Jennifer Dunn

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I, too, am one of the admirers of Ed Nichols. There are many people in this body who walk through your life and leave no imprint, but there are others like Ed Nichols, whom you remember forever. Ed is a person to me who epitomizes everything good about the institution of the House, and that is probably because he is dedicated to it and committed to it and loves this place. You can tell that when you talk to the other people who work around this body and how much they are going to miss Ed Nichols as he leaves to go to his chosen retreat on the Eastern Shore to fish and enjoy time with his family. I came here 5 years ago, and he was the first person I noticed as I walked in for my first vote. He was the epitome of the dignity that I expected to find after having been honored by my constituents as they chose me to come and represent them. He is the person we looked toward as we walked onto the floor of the House for votes, who personified the traditions of this great place, the seriousness of this great institution, and the love that those of us who are committed to this House now feel for it. So for the time I have been here, Ed has been a fixture, and he has made an imprint on my life. He is not somebody that I will soon forget, and it is for this reason, Ed, that I am honored to be able to say thank you for the good things that you have done for those of us who cherish this experience. We know you cherish it along with us. It is my great honor to say thank you on behalf of all of us. We will miss you.

Ms. DUNN of Washington

Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, in this time of fiscal constraints, I am introducing today legislation that would encourage greater private sector support of important social, educational, nutritional, medical, and other necessary programs in local communities by restoring incentives for charitable giving of closely-held stock. Governments on all levels, Federal, State, and local, are reducing spending throughout their budgets, including social programs. At the same time, society's needs for these programs cannot be overlooked. Congress should do all that it can reasonably do to encourage private philanthropic efforts at this critical stage in restructuring Government and returning responsibility to our local communities. Many of these services can be provided at the local level by charities that know the community best and can supply the most efficient and competent delivery of services. Public charities and private foundations already distribute funds to a very diverse, wide-ranging group of social support organizations at the community level on a timely basis. To meet the resulting deficit in unmet social needs, 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 closely-held corporate stock. Today 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. This legislation would correct this problem by once again permitting certain tax-free liquidations of closely-held corporations into one or more tax exempt 501(c)(3) organizations. Under current law, the problem with giving closely-held stock to charity is that the absence of a market for such stock and the typical pattern of small and sporadic dividends paid by such closely-held companies make it difficult for a charity to benefit from ownership of such stock. Accordingly, if such stock is given to a charitable organization, and in particular if a controlling interest is given, the corporation may have to be liquidated either by statutory requirement or to effectively complete the transfer of assets to the charity for its use. Under current law, such a liquidation would incur a corporate tax at a Federal rate of 35 percent. This cost is imposed as a result of the tax law changes made in 1986 that repealed the ``General Utilities'' doctrine and this imposed a corporate level tax on all corporate transfers, including those to tax exempt organizations. The charitable organization could also be subject to unrelated business income taxes. These tax costs make contributions of closely-held stock a costly and ineffective means of transferring resources to charity, and these are the costs I propose to eliminate in order to free up additional private resources for charitable purposes. The legislation I introduce today eliminates the corporate tax upon liquidation of a qualifying closely-held corporation if certain conditions are met. Most importantly, qualification would require that 80 percent or more of the stock must be bequeathed at death to a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. This bill also clarifies that the charity can receive mortgaged property in a qualified liquidation free from the unrelated business income tax for a period of 10 years. This change parallels the exemption from the unrelated business income tax [UBIT] for 10 years provided under current law for direct transfers by gift or bequest. By eliminating the corporate tax upon liquidation, Congress would encourage additional, and much needed transfers to charity. Individuals who are willing to make generous bequests of companies and assets they have spent years building should not be discouraged by seeing the value of their gifts so substantially reduced by taxes. There will be a revenue cost to this legislation, probably in the hundreds of millions of dollars based on work the Joint Committee on Taxation has done on this concept over the past year. But it is crucial to remember that this cost represents charitable giving of many times that amount; by the same techniques used to estimate tax cost, it's estimated the giving stimulated to be as much as seven times the revenue cost, placing its value in the range of $2 to $3 billion. In short, this revenue impact represents the expectation of significant transfers to charity as a result of the legislation. Good tax policy would advocate the broadest support of charitable giving. It is worthwhile to note that the individual donor does not receive any tax benefit from the proposal. All tax savings go to the charity. By inhibiting these charitable gifts, the Government not only hurts those individuals that most need the help of their Government and their community. I welcome my colleagues' support and cosponsorship for this legislation. I urge each Member to talk to their constituents about it and learn for themselves the response received from those individuals and families in local communities in a position to make such a charitable gift of their business.