectiveness of current U.S. fighters. Therefore, the agility, firepower, and situational awareness embodied in the F-22 must be funded. The decision to fund this project will have a long term strategic effect on America's defense capabilities. We must retain our ability to establish air dominance by supporting the continued procurement of the F-22 Raptor. The funding of this next-generation fighter is essential to the air superiority of the United States of America and the entire free world.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to notify the House of Representatives of a speech recently given by the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. In May, with the other Republican women Members of Congress I invited women from around the country to attend the second annual Republican Women Leaders Forum. At the forum there were many speeches given, but one of the highlights was a speech given by Newt Gingrich on the morning of May 12, 1999. His speech was heard by over 1,000 women and received ten standing ovations. The speech moved me and many of my colleagues who were in attendance. As the man who led us in capturing and holding a Republican majority in Congress for the first time since 1928, his comments continue to offer each of us insight for the future. Speech of Newt Gingrich, Republican Women's Leadership Forum, Ronald Reagan International Trade Center, Washington, DC, May 12, 1999 Thank you very, very much, and thank you Sue, [Myrick] and thank you Jennifer [Dunn] for inviting me and I also want to mention Mac Collins a colleague from Georgia who came by a few minutes ago. It was great to see him. This is actually the first serious policy speech I've made since stepping down as Speaker. And I want to say, first of all, how grateful I am to be here. I had many offers, obviously, but what Jennifer Dunn has done in bringing together women leaders from all over the country is so important, and when she called me a couple of months ago, I said this was a date I would circle and be here. And I'm honored to be here with all of you. And remember, those of you who were here last year, I revealed that--just as many of you are soccer moms. I was a ballet dad. [laughter] And so I think our concern for children our concern for how they grow up, we share a lot of that. I also couldn't help but think as Sue was talking about the fact that the first two women to be officers of the House were under the Republicans. The Democrats had never had a woman as officer of the House. The first women to chair full committees were Republicans; the first time we had three women in the leadership was under the Republicans. And I noticed something that has not yet been reported in Washington, but I think will, by next spring, be a serious gender-gap issue nationwide, and I just want to be clear about this as a starting point for this speech: I don't know why there is no Democratic woman who feels confident enough to run for president, but I am proud that it is the Republicans who have produced the first serious, nationwide woman candidate for president. [applause] And maybe the Democrat women are too intimidated by the White House style of leadership, [laughter] maybe the Democratic women are too shy, maybe they are too busy waiting for Hillary to make up her mind, but I am proud that Elizabeth Dole is making a serious campaign, in a serious way, and frankly I would so much prefer her to either Gore or Bradley, that I am proud that she is out there campaigning across this country. [applause] And for all of our friends who may watch this later on C- SPAN, I am not endorsing anybody, but I think that it is exciting for the Republican Party to have that caliber of leadership. Let me also thank you for your help. Sue also made the point, which is exactly right, that with your help, in 1994, we ran an entirely positive campaign. We outlined a Contract With America. With the help of the National Committee, our biggest single ad was in TV Guide, it was small print, no pictures, didn't mention the Democrats or Bill Clinton. It said, ``if you hire us, this is our contract, this is what we'll do.'' When we elected a new generation, and Sue was one of the leaders, a brand new team came to Washington and much to the shock of people, we actually kept our word. We passed welfare reform three times. Twice the president vetoed it, the third time it was very popular, we were close to the election, he announced he had invented it in Arkansas, was sorry it took so long, and took full credit and signed it. But the fact is, for the Republicans who fought for it, today 43% fewer people are on welfare, and 43% more folks are working, and that is a key reason we have a better economy, not Bill Clinton's malarkey. [applause] The fact is, with Jennifer Dunn, and Sue Myrick, and another presidential candidate, John Kasich, who had the sheer courage as Budget Committee Chairman to produce the first balanced budget in a generation, [applause] you are now at a point where if you don't elect another liberal congress, and you don't elect another liberal president, we will have a generation of balanced budgets for the first time in 70 years. And that has lowered interest rates, and that has been a factor in this economy, not Bill Clinton's malarkey. [applause] And let's be clear: Bill Clinton was for a balanced budget after the 300th focus group. He fought us every step of the way until he decided he had no choice, and for him to take credit is just a sign that he is