Jennifer Dunn

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those assurances.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure I rise today to recognize Pastor Samuel Thomas, Jr. Pastor Thomas led the Congress in our opening prayer this morning. In reflecting on his uplifting words for our country, I would like to give you a brief glimpse of Pastor Thomas's contribution to our society. Pastor Thomas was born in Nashville, Tennessee, and raised in Atlanta, Georgia. He has been a teacher, a student, a broadcaster, a banker, a husband and, perhaps most importantly, a wonderful father to his two children, Samuel and Christine. His life's journey has included teaching new ministerial students at his alma mater in Huntsville, Alabama and co-producing a television broadcast that airs around the world. In addition, he serves his community as senior pastor of Capitol City Seventh Day Adventist Church in Sacramento, California. When I met Pastor Thomas, he had flown to Seattle, Washington, to preside over funeral services for my next-door neighbor and very dear friend George Erickson. His compelling testimony of his own life and his kindness and strength at a painful time touched us all. I want not only to welcome Pastor Samuel Thomas and thank him for his prayer today, but I also want to thank him for serving as such an exemplary role model to all of us who seek to be both compassionate and strong.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 435.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 435) to make miscellaneous and technical changes to various trade laws, and for other purposes.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 435 would make miscellaneous and other technical and clerical corrections to trade laws. The House passed this bill on February 9, 1999. The Senate passed the bill with an amendment. The bill contains over 130 provisions temporarily suspending or reducing duties on a wide variety of products. A number of the duties and suspensions relate to different chemicals to make anti-HIV, anti- AIDS and anti-cancer drugs. In each instance, there is either no domestic production of the product involved or the domestic producers have supported the measure. By suspending or reducing these duties, we can enable U.S. companies that use these products to be more competitive and to function more cost efficiently. This would create jobs for American workers as well as reduce costs for consumers. The bill also contains a number of technical trade corrections and miscellaneous trade provisions that have received broad bipartisan support and no opposition. For example, the bill includes a provision that would provide duty- free treatment to participants and to individuals associated with world athletic events, such as the 1999 Women's World Cup soccer and the Special Olympics, which are being held throughout the United States. Other time-sensitive provisions refer to a variety of trade issues, including Customs preclearance activities and Customs user fees. This package of trade bills has been thoroughly evaluated and commented on by all concerned parties, including the United States Customs Service, the Department of Commerce, the International Trade Commission, the United States Trade Representative, and those firms which may be affected by a tariff suspension on a product they do produce domestically. The provisions that remain in the bill are completely noncontroversial. The Senate amendment would strike eight duty suspension provisions related to pigments. It would make one technical correction, and it would make adjustments to certain other pigment provisions. In addition, the amendment would ensure that all athletes participating in the Women's World Cup soccer and other sporting events are able to bring their equipment duty free. Apart from these changes, the Senate amendment to H.R. 435 is essentially identical to the version of H.R. 435 passed by the House on February 9, 1999. I urge my colleagues to support this time-sensitive legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support an idea that is long overdue in the Nation's capital, truth in budgeting. For decades the social security surplus has been used by politicians to fund other government spending and mask the scope of our Nation's financial problems. It is time now to put this practice behind us. It is time to build a firewall between the dollars that are used to fund other government programs and the dollars that come to government specifically for social security benefits. There are three principles that will guide my decisionmaking on budget issues as we move forward through this year. First, 100 percent of the social security surplus must be preserved for social security. Whether it be using this money to credit the social security trust fund or to help preserve social security or Medicare, we must commit these resources to their intended purposes. This lockbox bill is an important step in fulfilling this part of our commitment. Secondly, we must stick to the fiscal discipline we decided on when we passed the Balanced Budget Amendment of 1997. In 1997, we agreed to spending limits that we absolutely must stick to. Every Member of this House, Republican and Democrat, supported a budget resolution that maintained these caps. We cannot break our word to the American people. They expect us to keep our promises. They should be able to receive that commitment from us. Third, we must return the nonsocial security surplus to the people in the form of tax relief. This money represents a direct overpayment for government services. Make no mistake, if it is left in the hands of the politicians, it will be spent. It is the people's money. We should give it back. Mr. Speaker, Members can describe the budget process as a three- legged stool. Today we are putting the first leg in place. That stool includes preserving Social Security, maintaining fiscal discipline, and returning the non-Social Security surplus to the people. Congress' ability to finally control spending has helped create an economy with historically low inflation and low unemployment. It has helped millions of Americans and allowed them to pursue their financial independence, to experience the security of homeownership, and to be in a position to give their children a leg up in the new economy through education. We must not jeopardize this success by going on a spending spree that destroys fiscal discipline. We can guarantee the security of Social Security by putting 100 percent of the Social Security surplus funds into a lockbox. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, on May 18, 1999, the House considered the conference report for H.R. 1141, the fiscal year 1999 emergency supplemental bill. I was not recorded on final passage of the conference report (rollcall 133), but wish the Record to reflect that I was supportive of the measure.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1083. He was inadvertently added last week.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 124, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Announcement by the Chairman

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding teacher in my district of Washington State during Teacher Appreciation Week. This special teacher is Mark Oglesby, a government instructor at Tahoma High School in Maple Valley, Washington. Mark is a dynamic teacher who is consistently praised by both his peers and students for his dedication to helping government come alive for Tahoma High School students. Each year, I have the pleasure of talking with Mark and his students when they visit Washington, D.C. for the We the People civic education program. The ``We the People'' program is a three-day national competition modeled on the hearings here in the United States Congress. For the past several years, Mark has taught a class of students who, under his guidance, have won their state competition and then have come to Washington, D.C. to compete against other states at the national level. The extra time Mark takes with students shows in their consistent achievement. Each spring I host a mock congress for high school students in my district to help them to gain hand-on experience of our government at work. These students elect a Speaker, run committees and hearings, write legislation, and lobby their fellow students to vote for their bills. Each year the students in Mark Oglesby's class stand out with their knowledge of how our democratic system of government works. Mark also serves as the tennis and volleyball coach at Tahoma High, and as a Maple Valley City Councilman. He is clearly dedicated to teaching and willing to dedicate personal time to support the ideas in which he believes. Mr. Speaker, Mark Oglesby is one of our state's exemplary teachers. We are fortunate he is helping to train the leaders of our next generation.