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, last week, right on this House floor, I was disappointed to hear a distinguished Member of the other side of the aisle say that education savings accounts and school choice would operate at the expense of public schools. I would like to respond to that accusation. The key point is this: We believe absolutely, based on 200 years of evidence, that competition forces excellence, it forces improvement in quality, and it forces innovation. In many parts of our country it is very important to improve the public school system. Second, we believe it is unfair to force parents who love their children to send them to a bad school simply because they cannot afford to send them someplace else. While some continue to defend failed schools and ask for more money and create more Washington Federal programs, we have a better idea. We favor giving parents more choice. Now, some parents have unlimited choices as to where they can send their children to school, but some do not. They do not because they are poor or they face other financial constraints, and so sometimes they have no choice but to send their child to a bad school where they are not even safe. All we want to do is give them a chance at a truly great education.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I must say we are delighted that in only 3 years of holding the majority, we have been able to put together a bipartisan piece of legislation that shows real listening to our constituents and results in upgrading and making much more positive the IRS. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have heard from thousands of constituents who have talked to me about numerous problems they have had with our system of taxation and particularly with the IRS. The theme has been the intrusive and sometimes abusive interference of the Internal Revenue System when taxpayers were only trying to be honest. One of my constituents, Mr. Speaker, was told by the IRS that his wife was dead even though he produced his wife and her doctor before a local IRS agent. Another constituent, a local businessman, was forced to undergo a costly, long-lasting audit by the IRS because of a supposed discrepancy of 65 cents, only to find out that the IRS was wrong. This agency operates too often, Mr. Speaker, under the belief that taxpayers are trying to cheat the Government. The bill that we propose today is the first step in providing citizens greater tax fairness, protections from the abuse of the IRS. Our bill includes provisions proposed by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner] and myself for an increased confidentiality protection for taxpayers and for the tax advice that they receive from their advisers. Currently, the IRS can subpoena even the thought process of a taxpayer unless that taxpayer is represented by an attorney. Our bill also reins in the lifestyle audits that can currently be initiated by something as simple as a new car in the driveway unless there is reasonable indication of unreported income. So no more fishing expeditions. Mr. Speaker, while the language in the bill is not as broad as we proposed, and in our particular proposals the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner] and I will continue through this bill into the next year to ensure that every taxpayer is afforded confidentiality protections currently enjoyed by only those who can afford attorneys and those who through this new legislation can afford an accountant. We intend to make it clear to the IRS and the courts that Congress does intend for them to be limited to the scope of their information gathering ability. I encourage support of this bill.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the privileged resolution on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I am lucky to be from a State that has so far experienced little or no voter fraud. Lord knows, if any fraud were to occur in any of our elections in Washington State, we would be very quick to staunch it and make sure we had a process in place never to allow it to happen again. That is, Mr. Speaker, why I have so many questions about the issue before us this evening. Why would anyone want to end this election fraud investigation before the facts are in? Why have the Democrats resisted the establishment of precedents that will ensure that future contested elections will be investigated thoroughly and efficiently? Why have they challenged the constitutionality of the Federal Contested Elections Act? Why do they not want a process that allows the contestee and the contestant to get at the truth? Why are they not eagerly supporting a process that allows State and local officials to verify the legitimacy of registrations? Mr. Speaker, why not find out exactly how many persons are illegally registered in the 46th District of California? Why would anyone want to leave a single illegal voter on the voting rolls of the State of California? Mr. Speaker, during