the man we know he is. [laughter] [applause] Finally, with your help, we passed tax cuts. A pro-family five-hundred-dollar tax credit, against liberal opposition. A capital gains tax cut to create more jobs, against liberal opposition. A cut in the death tax to strengthen family ties, against liberal opposition. And that helped the economy grow, with zero help from Bill Clinton and Al Gore, except they caved in at the end and signed the bill they opposed. [applause] So let's be clear about why this economy's healthy. But it happened because of your help. It happened because you were willing to work hard, elect a Republican Congress, stand by us and make us--not only were we the first Republican majority in 40 years in the House, we were the first Republican majority re-elected in the House since 1928. And because of your help, we were also the first Republican majority in the House elected to a third term since 1926. Now, I made a very difficult decision three days after the election. Because I talked with my colleagues, and I reached a conclusion that I'd been trying to do two jobs. One to be a visionary, a strategist and a teacher, to tell the truth as I saw it. And the other to manage the House on a daily basis. And the two jobs weren't the same job. One job required patience, endurance, willingness to listen, a willingness to get every day the best you could get and move on. That's the Speaker of the House. It's a tough, tough job, and my heart goes out to Denny Hastert. He's a great American, and I think as he learns the job he's going to be better and better, and you're going to be very proud by next year. And compared to Dick Gephardt, Denny Hastert is absolutely the Speaker we need, and Denny Hastert was the person I backed strongly personally, because he has the instincts to be a good legislative leader. Which means, he's not always going to look good in the press. That's not the job of a Speaker. Tim O'Neil didn't always look great in the press, but he was a very effective Speaker for the Democrats. But he will get the job done. He passed a budget this year, which I couldn't get done last year. And he'll keep getting things done, because that's the job of the Speaker. But it meant that for two years, I have been drowning. I couldn't do what I did differently, which is to tell the truth as I understand it. It's not the ``truth;'' the ``truth'' is known by God and the rest of us seek it. But to try every day to tell where we have to go. The way we developed the Contract. The last five months I've had a chance to be out around the country. To be beyond the beltway, to not watch the Sunday shows, to ignore all the babble that his city mistakes for dialogue. [laughter] [applause] And, I've had a chance to really think about where we are, and where we've going. And I decided that what I want to do today, is share with you some thoughts about Littleton, and about Kosovo. I haven't talked on either one, and I probably won't do it again for a good while. But if I'm going to come here and be with you, I'm going to try to be who I've always been, which is a person who tried to described what he really believed. Let me start by saying that the thing that most clearly hits you, when you get beyond the elite media, is that this is a great country, filled with good people, and many of them achieve amazing things. For every child who ends up on the cover of a magazine because they killed somebody, there are literally a million children going to school, trying to understand their role in life, trying to be decent to their fellow citizens. For every child who ends up in a way that is tragic, there are hundreds of thousands of children who are trying very hard to learn to be American citizens. To be the kind of person their family can be proud of. And I think we need to start by placing in perspective both Littleton and Kosovo. We are the greatest society of freedom in the history of the human race. More people pursue happiness, of more racial backgrounds, with greater religious diversity than in any country in the history of the world, and we should be proud that for most of the time, America works, despite the news media mis-coverage of this country. [applause] And if my friends in the press think I'm tough on them, they're right. The truth is, if Thomas Edison invented the electric light bulb today, it would be reported tonight on the networks with a story which began, ``the candle making industry was threatened today.'' [laughter] [applause] But, we are also not only a remarkable country, we are the only global superpower in the history of the human race. No other country has ever had the potential power that we have. And yet, as a great country, and a good society of decent people, we have Littleton. As the most powerful nation in the history of the world, we have Kosovo. And every Sunday you hear all the local self-appointed experts babble on with whatever trivia they heard that week. I want to give you my honest, personal thoughts on both those topics. Some of this may be a little controversial. And it should be. And I want to do it in a spirit, as a history teacher, of Emile Zola, who wrote J'Accuse, ``I accuse.