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, at the ``Salute to Newt'' last Wednesday, our former Speaker of the House again proved that, in the words of TIME Magazine, he ``belongs in the category of the exceptional.'' Newt Gingrich is a man who thinks both with a vision for our country and with compassion in his heart, and I bring his remarks from that special evening to your attention. Joined by the Gingrich family and friends, the event was a wonderful tribute to Newt. Mary Tyler Moore, International Chair of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, said it best in her introduction of Speaker Gingrich. Moore said, ``Newt Gingrich may be many things to many people, but to us he is a champion and a hero--and his leadership in Congress will be sorely missed.'' A portion of the proceeds from this event were donated to the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation. 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. In a very real way, I hope tonight does symbolize what America is all about. Jonathan as a person, not just a symbol for a cause. Mary Tyler Moore as a person, not just a symbol of a cause. But the fact that America is about 260 million real people of remarkable diversity, each of them with extraordinary God given talents, and each of them needing the help of their fellow American to use all those talents. We were able, for a five-year period, to do a great job because of each of you. Because of those of you who are members, those of you who are on my staff, those of you who were supporters, donors, volunteers, friends; it was team effort. Time magazine named me ``Man of the Year'' in 1995, but in fact, it should have been the ``Team of the Year,'' because it was a very remarkable, collective effort, by an extraordinary range of people. My daughters talked about me as a father, but the truth is, they're pretty good daughters. And they spent a lot of time on the phone with me, and now we're all into email so it's gotten even more chaotic, {laughter} and they and Marianne track me as much as I track them because I think life, in that sense, is a team effort. Marianne recognized, and I was so grateful that she did so, and we talked about it earlier, but she recognized the Capitol Police. I think all of you, particularly those of you who go to the Capitol fairly often, who, as I often do, take them for granted, all of us were brought up short when Officer J.J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson were killed. I think it was a reminder, a wake up call if you will, that these men and women literally risk their lives for their country, and in that case, two of them paid to protect the Capitol with their lives, and I want to repeat what Marianne said and just say to all of you who are here tonight, thank you for four years of wonderful service and protection and I am very grateful to each and every one of you, and I regard you as my friends, and I know from the fact that you participated in so many trips with me and on occasion laughed at various and sundry dumb things I was saying, that you are my friends. You see different pictures, we talk about, one of the pictures was about mental health parity, and my mother has had challenges for over twenty years involving bi-polar disease. I walk every year in the breast cancer effort, and my sister Robbie, who is here, is a survivor of breast cancer and we know first hand how serious and how real it is. I think at every level, my brother and my sisters are here tonight, my daughters, Marianne, all of us felt it personally, but I think for many of you, those in office and those out of office, those in Washington and those around the country, I think you know that you were as much a part of our extended family, and that it was very, very real, and that together, we accomplished a lot. I think it's a very important thing that this city doesn't do a very good job of giving us credit for it, because it would make the establishment of this city very uncomfortable, but I think we ought to recognize that together, we ended, as that one video shows so lovingly, 40 years of Democrat control. Together, for the first time in 68 years, we re-elected a Republican majority. Together, for the first time since 1926 we ended up keeping that majority for the third time. And it is with enormous pride that we have here tonight, my dear friend Speaker Denny Hastert. As I told the House Republican Conference in a rather exciting meeting one afternoon just before we went on home for Christmas, I thought that in the context we were in that Denny was absolutely the only person who could hold the party together, and I called him today to congratulate him as the budget passed, something which I had not been able to accomplish for all of last year. And to get it through, on time, and to pass it, even with a couple of Democratic votes helping add the margin, was a great achievement. I think this is part of what the human experience is about. It's important to understand that I left the Capitol with an extraordinary sense of happiness because for 20 years I had been allowed to serve the people of Georgia, because for 5 years I was allowed to lead the House Republican party, one of those years in all honesty, with Bob Michel's total support because he was still the leader, but in every way he supported my effort for us to be a majority. For four years, with your help, I was allowed to serve as the Speaker of the House, and I felt that as a visionary and a strategist and a teacher that I had carried us as far as I could, and that frankly we needed a legislative leader who would focus on leading the House Republican party as a legislative body, and I am extremely proud of Denny, and I think he is going to end up being a very effective Speaker, and I think when he is reelected two or three more times he will be a very, very powerful Speaker, and I will be back at that point to visit you occasionally and chat with you about ideas that I'm developing, that I hope you will schedule. It's important to remember that not only did we achieve a lot in power, because it was a decisive transition in power in this city, but we achieved a lot in policy. We passed welfare reform. We passed it three times--twice it was vetoed, the third time the president announced he had invented it and signed it with great glee. But frankly that's less important than the fact that today there are 43% fewer people on welfare and 43% more Americans out there earning a living, having a chance to pursue happiness, showing their children that the work ethic matters, and that's good for America, and it's good for individual Americans. The pictures that Charlton Heston talked about, that he narrated, that showed John Kasich and Pete Domenici signing the budget deal which was in fact an extraordinary achievement. People tend to forget, we were projected, when I became Speaker, we were projected to have over the next decade a three trillion, one hundred billion dollar deficit. I believe it was announced yesterday that the surplus for this year is one hundred and eleven billion on a unified basis and even if you discount all the Social Security revenue, we have reduced the deficit for the operating budget to 16 billion. Numbers which I would venture to say in the summer of 1994, you could have gotten a 50 million to one bet against that particular possibility. We have now created, by balancing the budget, the lower interest rates that are fueling the economy. We also have a chance to save Social Security, and we are in a position where we can cut taxes and return to the American people the money that belongs to them. And let me remind you that when we balanced the budget, we did so in a bill which cut taxes for the first time in seventeen years, and part of this prosperity is the fact that we cut the capital gains tax and, once again, lowering the cost of job creation paid off, as more and more people got in the business of creating jobs. We also saved Medicare for what now looks like it will be a 15 or 20 year period, without having raised the FICA tax, and we began strengthening defense and intelligence, and I am particularly proud that Porter Goss, who is here tonight, is continuing to lead as the Chair of the Intelligence Committee and to give us a chance to really reshape our intelligence. Now, I spent the last four months with Marianne studying, thinking, trying to learn a few things and get a chance to be outside the daily business of this city. And for just a few minutes, I'd like to share with you sort of my initial reflections. This has been my first chance to come back and to have a chance to share with you. And let me say, I want to pick up on what Connie Mack said. I believe that we are the party of freedom, and we only make sense as the party of freedom. I believe that we represent the cause of freedom, which is even bigger than our party. And I believe that America is the country of freedom. I believe that as you go around this town, from the Washington Monument built to a man who led the Continental Army, presided over the Constitutional Convention, and literally served as father of his country for eight years, a man without whom we could not be the country we are. To the Jefferson Memorial, a man who wrote the Declaration of Independence, who was Governor of Virginia during the Revolutionary War, who helped us create the Bill of Rights, who founded the Democratic party to have legitimate dissent without treason, a new concept in the late eighteenth century, and then presided