our last debate the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] commented that this affects more than just the Federal election. He is exactly correct. That is what is so disturbing about the Democrats' position in this case. Fraudulent voters jeopardize the legitimacy of all the elections, up and down the ballot, all across California and many other States. We need to do something about that, and we need to start by completing this investigation. Mr. Speaker, I want to recall the words of Democrat President Grover Cleveland, who, in his first inaugural address, stated ``Your every voter as surely as your chief magistrate exercises a public trust.'' That is what this is about, public trust in our democratic process. We have an honor system of voting in our Nation, and that honor has been desecrated by any person who casts an illegal ballot in this or any other election. This is why we must complete this investigation. We must, in order to restore the honor of our system, determine the extent of the corruption.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. I would like to respond to the comments of gentlewoman from Oregon. This Nation's value is education. We have worked to support the public education system. The problem with the public education system right now is that it is not doing the job. Every parent wants to give the best education possible to his or her children. That is why some parents are saying they are willing to pay in effect double, if they decide voluntarily to take part in this program where we set aside money that can go into an education savings accounts to purchase the best education possible for their child, K through 12. They also continue to pay all the expenses of public education. I know that this happens because I went through it when I was a young mother, divorced, single parent, two children, 6 and 8, determined that I preferred to send my children to a private school, really appreciated the fact that choice was involved, but could not pay for transportation. So I was in that kind of box of having to get my child to school at the same time that I started a job. I know what the feeling is in the pit of your stomach when you are late to work because you want to make sure your kids are well-protected on the school ground. What I like about this bill is that a parent who takes the choice of school into his or her hands can say, I am going to start at age zero with my child and every year save up to $2,500 in an account just in case of emergency. In my case, my child had a specific language disability. My child needed training every single day, five days a week for 6 years at $17 an hour. That is a pretty heavy hit these days where working parents have to be in jobs all day just to make the bottom line work out. So I think this is a great program. I admire those parents who are willing to continue to make the best education their top value. Americans of all stripes are alike in many ways. I believe that is why many Democrats have come over to us and said we want to support this legislation. Let me just tell my colleagues a number on this legislation we have discovered, that if a parent puts money into this account from the time his child is born, by the time that child gets to high school, there can be a total, it is just a $2,000, say 7\1/2\ percent interest, $46,000 in that account plus another additional $6,000 that comes because one does not have to pay tax on the interest of the account. Mr. Speaker, I think it is a great opportunity. It recognizes that our principal challenge, educationally, is no longer college, but to raise the standards of our grade school and our high school students. What are our choices? Our choices are do nothing and get the product that we have gotten. It is not good enough to prepare our youngsters for a global economy or we can act today by passing this bill and helping parents obtain the tools that are needed to ensure that their child, every single one of them gets the best possible education from kindergarten to college.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentlewoman from Maryland's opinions but I disagree with them. Today I rise to say that the District of Columbia's students and their parents ought to have a choice. Americans have differing opinions on many issues today but we all want our children to have the world's best education. That is precisely why I support educational choice scholarships for D.C. students. Tuition scholarships offer real educational opportunities to families whose children simply do not have the option of attending the best schools possible. The Democrat substitute before us today would deny educational choice to poor working families in the District, and that is why we should oppose it. The scholarship opportunities provided in our bill offer hope to children who are now confined to failing, often violence-filled public schools. Passing our bill into law will mean that low income families will be able to send their children to public or private schools that are successful, and that the District's struggling public schools will be compelled to compete and then get better in order to attract students. In short, parents must have a choice if the District's children are to have a chance. Parents should be able to hold schools accountable. For instance, D.C. parents know that 85 percent of the District's public school graduates who enter the University of the District of Columbia need 2 years of remedial education before beginning to earn their degrees. Parents know that the current leaking roof problems are minor when compared to the problems of violence and academic failure in many of the D.C. public schools. That is why parents in the District, regardless of ethnicity, overwhelmingly support opportunity scholarships. We must do better. We must provide an alternative; namely, the scholarship program on which the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the majority leader, has provided such clear leadership. Vote against the Democrat substitute. Vote for educational scholarships and real opportunity for the less affluent children of the District, and join me in looking forward to the day when parents try to get their children into D.C. public schools.