`` A Jewish officer in the French army had been framed, largely because of anti-Semitism. The elite culture had covered up the framing they were all going to go along with destroying him, and Emile Zola wrote a public letter saying, ``this is wrong.'' And because of the moral courage of his letter, French society talked to itself, there was a great crisis, and it changed. Captain Dreyfuss was exonerated, and the people who had framed him were punished. So in the tradition J'Accuse, and Emile Zola, I want to say to the elite of this country, the elite news media, the liberal academic elite, the liberal political elite: I accuse you in Littleton, and I accuse you in Kosovo, of being afraid to talk about the mess you have made, and being afraid to take responsibility for the things that you have done, and instead foisting on the rest of us pathetic banalities because you don't have the courage to look at the world you have created. [applause] Let me talk first about Littleton. A great tragedy. A tragedy that should frighten every one of us. Both for those who were killed, and for the killers. Because it means that any of us, in any school, no matter how good, could lose our children. And it means any of us, in any home, could lose our child. And we should have a national, open discussion about ``how did we get here?'' How did this great country, filled with good people who do amazing things allow it to degenerate to a point where young boys could think such weird, perverse thoughts and then act on them. Where the innocent could die for no reason. Let me give you my answer. One which I'm sure I'll be castigated for, and I'm sure my usual critics will write harsh columns about. But it is the truth, and it makes them very guilty and very uncomfortable, and they reflect that in their attacks. We have had a thirty-five year experiment, in a unionized, bureaucratic, credentialed, secular assault on the core values of this country. And we should not be surprised that they eventually yield bad fruit, because they are bad seeds. They make no sense as a society. For thirty-five years, God has been driven out of the classroom, and we have seen it result in a secular, atheistic system [applause] in which God is not allowed to exist. [applause] For thirty-five years the political and intellectual elites of political correctness have undermined the core values of American history, so that young people may not know who George Washington is, or they may not know who Abraham Lincoln is, but they do know what MTV is, and that is not progress, that is decadence, and we should say it bluntly. [applause] For thirty-five years, bureaucratic, credentialed unions have driven knowledge out of the classroom, so today you can have a certified teacher who can't speak a foreign language try to teach it, while the person who can speak it can't teach it because they either don't pay the union dues or haven't gotten credentialed, and that is madness. [applause] We keep looking at our physics scores and say ``why do they decline?'' And then you find that in the inner city we have people who don't know any physics teaching physics. And you have a student who sits there and knows their teacher doesn't know. You can't have authority unless you earn it. And you can't have a bureaucratic, unionized, credentialed system that has any authority left, because it drives out the very skills and the very capacities that are necessary. And most teachers are decent, and most teachers are hard working, and most teachers are trying. And I am a product of the public schools, and I actually care about them enough to try and change them, not just have a mantra of paying off the unions while doing nothing to save the schools. [applause] Let me say his very clearly. And it will be very controversial. For a generation, Hollywood and computerized games have undermined the core values of civility and it is time they were stopped by a society that values free speech enough to protect it. [applause] One of the great founders of CBS News, Edward R. Murrow's producer, had a wonderful saying, ``Just because you have the right to say it, doesn't mean it is the right thing to say.'' And let us say to Hollywood, and let us say to the Nintendos and the other games, if you are going to be sick, we are going to find a way to protect this country from you, and whether that means exposing movies to liability litigation, whether that means exposing computerized games to litigation, whether it means challenging the Democrats to cut off the fund-raising in a verse. Don't tell us you care about children, and then have the people corrupting their lives raise your money, while you tell us you care about traditional values. [applause] So, if Al Gore and Bill Bradley really want to help America, they can lay a standard down. They won't raise a penny in Hollywood from anybody who doesn't sign a standard that says they will make movies of voluntary decency. You don't have to allow the most corrupt, the most depraved, the most violent, just because you personally don't have the guts for your career to say ``I won't do it.'' And they could set a standard and say, ``we're only going to do fund-raisers with producers and stars who do decent films,'' and you would suddenly see a crisis of identity in both the Democratic party and Hollywood. [applause] And I'm not using that just to make a partisan point, I'm trying to make a deeper point. Don't tell us the Constitution blocks us from civility. Don't tell us that freedom of speech means the freedom to be so depraved, so violent, so disgusting that our children grow up in a world where they think that killing someone else is a reasonable behavior. And it's true on television, it's true in the movies, it's true in these games. And I would challenge the lawyers of America: Don't tell me how