as president. To the Lincoln Memorial, a man who by sheer will insisted that we would be a union, and a memorial which can never be visited without profit by any who would understand both what has made America, and how deeply God is a part of our experience To the opposite end of the mall, where General Grant's statute stands below the Capitol that he defended, and we are reminded that this nation was, in the end, created in blood at Valley Forge and elsewhere, and stained in blood at Antietam and Gettysburg. To the FDR monument. To the greatest president of the twentieth century, a man who presided over the defeat, and led in the effort to defeat, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. Again and again, from monuments to the First and Second World Wars, to monuments to the Koran War, to the Vietnam Memorial, we are reminded that freedom is expensive, that it requires constant effort, and that we have a duty in our generation to take the freedom our parents gave Us and to strengthen it, improve it, and give our children, and grandchildren as my daughter pointed out, even more freedom. These are monuments to the sacrifices that lay at the very heart of freedom. I believe that in the next two decades, we have an opportunity to decisively extend freedom. And I believe there are five key steps to greater freedom in the next decade or two. Some of them are domestic, some of them international. Many of them will be controversial. Let me tell you what the five key steps to freedom are in the next few years. The first is here at home. It is the freedom to save for your own retirement, without politicians controlling your money. It will be controversial. There will be a fight. People will flinch from it at times. But it is an objective fact that the Social Security actuaries will report that being allowed to have a Social Security Plus account that you invest will save Social Security permanently, without a tax increase or a benefit cut, will do so with such enormous economic repercussions, that the Social Security actuaries believe that our children will have to cut the FICA tax, because the surpluses in the trust fund will simply grow too large to be managed. Now, that is a future which the surplus of the budget gives us a window now to take advantage of, and I think we should have the moral courage to say to the American people, `the president was half right.' He was right in saying let's invest it, he was wrong in saying let the politicians invest it, and we believe enough in the American people to find a way to get them some kind of tax credit out of that surplus so that every American, when they go to work and they start to pay a FICA tax, they have the right, and the duty, to save for their own retirement, with them, not the politicians, in control of that saving. And that will end class warfare in America in a half generation as every worker in America comes to own part of the American dream, and every worker in America sees their account, and their savings. And, in the process, the economy will grow faster, Social Security will be saved, and we will have moved power out of Washington, and back to the American people. Second: We ought to have the freedom to work for ourselves, for our families, for our communities, for our religious institutions. And I believe, in peace time, that means that we should establish a cap on all taxation, state, federal and local combined, at 25% of income, and no American should pay more than 25%. One of the purposes of this political action committee will be to write every Republican county, and district, and state organization as they have their conventions next year, and urge them to adopt a platform plank that calls for a 25% cap. We're not going to get there overnight. We're not going to get there in three or four years. But as someone who did preside, after all, over reforming welfare, balancing the budget, cutting taxes and saving Medicare, I think I can say that I have some sense of what's doable. And the fact is, in 1970, Governor Ronald Reagan went to the Governor's Association and proposed welfare reform. He was defeated forty-nine to one. Twenty-six years later, standing on his shoulders, we passed that welfare reform. Government grew big because of the Depression and the Second World War. It has no justification for being this big except our lack of cleverness at applying privatization, setting priorities, and modernizing the system to make it smaller. And I think as a party, we should adopt the principle that over the next 15 years we will shrink government until we get it down to no more than 25% of your income. Because, after all, if there was a big war, you would have to raise taxes, and if you are already at 45 or 50%, you have no margin to raise taxes without threatening freedom. And if you believe in the Tocqueville vision of volunteerism, and Marvin Olasky's great book The Tragedy of Human Compassion, which I think was the key explanation--and I thank Bill Bennett, who is here tonight, for having originally asked me to read it--it was the key explanation that volunteerism, charities, and a willingness to go out and be involved in your community is vastly more effective at changing the human condition than is larger government. And in that process, I believe, we can eliminate the death tax, cut the capital gains tax to 10%, and put ourselves in a position as a country to teach the rest of the world that we want big active citizens, not big active bureaucracies, because that's what makes freedom truly strong. Third, and I'm going to step on virtually every interest group in the country with this next one. It comes directly out of Adam Smith's point about the modernization of the Middle Ages. We should have the freedom to use all the aspects of the information age to improve our lives. We, as patients, ought to have all the knowledge about our health records. We should have all the knowledge about our own disease. We should have all the knowledge about all the different possible cures. We, as citizens, should have access to every expert system we can to apply the law to ourselves, with minimum payments to attorneys rather than maximum payments. We should have a common-sense approach to the environment. We should have a 24-hour a day, seven-day-a-week, year-round learning system where teachers get paid based on results rather than on tenure, and where, in fact, students have a chance to be learners all their lives, not just from 9 until 3 when it is convenient. But that requires the courage, every morning, to get up and look at the technology and say, ``how can I strengthen the consumer-slash-citizen's rights,'' rather than ``how can I protect the guild the interest group, or whoever it is that is currently protecting their rice bowl.'' Fourth, and this is particularly important for Republicans, but it is crucial to all Americans. We need freedom for all Americans to pursue happiness. It really struck me about 2 weeks after the election. The democrats had run racist ads, and they were terrible, and it was a despicable campaign, and it was deliberate. But it was tragically our failure over the preceding four years to so behave that in every black and Hispanic community local people didn't automatically say, ``That ad is baloney.'' We have to decide that we truly mean that every American is endowed by their creator. Every American with disabilities, and Jonathan is here tonight. Every American who has a long-term disease. The young people who were up here tonight who will spend a lifetime without hour help having to inject, having to monitor carefully, having to experience everything Mary shared with us. Young Americans who are black, or Hispanic, or Native American. And we have to decide that we, as a party, and we as individuals mean it enough that we are going to break through the baloney, break through the bureaucracy, insist on results, and we're going to reach out in every neighborhood. Some work has been done in this direction, but frankly it is far too little, we are far too timid, we don't challenge ourselves enough, and we should recognize that if God has truly endowed, as I believe he has, every single child in this country, in every single neighborhood, then we have an obligation to make that endowment real. And if we are seen as being truly serious, and we are truly serious, I believe that for more than a generation, the vast overwhelming majority of Americans will give us the chance to implement that seriousness in creating a better future for all of us. An example I though about, these are U.S. Representative Jim Rogan's twins that are in this picture right up here. They are wonderful young girls. Jim loves them deeply. And all I would say to each of you is, we ought to be able to put the face of every child their age, of every single background, in every single neighborhood, in that picture. And they should have just as great a change to be happy, to be healthy, and to know that they are going to have a good future. And we should just force ourselves to do the hard work of freedom until that happens. And finally, and this is going to sound a little daring, and I don't quite know how to say it, I lack U.S. Senate