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Madam Speaker, it is the responsibility of our Nation to make our communities safer. It is our responsibility to give communities and families the tools to protect women and children from sexual predators. Everything we can do to improve our laws and sharpen these tools is a top priority. The Jacob Wetterling Improvements Act does just that. It improves upon existing sexual offender registration laws in order to ensure that sexual predators who may run, can no longer hide. In 1994, Congress enacted The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act. This act requires certain offenders to register their addresses and other pertinent information with local law enforcement upon release from prison. The Wetterling Improvements Act tightens this prudent law to prevent violent sex offenders from falling through the cracks. In my home State of Washington, residents take sex offender registration laws very seriously. Legislators have enacted a new law which makes it a felony for sex offenders to ignore registration requirements. Violating the new law carries a penalty of up to 5 years in prison. A special police task force has been given the authority to track down and arrest sex offenders who fail to register their whereabouts with law enforcement. Madam Speaker, these are the types of creative solutions that we need to protect our families and neighborhoods from sexual predators. The Jacob Wetterling Improvements Act provides States with the flexibility and freedom to design their own registry programs, instead of implementing a one-size-fits-all plan. I applaud the improvements in this legislation and am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Jacob Wetterling Improvements Act. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this prudent measure.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, because of the Republican majority in Congress, for the first time in 16 years women across America are getting a tax cut. The truth is the Republican tax relief bill helps women throughout their lives both at home and the job market. The only people who think this tax relief bill is not good for women are those who do not believe we women can manage our own money, and that, Mr. Speaker, is passe. So let us talk first about tax relief at home. With our bill the mothers of 41 million American children will be able to keep more of their own money. The $500 per child tax credit that will begin in 1998 is money mothers surely can use to make ends meet, money that can be used to pay for school clothes or for groceries or for all the unexpected expenses that come with raising a child. Women and their families will also receive help in sending children to college. The cost of higher education is overwhelming these days. I just finished paying for two children to go to college, and truly believe me, I know how expensive it can be. Women are provided additional options to save for their retirement through expanded IRA's. The fact is that we women live longer than men. Yes, we generally have less savings set aside. I do not believe our society wants to force a woman into buying shoes for her 8-year-old child as opposed to saving for her retirement, and expanded IRA's will help provide the savings that will work toward those worrisome retirement years. And now let us talk about the workplace. Women are starting businesses today at twice the rate of men. A lower capital gains tax leaves more critical capital in hands of women business people, women investors, and women entrepreneurs. Why is this so important to women? Because the 1995 survey of women-owned businesses tells us that 84 percent of women use personal savings to start their businesses. Mr. Speaker, the American dream for everyone, including women, is to make life better for our children and for our loved ones. Yet the current death tax is such an onerous burden that when the owner of a family farm or business dies, the children often must sell their inheritance just to pay the taxes. That is what this bill is about, providing women with options and time to balance the demands of today's world. No longer should women feel they are being pulled in 10,000 different directions, often sacrificing themselves and their children's interest just to pay Uncle Sam. Mr. Speaker, helping American families and especially America's women is all part of the Republican agenda. The truth is this tax relief never would have happened if it had not been for our majority, and we are proud of our work on behalf of American families, and we look forward to making Government more and more efficient while keeping that safety net out there for those Americans who truly need it.