cleverly you can protect those who are bad, tell me how well you can find some solution to bring Hollywood to its senses and to bring the game people to their senses. And I'm not for censorship. But I am for the society setting standards and shaming those who refuse to have a standard that makes sense. [applause] And for two generations we have raised the taxes on working families so that the second spouse has no choice except to go to work, almost entirely to pay the family's taxes. Then we talk about ``latch-key kids,'' when it is the very liberal politicians who raised the taxes who created the latch-keys. [applause] But about Littleton, liberal politicians and the elite media yell ``gun-control'' because they can't talk about their values, and the effect they have had. Let me set some simple standards. When Al Gore talks God and Faith, is he for voluntary school prayer, or isn't he? Does he want to bring God back in, or does he want to give us psychobabble? Yes or no? Don't tell me why you're ``sort of for it,'' and ``Littleton is certainly a tragedy,'' and I certainly ``feel.'' We've had eight years of that. Let's be serious. This was a mistake to take God out of the classroom. [applause] It was a mistake to take the right to pray out of the classroom. Now, are you for changing the mistake, or not changing the mistake? [applause] But don't tell us you're really worried about the consequences, but you don't want to change the cause. When politicians talk about families, is Bill Bradley for more tax cuts, so families have more time with their children, or is he against tax cuts? Does he want to abolish the death tax so we strengthen family bonds, or is he for the death tax, even though it clearly makes no sense as a society to punish grandparents and parents for saving for their children and grandchildren. It is the socially dumbest tax we have. [applause] When a liberal talks about values, would he or she actually like us to teach American history? Would they actually like young children to learn that George Washington was an ethical man? A man of standards? A man who earned the right to be father of this country? Would they actually like us to learn that Lincoln agonized, or is discussing those kind of moral values culturally inappropriate? Because we have to be a multi-cultural society, where you get to pick and invent your own culture? Something which historically no civilization has ever successfully done because it means you've got thirteen to fifteen year olds in total confusion, and they're being asked to invent a reasonable civilization? It takes thousands of years to create a civilization, and then we learn it, and we stand on the shoulders of the lessons of every generation that paid in blood to learn these lessons. And to ask young people of thirteen and fifteen to invent a civilization is not only ahistorical, it violates everything we know about how human beings function. And we should say something simple: Every child should know the Declaration of Independence, and why it says, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident.'' Every child should learn the Declaration of Independence, and why it says, ``We are endowed by our Creator.'' When those children killed in Littleton, they were killing the children of God, who had been endowed with the unalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And I will bet you those kids didn't know it, they didn't believe it, they didn't understand it, because for two generations the elite liberals in academia and in the news media have babbled on about somehow getting rid of all this western ethnocentric whatever . . . it is irrelevant what your color is. It is irrelevant what geography you come from. When you come to America, you learn to be an American and that means you are endowed. [applause] So, I ask each of you, you go back to your state. You ask your state legislatures and your governor, let's reestablish teaching the Constitution, let's reestablish teaching the Declaration of Independence, let's make sure every child knows what Creator means, and then let's see how the liberals try to go to the Supreme Court to argue that you can't talk about the Creator in class when in fact it is a historical document about a historic fact that the Founding Fathers all believed in God, including Thomas Jefferson, thank you very much, it's his language. [laughter] [applause] And so, on Littleton, let me simply say, most children are good. Most schools are safe, but we have been given a wake up call that the experiment in secular liberalism has failed, and we had better truly change, or there will be more symptoms of the pain. And every time our friends on the left babble about gun-control, or some psycho-therapy, or some other kind of feel good stuff, we ought to come back to the basics. Are you prepared to cut taxes on working families? Are you prepared to eliminate the death tax? Are you prepared to actually have teachers who know something as a requirement of teaching? Are you prepared to reinstate American history and learning about America? Are you prepared to talk about the Creator, and are you prepared to allow children to pray voluntarily? And if you're not for those things, you're not for the changes that are necessary to make sure that we have fewer Littletons and more children who are happy and stable. [applause] Now, and let me say that avoiding future Littletons requires real change. This has been a mistake. For thirty- five years, we have gone in the