Chaplain, Rev. Lloyd Ogilvie's brilliance with interpreting God's will and language that the Senate will actually listen to. Not always obey, but at least listen, and that's a major achievement. I think, and I want to say this as clearly as I can because it's so important. I think we ought to stand for freedom for the entire human race. For fifty years, we led an anti-Communist coalition. And we won. We are now the preeminent power on the planet, and the time has come to ask of ourselves, ``for what purpose has God given us this level of pre-eminence?'' And I believe the answer is exactly what Jefferson, Washington and Lincoln would have said: That we owe to every citizen. Remember that the Declaration of Independence begins by saying, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'' Notice that phrase, that entire phrase, is universal. It doesn't say they are American truths. It doesn't say they apply to white males. It doesn't say they are Western European. All are created equal. Endowed by their Creator. I think the United States has to lead. I think we need a great debate, that's very straightforward. If you think the world will be safer if the United States hides, join that side. If you think the world will be safer if we lead, join this side. Let's divide up. Let's have a fight over it. I think overwhelmingly the country will choose that we have to lead. When we start to lead, I think the goal of our leadership should be simple: We want every single citizen on the planet to be free, safe and prosperous. And we are prepared to provide moral leadership, we are prepared to encourage missionary activities, both religious and secular, we are prepared to support commercial activity, we are prepared when necessary to support diplomatic, police and, if necessary, military activity. But we truly believe the time has come for the planet to be free, because our children will never be free if there are large pockets of dictatorship, tyranny and terrorism on this planet. That requires us, and this is not a comment on the Clinton administration, it requires us as Americans to rethink our strategies and to rethink our systems. We can't just bully the planet into following us. We could when it was the Soviet Union, because the alternative was so horrible that, in fact, people would follow us even when mad at us. We're going to have to learn to listen a lot. We're going to have to learn to learn a lot. We're going to have to learn that leadership doesn't mean that you've got to fix breakfast for everybody every morning. And leadership doesn't mean that the `cleanup campaign' is you cleaning out the garage of every one of your neighbors. But it does mean building teams, being patient, being persistent. It does mean telling the truth. You can't have prosperity in Russia without the rule of law, and free enterprise, and private property. You can't have honesty and prosperity in Indonesia if you have corruption. You can't tolerate, in the long run, a government like North Korea because it is literally killing the people of North Korea. And you can't ignore Rwanda just because it is too difficult for CNN to get a reporter to cover the butchery. We have an obligation to systematically, calmly and methodically lead across this planet everywhere, and we can't avoid it. Now, I think that does mean we're going to have to learn to build institutions, better systems. I think it means we've got to have a defense budget and a `policing' budget. They are not the same thing. And for the last seven years, the `policing' budget has eaten up the defense budget. I think it means a larger total expenditure on national security, a total overhaul of the State Department, a total overhaul of the intelligence capabilities. If you knew the numbers, and I don't know if they are declassified or not, but if you knew the numbers of people we have in our security apparatus who can speak fluent Chinese, or can speak fluent Serbia, you would be humiliated at the inability of the richest, most powerful nation in the world to get its act together. This is not a commentary just on this administration. This is going to take serious thought, serious work, and whoever the next president is, they're going to need leadership from the Congress based on a lot of hearings, and a lot of hard work. Having said that, those are five large long-term goals. Let me very briefly talk about three immediate challenges. One: I believe the Republican party should adamantly, at every level, adopt the 11th Commandment that Ronald Reagan used. And I think we ought to say, `let's have a great presidential nominating process, with no negative ads. Let's get together and find who is the best person with the best ideas.' But the idea that we should have eight, or nine, or ten of our candidates destroy each other, I think is absolutely ludicrous. And I think every serious leader of this party ought to say to every single candidate, `go out there and tell everybody your best ideas in a positive way,' and let's have the person with the best ideas win the nomination, and then let's all get together behind them. But I do think if we don't do that, you're going to have a bloodbath for three or four months next year, and out of that bloodbath you're going to have an incumbent administration with an incumbent president, with the media bias, prepared to spend six months taking our nominee apart. And I think we owe it to America to have a positive, unified Republican party offering a candidate with good ideas. Second: Because it is so currently topical, let me just say briefly; I strongly urge that we end the Independent Counsel process, dead. Not modified, not improved, not partial. Kill it. Get rid of it. Go back to the system we had before 1972. It has been a monstrosity. It has served no one well, and it criminalizes and undermines the process of American government in a way which is tragic. And I would also urge all of you to thorough reexamine the process by which the Executive Branch now gets appointees, because we stop many of the best people in this country from even thinking about applying, and there ought to be some way to appoint some kind of commission of honorable people on a bipartisan basis, so that the next administration will not find that two-thirds or half of the people it wants can't even consider trying to meet the ludicrous standards we now set, and trying to fill out the materials we now provide. Lastly, I could hardly come back in lieu of Kosovo, and not comment for a minute. Kosovo is very, very serious. Much more serious than the evening news understands. The President of the United States has compared Milosevic to Hitler. Has suggested that this is the worst process since Nazi Germany. Has announced that the United States and all the power of NATO is being brought to bear on a tiny, limited country, called Serbia. The Germans yesterday floated an idea which would be a disaster. A papered-over, negotiated settlement, with a dictator who would have won. Let me be very clear at two levels here. First, Serbia is important because the world is watching. If the Chinese decide that we are an irresolute, finicky, confused, timid nation, they will try to take Taiwan. And we could stumble into a war of extraordinary proportions, because they are serious people. If the Iranians decide that they could take out Tel Aviv, and we would do nothing--I don't want to bet that the Iranians wouldn't try it. If the Iraqis decide that after all of our eight years of bluffing, they could use bacteriological or chemical weapons against their neighbors and we would do nothing. Remember, the danger may not be that we would actually do nothing, the danger is that their confusion would lead to a war. 1914, the First World War was an accident. Nobody thought they'd fight. 1939, Hitler promised his generals that Chamberlain would never fight, and Britain would stay out of the war. 1950, the American Secretary of State publicly announced, ``Korea is outside our defense zone,'' and the North Koreans believed him. Wars occur more often because democracies are confused, than because people are deliberately risk-taking. And this president has now set a very high standard for the United States. And I believe there is a simple responsibility. First, the president should go to the nation and outline unequivocally, in clear, simple language what are our goals. If Milosevic is this evil, how can he stay in power? If his government has been this horrible, how can it be tolerated? If the Albanians are to go back home, how can they do so while being disarmed, as the Germans suggested? So what are our goals? Against what should we measure America two years from now? What should have happened? How will we know we were successful? And then the president and the Congress should debate those goals. If they are the right goals, if that requires declaring war on Serbia, then we should declare was on Serbia. If it requires sending a military force of enormous proportions, we should send such a force. But that should not be a politician's decision. Nor a presidential candidate's decision. The reason we call General Shelton ``Chairman of the Joint Chiefs'' is because he is assigned the duty of designing the