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, today we take a historic step in reducing the size of Federal Government and providing for a balanced budget in 5 years. We are building a path to the future that restores both hope and opportunity for all Americans. Today and for the future we are dramatically changing the fiscal direction of our country from a path of out of control growth of Government to a path of sustained expansion of the economy and job creation. Achieving a balanced budget will provide lower interest rates, higher productivity, improved purchasing power for all Americans, more exports and accelerated long term-growth. It will also, we believe, revive the possibility once again for the American dream. Americans can once again look toward their children having the chance to do better than they. Our balanced budget is about more than just accounting and tidy bookkeeping. Budget deficits sap private investment, they drive up interest rates and they provide that the service on the national debt is a cost to the average taxpayer of $800 in 1 year in taxes.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, recently, the European Union objected to the merger of McDonnell Douglas and the Boeing Co. I find this decision extremely troubling and rise in strong support of House Resolution 191 as introduced by my colleague from Washington State, Mr. Metcalf. These two wholly owned American companies should be allowed to merge without fear of reprisal from a foreign government. The sole reason for the European Union criticism and imminent disapproval of the merger is to gain an unfair competitive advantage for Airbus, a government-owned aircraft manufacturer. It is ridiculous to allow a foreign government to block this merger because they cannot compete with our workers in a fair market. European Union's opposition to this merger is unacceptable for several reasons. First, there are sovereignty concerns about foreign intervention in an American merger. Second, the parties involved are both wholly owned U.S. companies with an international customer base. Third, this merger between two U.S. companies has already been approved by our Government. Fourth, the objections raised by the European Union regarding the abandonment of exclusive contracts awarded to Boeing is inappropriate. The Boeing Co. should not be punished because it obtains more contracts than Airbus Industries in a competitive market. Airbus has never objected to carrier requests to make the contracts exclusive in return for reduced prices. In fact, the European Commission objected only after the agreements were concluded. It is both irresponsible and inappropriate to risk U.S. jobs because the free market worked its will. Contracts that establish fixed purchase prices are directly related to the number of aircraft the customer agrees to purchase. Any abdication of these contracts is contrary to good commercial practices. The proposal by the European Union to require Boeing to divest their interest in McDonnell Douglas commercial aircraft business is unacceptable as well. After the U.S. Federal Trade Commission [FTC] conducted a thorough review of the proposed merger, the FTC concluded that McDonnell Douglas is no longer able to sell enough aircraft to raise significant concerns about the loss of its competitive ability. Last year, McDonnell Douglas was responsible for only 4 percent of the international commercial aircraft business. The divestiture by Boeing of the McDonnell Douglas commercial aircraft business would have severe ramifications worldwide. First, it threatens American jobs that are tied into the continued support of McDonnell Douglas aircraft by the Boeing Co. Further, McDonnell Douglas' commercial aviation division cannot maintain itself as an independent company and previous efforts to sell the commercial aviation division have been unsuccessful. Therefore, any divestiture would threaten the safety of McDonnell Douglas commercial aircraft already in service if the commercial division were to close. Finally, it is vital to the health of the United States to downsize, through mergers, the military industrial base as we celebrate the end of the cold war period and adjust military budgets accordingly. Due to the large defense business that will be conducted by the Boeing Co., any action by the European Community is an infringement on the sovereign rights of the United States to provide for U.S. national security. Mr. Speaker, this is not a trend we as Americans should allow to continue. We declared our independence from European rule in 1776 and should not revert to those days in conducting the business of today. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 191 and call upon the President to take all necessary steps to protect American sovereignty and the jobs of hard working Americans.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, today I rise not just as a woman, but also as a single parent in opposition to the Mink amendment. H.R. 1853 authorizes funding for vocational-technical education. This bill benefits women already because it directs funds to local vo-tech programs giving women the opportunity to receive a quality education. The bill also requires States to establish benchmarks and show how these vo-tech programs prepare special students groups: Specifically, displaced homemakers, single parents, and single pregnant women for postsecondary education or entry into high-skilled, high-wage jobs. In this way, Mr. Chairman, this bill actually protects the funds going into programs for women. The Mink amendment, however, would mandate that States set aside funds for local areas to maintain gender-based programs even where they might not be needed. For example, Washington State is due to receive more than $19 million for vocational educational spending under title II and title III of the Carl D. Perkins Act, 90 percent of which will go directly to the local level. Under the Mink amendment, more than $2 million of the $19 million would be reserved, set aside, for gender-based programs that are already adequately addressed and protected in H.R. 1853. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose the Mink amendment and support the thoughtful, pro-woman bill reported by the committee.