wrong direction. This is about real change. And without real change, it won't change. Let me now turn to foreign policy. Let me say that I have watched with some amazement. I think it is fair to say that of all the Republican leaders in the last six years, I was the most consistently supportive of the president, because I felt as an Army brat, having been overseas, having lived through experiences where politicians back home were critical and divisive, having been through the Vietnam war where some American future politicians led demonstrations in foreign countries, [laughter] having been through Desert Shield and watched every elected Democrat leader vote against Desert Storm, I know how unnecessarily divisive domestic politics can be. I also know that as a superpower we have a unique role, and let me say, very clearly: I believe the United States must provide leadership in the world, I believe we are irreplaceable, and I oppose unalterably anyone who argues for withdrawal and isolation, because I believe it is our historic destiny and fate. There is no other country big enough, complex enough, or capable of providing leadership on a world-wide basis, and if we pull back, this planet will become chaotic, and violent, and our children and grandchildren will pay in blood for our timidity. Now having said that, let me also remind you, you can lead your neighborhood without fixing breakfast for all your neighbors. [laughter] You can lead a community clean-up drive without cleaning out every garage yourself. But let me talk about Kosovo in the historic setting because, in the last few weeks the crisis has begun to mount in a way that I would have thought, in January, unthinkable. For fifty years, we led NATO to keep Russia out of places like Yugoslavia, which was the only anti-Soviet communist state in Europe. And now, in a few short months, the Clinton- Gore administration, has fashioned a policy to bring Russia into one of the places we invented NATO to keep them out of. This is a significant mistake. For the entire history of the human race, the Chinese have never been actively involved in Europe. And now in a few short months, the Clinton-Gore administration has managed to fashion a policy which gives the Chinese a voice in Europe. The scapegoating in this city will be pathetic, and has to be described honestly as scapegoating. Let me give you the example of the Chinese embassy. The Clinton-Gore administration ignores intelligence, because as good liberals, they don't believe in a strong America leading the world. They under-fund it, they reduce the number of analysts. They have too few people. They send liberals out to run the agency in such a way--this is not the current director, but the preceding director and his staff--but they undermine the morale of our most effective intelligence agency. The first director, Jim Woolsey, got to see the president one time. In fact there was a joke that when the plane crashed into the White House, it was Woolsey trying to get in to see the president. [laughter] I did not make that up, you can ask Jim Woolsey. [laughter] So, for six and a half years the Clinton-Gore administration under-funds intelligence, abuses it, neglects it--go ask how many people there are in the Central Intelligence Agency that speak Serbian. Having had nine years to prepare for Kosovo, beginning in 1990, how much did we beef up? Or ask them how many can speak Chinese? How big is the shortage of Chinese language experts in the American intelligence community? So having had six and a half years of under-funding, the CIA makes a mistake. But the Commander-in-Chief is not responsible. The Commander-in-Chief is never responsible. If, in a war, the president is not accountable, then what does the Constitution mean? COMMANDER-in-Chief. [applause] In all of this Washington babble about who is responsible, the Clinton-Gore administration had six-and-a-half years, almost seven years, to beef-up our intelligence capabilities. They didn't do it. I forced the extra funding last fall, finally, and it is still too little, and if we are going to be the superpower that leads the entire planet we need a dramatically bigger intelligence capability. It doesn't mean you need to overhaul the CIA. It doesn't mean you don't have to re-think our intelligence capability, but I am tired of liberals yelling ``reform'' when what they mean is ``don't fund them,'' and then blaming the people they didn't fund for the mistake that was human error. We got it last year when the Indian nuclear explosion was not detected because we don't have enough analysts, and we don't have enough satellites to watch everything, and now we are getting it this year. The fact is that the Clinton-Gore Administration under-funds intelligence and we are now paying the price with the Chinese for the Clinton-Gore failure to provide adequate funding. [applause] The fact is, the Clinton-Gore Administration has under- funded defense, and God help us if either the North Koreans or the Iraqis decide to take advantage of our current disposition. Does this administration honestly believe that nobody else in the world watches CNN? [laughter] The reason you have to have, and I'm very serious, this is a matter of life and death. The reason is you have to have a military big enough to do three things: One campaign; be ready for a second campaign; and retain a training and procurement base for a third campaign. And [RNC] Chairman [Jim] Nicholson knows this. He is a West Point graduate. He