campaign plan to execute the will of the American people. And his assignment should be simple. With minimum American casualties, in the shortest possible time, deliver victory, as defined by the president. Having finished with Serbia, we should return briefly to Iraq, and the world will be safe for at least twenty years, because the world will have learned that when the American nation is serious, it is un-opposable. But if we are irresolute in Serbia, if we accept a papered- over, phony victory, not all the press conferences and all the spinning in the world will convince the North Koreans, the Chinese, the Indians, the Iranians, the Iraqis, the Russians and others, that we are a nation to be dealt with seriously. This president has put his stamp in the middle of the table. He has said the American nation is now committed, and NATO, which is essentially the American nation and its European allies, is now engaged, and we have to insist, for our children's safety, that we succeed. Let me close, by first of all thanking all of you. As was mentioned several times, part of this resource is going to go to Juvenile Diabetes research. The rest is going to go to help launch our political efforts, to continue with vision and strategies and education. Let me also close at a very personal level. In 1958, as many of you have heard me say, my step-father took me to the battlefield at Verdun. He was serving in the United States Army, as he did for 27 years. And he convinced me, at the end of my freshman year of high school, that civilizations die, that wars are real, that freedom is precious. It has been for 40 years, 41 years this coming August, my privilege, as a citizen, to be a part of this extraordinary process by which the ethnically most diverse nation in the world governs itself, and seeks to provide opportunity for all of its citizens. In that time, I've watched Barry Goldwater launch a movement that was considered a little nutty, and went down in glorious defeat in 1964, and created modern conservatism. I watched Ronald Reagan give wonderful speeches, retire as Governor, emerge briefly to be defeated for the nomination, do a radio show from the ranch, and then emerge, in a magic moment, as America lost its way, as malaise took over, as the economy decayed, as the Russians invaded Afghanistan, and with Margaret Thatcher gave us a dual performance of the power of human leadership that changed the future. And in eight brief years he defeated the Soviet Empire, reestablished the American economy, reestablished American morale, and reminded us of the difference between evil empires and bastions of freedom. I was privileged to serve with President Bush at a decisive moment, which is often forgotten by our friends, when every member of the Democratic elected leadership in the Congress voted against Desert Storm. We tend to forget after victory how rapidly they are forgotten. And yet President Bush had the courage, from day one, to insist that Kuwait would be taken, that Saddam's army would be destroyed, and that we would do what was necessary. With your help, with your hard work, with your contributions and your tireless effort, we broke a 40 year monopoly, transferred power in the legislative branch, and truly changed the lives for millions of Americans. As Mary said earlier so generously, all of us working together saved people with diabetes, we saved people with breast cancer, we put massively more money into medical research, we began a process of preventive disease approaches that I think are going to lead to wellness and major changes. We saved hundreds of thousands of Americans from poverty by moving then into work and education, we taught their children that there is a better future than waiting on the check and sitting in public housing. We created opportunities for our parents to have better choices in Medicare, and we began the slow, laborious process of rebuilding and rethinking our defense and our intelligence capabilities. From that tiny country, on the fringe of the Atlantic Ocean, to a nation which stands astride the world, it has been an amazing process of two hundred and twenty-three years this July 4th. Our generation has a chance to extend that freedom, that prosperity, and that safety to every person in America, and to every person in the world. It is, in Franklin Delano Roosevelt's words, our generation's rendezvous with destiny. To each of you in public office I wish you God-speed. As Marianne pointed out the night we announced we would step down, we will be around in public life, and we will work with you in every way we can to give our children, and now my grandchildren, a better future. Thank you, good luck, and God Bless you.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the Business Women's Network (BWN) and to all of you, the thousands of women committed to fostering leadership, and to men who are champions of the positive change reported in Business Women's WOW! Facts. WOW! Facts is a one-of- a-kind resource database on women in business designed to highlight facts on women--from their access to capital to their access to child care. Below are a few examples of the impressive measurements of women's success found in the Business Women's WOW! Facts (which can be found on the Internet at www.BWNi.com): Women are starting businesses at twice the rate of men, creating 8.5 million small businesses in this country that generate nearly $3 trillion in revenue. New companies headed by women stay in business longer than the average U.S. company. Women make the investment decisions in 32 percent of households where investments are made. Women are a critical part of investment decisionmaking in another 51 percent of households. In saving and investing for their families, women cite the 401(k) as their primary investment vehicle. Women make up of 47 percent of all stock owners. Ninety-nine percent of women in the U.S. will work for pay at some point in their lives. While in 1960, 30 percent of mothers worked, 70 percent of all mothers are now employed outside of the home. With estimates that women make up 48 percent of all Internet users, women are the fastest growing segment on-line. In fact, by the year 2000 women will make up 50 percent of the total on-line audience and 52 percent by the year 2002. Women are the fastest growing part of future projections for electronic commerce--one of the hottest trends in the nation and the globe. Edie Fraser of BWN tells me that soon we will have more than 1.2 million women-owned businesses on the Internet for the purpose of electronic commerce. I want to recognize Working Woman Magazine for their partnership with BWN on many efforts, including a salute to the 500 top Working Women. Thank you to the Small Business Administration, the National Association of Women Business Owners, National Foundation of Women Business Owners and others for generating data which BWN has captured for this project. This is an impressive effort that will connect the world with the growing influence and accomplishments of women.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, there are no words to describe the tragedy that took place yesterday at Columbine High School in Colorado. As a mother, I can only empathize with those parents who were waiting for hours to find out if their son or daughter was able to leave that school safely. These young people have seen more in a few hours than any of our Nation's children should see in a lifetime. Parents whose children were one month from graduating, one month from starting a brand-new chapter in their lives are now grieving with an inconceivable loss. This community has a heartache no one in his worst nightmare could ever have imagined. After the school shooting in Springfield, Oregon last year, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and I teamed up in an effort to do something to stop the violence on our Nation's school grounds. There is no cure-all, but the Schoolyard Safety Act will help by beginning awareness before the tragedy occurs. We know that legislation is not the final solution. High school students at Columbine reported they knew the suspects in the shooting were troubled, youths who needed our help long before the tragedy occurred. But how do we help these children before they act out violence? A discussion needs to take place with our students across the Nation. We need to talk to our children, after they get home from school, every night at the dinner table, on weekends, to find out what they are thinking, what they are feeling. The solution is found with our children. Mr. Speaker, nothing can stop the heartache of the community of Littleton, Colorado. We can only pray for students and families and pull our communities together to stop violence.