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

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue the discussion of fairness started by the gentlewoman from Ohio. I begin with the proposition that it is not fair and it is not compatible with freedom that the Government has the power to take half of everything a person earns, no matter how much money that person earns. I would like to focus rather on fairness to the poorest Americans, those who are most in need of an expanding economy, those who are most in need of an economy with job opportunities, and those who are most in need of a tax system that allows for prosperity. Mr. Speaker, people who do not have a lot of money, even if the liberals do not realize it, realize that there is no substitute for prosperity. When the economy is in hard times, the poor get hurt the most. We know that the Government can set up a tax system that either encourages or discourages prosperity. Notice I did not say create prosperity because the Government cannot do that, only the people can. The Government can only stand in the way. Mr. Speaker, taxes are too high. We all know it. That definitely is not fair.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, few issues are more closely linked to the idea of freedom than taxation. America is a land of opportunity, but it can only be so if people are free from a government that stands in the way of individuals pursuing their own dreams. Families who came to America as immigrants earlier in this century may have arrived penniless, but they knew that through hard work in our country the sky was the limit. They knew that to be true because their friends and others who had come before them had proved that America really was a country where the sky was the limit. Mr. Speaker, people came to America to escape the limits on their freedom at home, whether religious, economic, or political, and they came to pursue their dreams, but when Government takes more and more of the fruits of one's labor it becomes more and more difficult to pursue those dreams. Quite simply, Government's power to take away from dreams has grown too great. It is time now to cut back on Government's power, it is time to cut back on taxes, it is time to bring back the opportunity that we know in this country of ours called America.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Porter amendment and in favor of the Dicks substitute. I want to talk on a couple of points I have heard here today. The first one is that there is no subsidy for the timber roads in this legislation. As the gentlewoman from Ohio told us earlier, according to a recent economic analysis released by Price Waterhouse: ``The forest roads program does not contain a subsidy for timber purchases; it provides an efficient and effective mechanism for financing road construction and reconstruction.'' These roads are primarily used in the national forest system for recreation, Mr. Chairman. Ninety-seven percent of the road system in any given national forest is used for recreational purposes by the public. I do not think that is a subsidy. They are used by folks who want to go up and see the wildlife, or by the disabled, for years by my family when we did hiking in the North Cascades and never would have gotten into that territory without access to these timber roads. Second, Mr. Chairman, it is very important that we consider the rural counties that are located next to these national forests. They receive 25 percent of the gross receipts from timber sales in lieu of property taxes on Federal lands. They cannot tax Federal land property, so it is important for us to be supported by the Government in our rural school districts. In my State, loss of funding would place an unbearable burden on rural school districts because of the number of acres of Federal land in our State that cannot be taxed. We are talking $28.2 million for schools and roads, 76 percent of the timber receipts in my State, because of the impact of Federal regulation. I stand in opposition, Mr. Chairman, and urge my colleagues to vote against the Porter-Kennedy and in favor of the Dicks amendment.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, in the huge best seller, ``The Book of Virtues,'' by William J. Bennett, the author compiles a collection of moral tales for children. Children are taught through these stories that they should live their lives with concern to moral virtues. The lessons they are taught include such virtues as self-discipline, responsibility, courage, perseverance, and honesty. Mr. Speaker, those are the very virtues that are so often the hallmark of people who have worked their way up from the bottom and have realized the American dream. They are the virtues that so often bring about prosperity and economic security. Mr. Speaker, in my view designing a tax system that rewards those virtues, that rewards hard work, that rewards playing by the rules, thrift, diligence, is exactly the kind of tax system that our country needs. The Republican tax cut is a step in that direction. It rewards the virtues that we all admire. It is a statement about how we live our lives. Let us make a change in that direction, Mr. Speaker, and pass the tax relief package and encourage the President to sign the tax relief package before the Congress.