served in Vietnam. He understands these things. The reason you have to do all three simultaneously is because you are in a dangerous world. And when you focus on Iraq, and the President did for a little while in 1997. And I was with him, because I thought he was doing the right thing? And then he forgot it. Saddam is still there, but none of the stated goals--remember all the worries, the sack of sugar, the danger of biological weapons. They didn't go away. It is just that this administration's attention span is relatively short. So Saddam is still there. The world is getting more dangerous. He is doing every single thing that Bill Clinton and Bill Cohen told us to worry about, but we're not in that campaign right now because we can't afford to be. The North Koreans are lying to us about nuclear weapons. We know they are lying. They know we know they are lying. The Chinese, the South Koreans, and the Japanese know they are lying. And they know we know they are lying. And the North Koreans are routinely irrational. Despite 50 years of effort we know almost nothing about North Korea because it is the most sealed off society in the world. And it is preeminently dangerous. And then you have Kosovo. A campaign designed as though all of military history ceased to exist. As though there are no lessons of Vietnam. The very people who were opposed to Vietnam are now bringing us a European Vietnam, and they have learned nothing from the Vietnam campaign. [applause] Compare the lessons of Desert Storm and Kosovo. In Desert Storm, President George Bush, Secretary of State Jim Baker, National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell said very clearly to the theater commander Norman Schwartzkopf, ``what is it going to take to win decisively with minimum American casualties in the shortest possible time.'' And they spent six-months in a majestic, slow, careful buildup of overwhelming military force. They launched an air campaign that in six weeks pulverized the Iraqis and they launched a four-day ground campaign. It is the textbook study of a how a Democracy prepares relentlessly to impose victory with minimum American casualties. Now I don't know what General Clark was thinking about, because he knows better. And I don't know what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was thinking about, because he knows better. And I don't know why none of the Joints Chiefs have resigned [applause] because this campaign is a violation of every rule I know of in how you design a campaign. Instead of Theodore Roosevelt's speak softly and carry a big stick, we've yelled and carried a toothpick. And what has happened? The people we were protecting were driven out, killed, or raped. The people that are under the shelter of the United States of America are no longer in Kosovo. The Serbians accepted a brutal choice: we get to kill them, and they get to kill Albanians. But they've accepted it. The Russians are now reestablished as a power in Europe. The Chinese are getting engaged in Europe. We are wasting our resources. Our prestige is diminishing. And all over the world we look like a violent, helpless, pathetic country. Would you want to be protected by a Clinton Administration that guaranteed that protection meant you would be driven out of your home? They allowed it to happen to the Kurds in northern Iraq. They are allowing it to happen now to the Albanians in Kosovo. And the President, of course, isn't responsible because he is in a permanent campaign, so he doesn't have to be Commander-in-Chief unless we are seeing him step off the airplane to be saluted by military people who know better. They know this is a pathetic disaster for the United States. [applause] Finally, with the Chinese having carefully orchestrated riots because even when they try to buy an administration, they can't always get what they want. Let's be clear, the Clinton Administration's Justice Department did everything it could to block an honest investigation of the Chinese money laundering, and we know far less today about either the Chinese cash or nuclear secrets. And by the way, I don't blame the Chinese for stealing our secrets, they are a sovereign power. They should do what's in their interest. I blame the Clinton Administration for not protecting the American secrets from China. [applause] The Chinese staged these riots, which you know are staged, because the Chinese lock up people who get up and say ``hi, I'd like to have free speech.'' Five years in jail. [laughter] ``I'd like to go riot against the Americans.'' Can we give you a bus? [laughter] I mean, who's kidding whom; these are staged, organized government dictatorship riots. We are a country without a defense against Chinese ballistic missiles. We could lose some of our men and women in Kosovo. We could lose a lot of people if the Iraqis or the North Koreans try to take advantage of our weakness. We could lose an American city, and there is no ballistic missile defense. Why? Because the party of trial lawyers believes that we should have a legal document with a ``Soviet Union,'' which disappeared in 1991, rather that using the best scientists and the best engineers. And we need a crash program to apply, not just for the U.S., but a global missile defense, so that all of our allies can rest safe. And we need to adopt a very simple rule. Let me be very clear, I'm not arguing for being in Kosovo or not. And I would actually urge most of my former colleagues to just shut up about it. Having civilian