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the House budget resolution sponsored by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). This budget is a solid step forward in the idea of limited government, of fiscal discipline and protecting Social Security and tax relief. By setting aside 1.8 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, the entire Social Security surplus plus interest, the Republican budget provides more money for the protection of Social Security and Medicare than does the President's budget. In addition, it locks this money away so it can only be used for reforming these important programs or for paying down the national debt. This is a great signal of our commitment to preserving the quality of life and income security of our Nation's seniors that they so richly deserve. Mr. Chairman, retirement should be a time to enjoy things, the company of friends and family. It should not be spent worrying about where our money is going to come from to retire, about access to health care, about paying the rent. The Republican budget also provides $800 billion worth of tax relief over the next 10 years. The Congressional Research Service recently reported that the average American family will end up paying $5,307 more in taxes over the next 10 years than is necessary to operate government, and this is over and above the Social Security surplus. This represents a direct overpayment in taxes on the part of hard-working Americans. Incredibly the President's budget actually increases taxes on working Americans. According to the Tax Foundation 38. 5 percent of his budget, the President's tax increase, will be born by individuals who earn less than $25,000 a year. Mr. President, how much is enough? Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of a better way to begin the new millennium than by reestablishing trust with the taxpayers whom we represent by letting them keep more of their hard-earned dollars. I urge my colleagues to reject this alternative and accept our commitment to taxpayers, to the seniors, and support the Republican budget. It is their money; let us give it back.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, on March 11 when I introduced the Reforestation Tax Act of 1999, my statement focused on the benefits of this legislation to the forest products sector of our economy. Today, as I add eight more cosponsors to this increasingly popular effort, I would like to focus my remarks on the benefits for non-industrial forest land owners. America's privately-owned forests make up almost 58% of our nation's total forest lands and are one of our most valuable resources. They provide wildlife habitat, maintain watershed health, and are used for a wide array of recreational activities such as hiking, camping, fishing, and hunting. In addition, they provide the foundation for a multi- billion dollar forest products industry. To ensure that our wildlife habitat and watershed needs as well as a reliable supply of timber is available for the future, we need to encourage industrial and nonindustrial landowners to invest in enhancing their forest ownership. Investing in forest land is risky. Trees can take anywhere from 25 to 75 years to grow to maturity, depending on the type of tree, regional weather, and soil conditions. The key to success is good management, which is costly. Furthermore, fire, disease, floods, and ice storms--events that are uninsurable--can wipe out acres of trees at any time during the long, risky growing period. The Reforestation Tax Act of 1999 will remove disincentives for private investment in our forests and help with the cost of maintaining them. By reducing the capital gains paid on timber for individuals and corporations by 3 percent each year the timber is held--up to a maximum reduction of 50 percent--forest landowners will be partially protected from being taxed on inflationary gains. While this provision would not fully compensate for the negative tax impact of inflation, it would provide a significant incentive for those forest land owners who must nurture their investment for a long period of time. Today, many landowners cease reforestation efforts when they reach the current $10,000 ceiling on expenses that are eligible for the credit. Removing the cap on expenses eligible for the credit would eliminate a disincentive for private forest land owners to plant more trees. Current law allows this $10,000 in reforestation expenses to be amortized over a seven year period. My legislation not only eliminates the monetary cap but also reduces the amortization period to five years. With these changes, the reforestation tax credit and amortization will encourage forest landowners to operate in an ecologically-sound manner that leads to the expansion of investment in this vital natural resource. By removing these current law disincentives to sustainable forestry for both our industrial and non-industrial forest land owners, we will increase reforestation and enhance sound environmental management on private land. We believe this will benefit Americans across the country, not just forest land owners. I am grateful for the broad support the Reforestation Tax Act of 1999 has gained since its introduction, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House to make this bill a reality.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives is considering a bill to establish import quotas on certain raw steel products coming into the United States. Presumably, this bill would help ``save'' the steel industry from foreign raw material being ``dumped'' on the domestic market at below market prices. Although I sympathize with the workers who are being affected by this situation, there are other remedies that can be utilized to combat this problem that will avoid the unintended consequences this bill brings about. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration has been slow to act to use the tools at its disposal under the Trade Act and we now have before us a measure that violates the premise of free trade under which this country has flourished. Let me provide you with one example of how this bill will negatively impact the economy in Washington State. In 1995, BHP Coated Steel Corporation invested $221 million in a facility located in Kalama, Washington to take advantage of increasing demand for coated sheet steel on the West Coast. The plant contains a galvanizing line, a coil coating line, and a pickling/cold rolling line and is widely recognized as the most modern and cost effective facility of its kind in the U.S. It provides 235 good, family-wage jobs in Kalama and has become an important part of the community. Because of the requirements of their manufacturing process, BHP needs large coils of hot bank steel that meet certain specifications. Although they source some of this product from domestic suppliers, much of the raw material that fits their manufacturing specifications comes from Australia. H.R. 975 would seriously jeopardize their ability to access this material and threaten the ability of the Kalama facility to expand--something the company would like to do--or even continue to exist. The bill institutes import quotas based on the average amount of steel imported into the U.S. between July 1994 and July 1997. Unfortunately, the Kalama facility did not go ``on-line'' until November 1997, meaning those import levels do not reflect the demand created by the facility. With no domestic supply sufficient to operate its plant, BHP will find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to survive. There are a number of reasons to oppose this bill, but I believe it is important to provide Members of Congress with real examples of the negative impact of its implementation. I urge my colleagues to join the White House in opposing this effort, which clearly violates our obligations under the World Trade Organization to maintain an import regime consistent with our existing trade laws.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Education Flexibility Act. Republicans in the House are working on a bipartisan basis to put education back in the hands of local teachers and schools, and provide relief from federal regulations that only serve to stifle innovation in education. H.R. 800 will give states and communities more decision-making flexibility. This flexibility is crucial to ensure that schools can promote the best opportunities for our children so that they may reach their greatest learning potential. This bill also creates real, measurable accountability standards for teachers to encourage them to bring out the best in every child at school. With the passage of the Ed-Flex, my home state of Washington will finally have the opportunity to utilize this flexibility when designing their education programs. Local districts and schools, such as Tahoma High School in Maple Valley, will have the flexibility to design a plan that works for Tahoma, not bureaucrats in Washington, DC. By broadening this plan from the original plan of 12 states to include the rest of the nation, we offer all states much needed relief from over-burdensome regulations. The proof is in the reforms already begun by states that participated in the ed-flex pilot program. In both Texas and Maryland, Ed-Flex has enabled school districts in each state to improve the test scores of their poorest children. In return for greater flexibility, both states have produced solid academic results. Ed-Flex is a program that works--for schools and for students. A Kent County, Maryland school with 60% of the students at the poverty level utilized ed-flex and now has the third highest test scores in the state for elementary schools. Parents of the students in this school know first hand the value of local flexibility. Their kids are improving their reading, writing, and math skills--some of the most important tools in life. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to think of the possibilities ed-flex can create in their home districts, to imagine how flexibility at the local level will stimulate new ideas and programs that will improve the quality of education for our children, and create opportunities for our teachers and educators to design plans that help our children reach their fullest potential. I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today the Reforestation Tax Act of 1999 along with 16 of my colleagues who are deeply concerned about the future of our forest products companies. With the global marketplace becoming more competitive, we must take positive steps to remove barriers to our companies' ability to compete abroad. In the case of forest products, one of the largest impediments to success is our nation's tax code. Beginning with changes brought about by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, America has been struggling to competitively produce timber in a global market. Despite a tax system that gives U.S. forest products companies one of the highest effective tax rates in the world, they have been one of the most visionary sectors in helping to expand trade into new markets. During the recent negotiations over sectoral liberalization in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperative forum, forest products companies worked closely with Congress and the Administration to try to develop a long-term agreement to benefit American workers. Unfortunately, this process has not come to fruition due to disagreements among competing nations, something common when we solely rely on multilateral trade agreements to increase our competitiveness. It is time to focus on what we can do unilaterally: adjust our tax code so that our companies are not disadvantaged in the global marketplace. The Reforestation Tax Act recognizes the unique nature of timber and the overwhelming risks that accompany investment in the industry. It will reduce the capital gains paid on timber for individuals and corporations by 3 percent each year up to 50 percent. Because this reduction would apply to all companies, we minimize the current inequity whereby neighboring tracks of the same timber are taxed at different rates simply because of the business form of their investment. For timber companies, the capital gain on these forest products can be enormous. In some regions, tree farmers must wait more than 50 years from the planting of a relatively worthless seedling to the harvest of a mature tree. No other industry faces the extreme risks from wind, fire, and disease in protecting their asset over such an expansive period of time so they can realize a profit. In addition, the Reforestation Tax Act rewards those environmentally- conscious companies that choose to use their dollars for reforestation of their lands. By extending tax credits for all reforestation expanses, and shortening the amortization period for reforestation costs, Congress encourages and assists those companies that are making a conscious effort to operate in an ecologically-sound manner. The Reforestation Tax Act represents the best of tax, global competitiveness, and environmental policy. I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, today I come before the House of Representatives to wish a happy 100th birthday to Mt. Rainier National Park in the 8th Congressional District in the state of Washington. Like many others from Washington, I am tempted to say ``my mountain'' because that's how we all feel about Mt. Rainier--it belongs to each of us. It also gives the 8th district distinction as the most beautiful district in the nation. Mt. Rainier National Park was established March 2, 1899 as our fifth national park. The park itself encompasses 378 square miles. At its highest point, the mountain is 14,411 feet, so it's not surprising that more than 2 million people visit the park each year to enjoy its moist rainforest, giant old growth forests, subalpine meadows, and glaciers. But Rainier is more than just a national park. It is an integral part of the network of communities that surround its boundaries and form a gateway that visitors pass through when visiting the area. These communities support the park and the park supports them. It would be hard to imagine many people in Washington who can't go through their personal or family photo albums and find pictures of themselves with friends or family during a visit to the mountain. And every one of those photos tells a story. It is so with my family. Our family and friends all grew up in the shadow of ``our'' mountain spending time in a cabin near Greenwater and venturing into the park many times during every season. It was always amazing to me that for all the trails we hiked, streams we crossed, picnics we enjoyed, glaciers we climbed, it was new and different every time. We never tired of ``our'' mountain. I can't imagine I ever will. As a Member of Congress, I have been given the opportunity to see the park and mountain from a different vantage point. Rather than just a visitor, I am now an active partner in helping to maintain the park and protect it for future generations. The theme of the centennial celebration is ``A Century of Resource Stewardship.'' To underscore this theme, the park has undertaken a series of signature projects. These include the Sunrise Ecological Restoration Project, rehabilitation of the White River Patrol Cabin, and completion of the last mile of the Wonderland Trail. In February, Northwest Airlines began airing a special video about the Mt. Rainier Centennial that airs on international flights landing at Sea Tac Airport. Today, the celebration begins with a birthday cake and a ceremony to announce a collectible cancelled stamp at Longmire in the park. I am honored to participate in this ceremony kicking off the official celebration. Throughout this year the centennial committee has planned exciting projects and activities to celebrate the park's 100th birthday. For instance, the Tacoma/Pierce County Visitor and Convention Bureau and the gateway communities have joined together to host several special weekends of festivals and activities, and renowned mountain climber, Lou Whittaker, is leading a special ``Centennial Climb'' to the summit of Mt. Rainier. Lou's climbing group will include international mountain climbers as well as celebrities who have climbed with Lou in the past. My colleagues, if you haven't made vacation plans or visited Mt. Rainier National Park before, this is surely the time to come to Washington and join us in our celebration. And, perhaps on your way up to the park or while you're enjoying a latte somewhere in Seattle, you will have that special experience that separates us in Washington from the rest of the world. You or someone you're with may look South to the horizon and say, ``Look! The mountain is out today!''

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, it's been said that only with our government are you given a ``certificate at birth, a license at marriage, and a bill at death.`` Today I am introducing the Death Tax Elimination Act, which seeks to phase-out the onerous death tax. The death tax rates will be reduced by 5 percentage points each year until the highest rate bracket--55 percent--reaches zero in 2010. As these rates are lowered to zero, more and more families will no longer be forced to give the family savings to Uncle Sam and the family business will be saved. In an era when the productivity of American workers is creating huge budget surpluses, it is incomprehensible for this tax to live on. The death tax deserves to die. One of the most compelling aspects of the American dream is to make life better for your children and loved ones. Yet, the current tax treatment of individuals and families at death is so onerous that when one dies, their children are many times forced to sell and turn over more than half of their inheritance just to pay the taxes. It takes place at an agonizing time for the family; when families should be grieving for a loved one with friends and relatives, rather than spending painful hours with lawyers and bureaucrats. By confiscating between 37 percent and 55 percent of an estate, the death tax punishes life-long habits of savings, discourages entrepreneurship and capital formation, penalizes families, and has an enormous negative effect on other tax revenues. Americans today are living longer and enjoying their retirement. At a time when this Congress is discussing the future of Social Security, and how to personalize and modernize the system, we also need to encourage private investment. We should be encouraging people to plan for their future with retirement plans and IRAs, rather than encouraging reckless spending and a me-first attitude. This country was born on the promise of hope and opportunity, and by taxing families and businesses at their most agonizing time, we destroy their hope for the future. By today's tax system, it is easier and cheaper to sell a business before death rather than try to pass it on after. More than 70 percent of family business and farms do not survive through the second generation. Nine out of ten successors whose family-owned businesses failed within three years of the principal owner's death said trouble paying estate taxes contributed to the company's demise. For family owned business, this is a tax just because the business is changing ownership due to the death of an owner. Aside from being a source of revenue, another express purpose of the estate tax was to break up large concentrations of wealth. 