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, for the first time in 16 years, women across America are getting a tax cut. The truth is our tax bill helps women throughout their lives, at home and in the workplace. The only people who think that tax relief in this bill is not good for women are those who do not believe we women can manage our own money. That kind of thinking is passe. What does this tax relief package really do for us? First of all, the mothers of 41 million American children will be able to keep more of their money. The child tax credit is money that desperately is needed to make ends meet. The child tax credit is money that can be used to pay for school, for clothes, for groceries, or for those often unexpected expenses that come with raising children. Women and their families will also get a lot of help in sending their children to college. The cost of higher education these days is overwhelming. I just had two kids in college. I know. Finally, women are provided additional options through our bill to save for their retirement through expanded IRA's that they can get involved. The fact is that women live longer than men, yet we also often have less savings. We should not force women these days into choosing whether to buy shoes for their 8-year-old daughter today or being able to put money aside for their own retirement later. Let me talk about the workplace. Today women are starting businesses at twice the rate of men. Our lower capital gains tax leaves more vital capital in the hands of women-owned businesses, in the hands of women investors and women entrepreneurs. Why is this so important to women? The reason is that in a very late survey, 1995, it was discovered that 84 percent of women-owned businesses used their personal savings to get their businesses started. We need to be able to give them this choice. Here is another example. After death of a spouse where a woman is left with the family home as her only major asset, when she sells that home a reduction in the estate tax, relief which we offer her, is terribly significant to her. These are dollars that will make her life a little easier. It will help her make ends meet a little bit better during a tough time. The American dream is for everyone, I say to my colleagues, including women. It is a little bit better place for our kids if we did right, little bit better place for our loved ones. But the current death tax is so onerous that the owner of a family farm or a family business who dies and leaves a home or business to his children, these kids often have to sell their business or their home simply to pay the debt of inheritance taxes, and all of this at a very, very tough time, sensitive time in the lives of those family people. Let me give you an example of a woman who lives in my district in North Bend, WA. She lives on 50 acres of timber her parents bought when she was a little girl of four. When her folks died, they left her the timber farm at a value of 155 percent in estate taxation, so she had to log 20 acres of prime timber. That meant cutting trees that were 60 years old. Helen did not want to cut those mature trees, but she had to to get the money. She was paid $565,000 for the timber. Immediately she paid 21 percent to the forester, and then she paid Federal estate taxes, State taxes, and her lawyers. Not a penny was left, and neither was the beautiful timber that had been enjoyed in that neighborhood by folks who hiked through it and by animals that lived there. Finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill helps provide women the flexibility to start home-based businesses while at the same time staying home to take care of their children. No longer will women be forced to go to a job and leave their kids at home in order to pay the family's tax bill. I urge my colleagues to support this woman-friendly tax relief bill.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the provisions in the Balanced Budget Act that strengthen the welfare reform law signed into law last August by our President. We have made several improvements to our new welfare system, improvements that reinforce the value of work, not the dependence on welfare. These changes also reflect a good-faith compromise that was made with the President on the transition from welfare to work for noncitizens. Our new bill maintains our basic policy on the matter of welfare and workfare for noncitizens as a policy that is based on the belief that taxpayer-funded assistance should be reserved for people who are citizens of the United States. The budget reaffirms that people who come to America will be welcome to pursue the opportunities of our great Nation, but not to go on welfare. We encourage those individuals to seek support not from the taxpayer but from their relatives and their sponsors, as has long been the law in this Nation. We came to a compromise, Mr. Speaker, on the issue of benefits for elderly and for disabled noncitizens who were already receiving assistance before the welfare reform bill was passed last August. To them this bill says: You will not be asked to play by different rules. The rules of the game will be the same. If you were in a nursing home on August 22, 1996, you will retain that benefit. If you were receiving SSI last August 22, you will continue to receive that assistance. We have set $9 billion aside, and I will make that loud and clear; noncitizens getting benefits on August 22, 1996, are grandfathered, period. In the era of the minimum wage, we guarantee that those on workfare will receive the minimum wage, but we also believe in calculating this minimum wage that food stamps as well as cash be considered. That total will determine how many hours of work a person will work. The bill also includes a $3 billion welfare-to-work grant which specifically is targeted to the hardest hit. This money will be provided to areas with the highest concentrations of poverty, unemployment, and people on welfare. This grant truly will focus resources on the areas most in need. This is new money since last year's bill was signed, and it is another effort to get welfare money to people who truly need these dollars. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this budget.