politicians give their ideas about their campaign plan is sort of irrelevant. We ought to have a very simple set of standards as a country. If we say that we are going to do something, and if the President comes to a joint session--which this President should do, and should have done for three months, and how he can get away with not addressing the Congress and talking to the nation about Kosovo is beyond me. [applause] We ought to have a standard rule, if you are going to commit American forces, you address a joint session. I mean this for all Presidents for our future. We've got to learn to lead and we've got to learn to do it within our Constitution. He should come to the Congress. He should say, ``This is the problem. These are our values. These are our goals.'' He should then say a simple thing: ``I have instructed the chairmen of the Joint Chiefs to design a military campaign plan that will achieve victory for America with minimum cost in lives and minimum use of time. The chairman will be expected to execute that campaign and if it fails, he would be retired and his successor will be expected to design a successful campaign.'' No elected politician should attempt to micro-manage whether or not we move Apache helicopters. [applause] Let me just close with this personal testimonial, for whatever it's worth. My stepfather served 27 years in the U.S. Army infantry. It was at the end of the Second World War, fought in Korea, fought in Vietnam. We lived--when I was growing up, I was born in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. We lived in Fort Raleigh, Kansas; Avignon, France; Stuttgart, Germany; and then Fort Benning, Georgia; which is how I became a Georgian. He served his country because he loved it. He served his country because he thought it really mattered. He thought a world in which the Soviets dominated or the Nazis dominated would be a horrible world. A world in which America led would be a remarkably better world. Not a perfect world, because people aren't perfect. If you believe in God, you know how inadequate you are. But a world in which a decent country, of decent people, of all races and all nationalities could pursue freedom and safety, and could create prosperity like no one has ever seen. Forty years ago, he convinced me at the battlefield at Verdum, when I was fifteen, that this is all real. For 40 years, with the help of the Georgia Federation of the Republican Woman, and the Young Republicans, and thousands of volunteers and lots of donors, and the people of Georgia, I was allowed to study, to learn. I was allowed to run for office and lose twice. I as allowed to run a third time and win. Ultimately, with your help, we created a majority. I have not talked about any issues for five months. I have not really laid out what I feel from the heart, but I couldn't come here today in the middle of the agony that each of us must feel for the children and the families of Littleton. I couldn't come here today, and let's be honest, in the tradition of Lincoln, we should feel as much agony for the innocent Serbs that are being killed as we feel for the Albanians. We are all humans. Our Creator endows us all. And we have to be a great enough nation that our hearts go out to everybody in a conflict. And that we want to help everybody. We want to find a way to lead a world without violence because our moral dedication, not our purity, let me be clear to my liberal friends none of us are pure. That is not what this is about. Purity of purpose doesn't mean purity of execution, because we are humans. This has been the greatest opportunity for simple, everyday human beings to get up in the morning, to love their families, to pursue happiness, to work for a living, to create a better future than has ever been created. And we have to save it domestically or we will have many more Littletons. And we have to learn to lead in the world or we will have many more Kosovos. Sadly, not happily, because I tried for six years to work with this administration. Sadly, the Clinton-Gore Administration has proven both in their reaction to Littleton and in their utter total mismanagement in Kosovo, that liberalism once again has failed, and we have to be the standard barriers. Just as we were with Eisenhower, just as we were in 1968 with Nixon, who ended the Vietnam War that Johnson started, just as we were with Ronald Reagan who created the cause of freedom worldwide and defeated the Soviet Empire, just as we were with George Bush, who had the nerve and the discipline to let the military run a winning campaign, despite every liberal Democratic elected leader in the Congress. We have to have the nerve over the next eighteen months to tell the truth to the American people. To let the news media scream at us, and to count on the fact that, in the end, this is a great country, filed with good people, and they know better than the talking heads on Sunday morning. Thank you, good luck and God Bless you, [applause]