75 years later, however, reality suggests that rather than being an important means for promoting equal economic opportunity, the estate tax is in fact a barrier to economic advancement for people of all economic circumstances. In effect, the death tax, which was established to redistribute wealth, hurts those it was meant to help--namely, America's working men and women. When small businesses close their doors, loyal employees lose their jobs. The saying goes that death and taxes are the only certainties in life. I believe it is ridiculous that the government force the American people to deal with both on the same day. Families should be allowed-- and encouraged--to save for future generations. I invite my colleagues to join John Tanner and me in our bi-partisan effort to eliminate this detrimental and cruel tax.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, in May 1998, Kip Kinkel of Hillsborough, Oregon showed up on his school grounds with a firearm, was expelled and sent home. He was not detained for a psychological evaluation or placed in custody to protect his innocent classmates. The following day he showed up at school again with a gun, shot several students, and returned home where he killed his parents. Three years ago, a Moses Lake, Washington middle school student brought a gun to school and killed two students and a teacher. Weeks ago, a student showed up at Stanwood High School in Washington with a loaded weapon, where fortunately there were no injuries to fellow students. These tragic stories demonstrate the need for our schools and communities to have in place a policy to protect our children from gun violence in our schools. Expelling youths once they have brought a gun onto school grounds is not enough, as the tragic story of Kip Kinkel illustrates. Who knows how the outcome might have been different had Kip been detained in protective custody or given a psychological evaluation to determine whether he was indeed a threat to the community? Our laws are very clear with respect to possession of firearms. It is a crime under both State and Federal laws to have firearms on school grounds. However we have failed to address the underlying issue--many of our youths have serious problems and are a danger to themselves and others. When an adolescent disobeys the law or threatens the safety of other students, it is our responsibility to help that child before he or she commits any further crimes and to minimize risks to the community. These youths must be detained and their crime must be taken seriously. For this reason, Representative Peter DeFazio and I are reintroducing the Schoolyard Safety Act, our legislation from last year encouraging states to pass measures holding juveniles for at least 24 hours if they bring guns onto school grounds. Rather than create further burdensome regulations or mandates, we leave the authority and accountability in the hands of those closest to the situation, while providing the funding necessary for states to implement these protective programs. This funding could help pay for holding centers, psychological evaluations, or other preventative measures decided on by those closest to the danger--teachers and school officials whose primary responsibility is educating our children, and who have been forced to take on the role of providing for their physical safety instead. The people of Springfield, Oregon know all too well how easily crime can break the heart of a community. Every man, woman, and child in that town had the right to expect to live on a safe street and send their children to safe schools. Children who learn in fear are learning the wrong lessons. It is our responsibility to do whatever we can to prevent a horrible tragedy like this from happening again.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, among the provisions included in the tax package we passed yesterday is a provision of great importance to the charitable giving community: an extension of the enhanced deduction for contributions of publicly-traded stock to private foundations. Although extending this deduction benefits many is a useful tool for providing funds for charitable purposes, this deduction alone is not enough. In this era of ever-tightening fiscal constraints, we have asked our communities to do more and more for those less fortunate. Charitable organizations in our communities have become an integral part of the safety net for the poor and homeless and significant sources of assistance for education, health care, child development and the arts in every community. To meet the increasing deficit in unmet social needs, the government cannot merely expect the private sector to fill the gap, but must provide the leadership for the use of private sector resources through changes in the tax code. One source of untapped resources for charitable purposes is the contribution of closely-held corporate stock. Under current law, the tax cost of contributing closely-held stock to a charity or foundation is prohibitive, and it discourages families and owners from disposing of their businesses in this manner. Earlier this year, I was joined by Representatives Furse, Nethercutt, Hooley, Paul and Smith of Oregon in introducing legislation that would also provide an incentive to business owners to use their corporate wealth for charitable causes. H.R. 3029, the Charitable Giving Incentive Act of 1998, would permit a closely-held business to transfer its assets into a 501(c)(3) charitable organization without paying the 35 percent corporate level tax. Thus, the recipient charity would receive the full benefit of the gift. Identical legislation has also been introduced in the Senate by Senators Smith of Oregon, Feinstein, Wyden, Baucus and Gorton. In addition to this bipartisan Congressional support, we have garnered support from the charitable community. Below is a letter signed by several organizations that represent thousands of charitable institutions across the country, calling for enactment of this legislation. It is my intention to reintroduce this legislation in the 106th Congress and I look forward to working with the Ways and Means Committee Chairman Archer, Ranking Member Rangel and my House colleagues to legislate changes that will make it easier for the citizens of this country to give to charitable causes. October 9, 1998 Representative Bill Archer, Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. The undersigned organizations are all tax exempt 501(c)(3) charitable entities, or representatives thereof, whose efforts are dependent upon the charitable giving of concerned individuals. With the needs of our communities growing, and in some cases the financial support from government agencies diminishing, many endeavors are increasingly reliant upon a core group of concerned, consistent, and active givers. It is important to encourage and reward the selfless sharing by this group and to expand its membership. Accordingly, we support legislation that has been introduced in this Congress to provide tax incentives for the donation of significant amounts of closely-held stock. H.R. 3029 and S. 1412, the Charitable Giving Incentive Act, would permit the tax-free liquidation of a closely-held corporation into a charity if at least 80 percent of the stock of the corporation were donated to a 501(c)(3) organization upon the death of a donor. Thus, the 35 percent corporate tax that would otherwise be paid is not imposed: all of the value of the contribution would go to charitable purposes. This is the same tax result as would occur if the business had been held in non-corporate form. The current disincentive for substantial contributions of closely-held stock should be corrected at the earliest opportunity. We believe such a change would encourage additional transfers to charity because the donors will see more of the benefit going to the charity and not to taxes. We hope that appropriate tax incentives will encourage more families to devote significant portions of their businesses, and their wealth, to charitable purposes. As a key member of Congress, we urge your active support for this effort to expand charitable giving by individuals and businesses. The needs are great. While government cannot do it all, it can provide leadership for others to do more by removing current impediments. Your support and assistance are needed. Thank you for you favorable consideration of this request. Sincerely, Council on Foundations, The Children's Foundation, Council of Jewish Federations, The National Federation of Nonprofits, The National Community Action Foundation.