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Matsui and I are introducing a bold proposal to zero out capital gains taxes for those who invest in our burgeoning high tech industry. We are joined by our colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are leaders in the effort to foster a healthy economic climate in which our nation's high tech companies can continue to thrive. The American economy is moving quickly from one dominated by large corporations to one whose growth is fueled by emerging entrepreneurial high-growth companies. Entrepreneurial companies are today's leaders in job creation, technological innovation, and international competitiveness. America's future economic well-being lies in the hands of today's emerging companies and the central organizing principle for our nation's economic policy should be entrepreneurship. Over the course of many years, a complex fabric of public policies have created the environment in which entrepreneurial firms compete. Due to the fact that the public policy needs of this community have not been articulated in a united fashion or widely understood by policy makers, however, the basic ``building blocks'' used to enhance economic growth have not been properly constructed. I rise today to begin to lay the foundation for this policy and ensure that the engine that drives this economy has access to the fuel it needs to thrive: capital. Entrepreneurs are synonymous with jobs. In the last three years there has been over a million new jobs created in the high tech sector alone. More importantly, the average wage of a high tech job is $53,000 per year, 77 percent higher than the private sector as a whole. By creating an environment for entrepreneurship to thrive, we also ensure that ``spin off'' companies develop to foster even greater job creation and technological development. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in the biotechnology and computer industries that have grown up in my home state of Washington. The bill I am introducing today will ensure that these new capital- intensive small businesses will have the money they need to create innovative technologies and create jobs. By raising the Section 1202 definition of small business from $50 million to $300 million and raising the capital gains exclusion from 50% to 100% for both individuals and corporations, we can create a climate in which individual investors are rewarded for their risky investment and entrepreneurs have the tools they need to succeed. Capital gains taxes are one of this nation's primary obstacles to job creation and technological innovation. Anything to reduce the effective or actual rate on capital gains taxes will help put more money in the hands of our nation's most enterprising citizens and lift the standard of living for everyone. In addition to the capital gains provisions in the bill, I am also posposing to eliminate Incentive Stock Options from the calculation of the individual Alternative Minimum Tax. Today's high tech employers are having a difficult time recruiting and retaining skilled professionals because of the incredibly high demand for people knowledgeable about computers. One of the principal ways employers can retain qualified employees is through Incentive Stock Options, which help supplement the employee's income while giving them an ownership role in the company. Unfortunately, the Alternative Minimum Tax is preventing many employees from receiving more compensation and, therefore, is limiting the use of ISOs as a retention tools. This bill will fix this problem to ensure that both employers and employees can continue to benefit from the economic boom being created by the high tech sector. Over the course of the next year, I expect a healthy debate over tax policy. It is my hope that this bill will put the primary focus of this debate where it ought to be: removing incentives to economic freedom and entrepreneurship. I urge my colleagues to support this effort.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I also want to thank the chairman for working with me in this last year and including the Schoolyard Safety Act in the outlines of this bill. After the shooting in Springfield, Oregon, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and I teamed up to introduce this legislation, the Schoolyard Safety Act, which provides a 24-hour holding period for students who bring guns to school. In my State, these students are automatically expelled, but the Schoolyard Safety Act would also require that they be detained. This holding period is incredibly important. It provides for the protection and the safety of both our children in the classroom and relatives at home who might be targets of the student's anger, as happened in the Springfield, Oregon, shooting. It also provides an intervention for those juveniles who bring a gun to school but who may need mental health treatment or counseling. Yesterday, I had a visit from some very special women in my district. They belong to a group called Mothers Against Violence in America. There was a young woman and her mother in this group. The young woman, Rachel, was shot at Garfield High School in Seattle, Washington. The other mothers who came to my office had lost sons or daughters in school shootings, including one mother whose son was killed in the school shooting in Moses Lake, Washington. And these women are the reason that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and I introduced the Schoolyard Safety Act and why I worked so hard to get this 24-hour holding provision into the juvenile justice bill. In addition to this effort at the Federal level, the State of Washington recently passed a new law requiring a 24-hour holding period for young people who bring guns on to school grounds. I simply in this colloquy, Mr. Chairman, want to thank the chairman and clarify this new Washington State law will be consistent with the provisions that are included in this bill.

Ms. DUNN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.