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, for the past 7 years this body has gone through the annual ritual of debating MFN status for China because the minority of our membership thinks that China needs to be taught a lesson. This may make some of my colleagues feel good, but I believe it is a misguided response that hinders the development of human rights and democracy in China. Before rushing headlong into the mistake of adding China to the list of nations denied MFN, there are two points to consider. First of all, who would be penalized by denying China MFN? Our compassion for the suffering in China is useless if the policy has no effect other than to put our own people out of work. Indeed, then the compassion is misplaced. We have made no difference in the life of those suffering overseas while only increasing the numbers of those suffering without jobs here at home. By terminating MFN to China, this is exactly what I believe will occur. The loss of MFN will not change China. It will, however, cost our Nation and Washington State billions of dollars in aircraft, lumber, software, and agricultural sales and tens of thousands of jobs to our European and our Asian competitors. The second point to consider is will revoking MFN accomplish our goal of improved human rights and democracy. I do not believe it will. United States trade and investment teach the skills of free enterprise that are fundamental to any free society. For instance, in my home State of Washington we export a number of United States products from aircraft to software, and every single airplane and every single CD carries with it the seeds of change. It has already been noted that the Reverend Billy Graham recently observed that Christian love and integrity are now being delivered to millions of people in China who were denied this opportunity during the darkest days of China. This sentiment is shared not only by the Reverend Billy Graham, but by his son who is my constituent, Ned Graham. His organization, East Gate Ministries, is based in Sumner, WA, and it has shipped 1\1/2\ million Mandarin language Bibles to China and 4 million more will be delivered before the end of the century under an agreement with the Chinese Government. Just last weekend I had the opportunity to meet with the younger Graham to discuss his organization's work in China and the current debate here in the United States Congress. He expressed concern about this debate and that the crusade against MFN may harm the ability of his ministry to get Bibles into the hands of the Chinese people. The message was clear, Mr. Speaker. Revocation of China MFN is in the interests of no one, particularly the Chinese people themselves. If we want to affect Chinese behavior and trade policy in civil liberty areas we all care about, we should increase our mutual contact. I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution of disapproval. Mr. Speaker, for the past seven summers, this body has gone through the annual ritual of debating MFN status for China because a minority of our membership thinks that China needs to be taught a lesson. This may make some of my colleagues feel good, but I believe it is a misguided response that hinders the development of human rights and democracy in China. Before rushing headlong into the mistake of adding China to the list of nations denied MFN, there are two points to consider. Who would be penalized by denying China MFN? Our compassion for the suffering in China is useless if our policy has no effect other than to put our own people out of work. Indeed, then the compassion is misplaced; we've made no difference in the life of those suffering overseas while only increasing the numbers of those suffering here at home. By terminating MFN to China, this is exactly what I believe would occur. The loss of MFN won't change China. It will, however, cost our Nation and Washington State billions of dollars in aircraft, lumber, software, and agriculture sales, and tens of thousands of jobs to our European and Asian competitors. The second point to consider is--will revoking MFN accomplish our goal of improved human rights and democracy? I do not believe it will. U.S. trade and investment teaches the skills of the free enterprise that are fundamental to a free society. For instance, in my home State of Washington, we export a number of U.S. products, from aircraft to software. And every single airplane and every single CD carries with it the seeds of change. It has already been noted that the Rev. Billy Graham recently observed that Christian love and integrity is now being delivered to millions of Chinese who were being denied this opportunity during the darkest days in China. This sentiment is shared by not only the Rev. Billy Graham, but a constituent of mine--Ned Graham. His organization, East Gates Ministries, is based in Sumner, WA, and has shipped 1.5 million Mandarin-language Bibles to China. And 4 million more will be delivered before the end of the century under an agreement with the Chinese Government. Just last weekend, I had the opportunity to meet with the younger Graham to discuss his organization's work in China and the current debate here in the Congress. He expressed concern about this debate and that the crusade against MFN may harm the ability of his ministry to get Bibles into the hands of the Chinese people. The message was clear, Mr. Chairman--revocation of China MFN is of interest to no one, particularly the Chinese people themselves. If we want to affect Chinese behavior in the trade policy and civil liberties areas we care about, we should increase our mutual contact, make MFN status permanent, and eventually, bring China within the disciplines of the World Trade Organization. I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution of disapproval.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas], today to celebrate the end of slavery and its import in our country's history and in its heritage. Although slavery was abolished officially in 1863, the last slave was not freed until 2 years later; and we know that the struggle for equity did not end even then. In fact it will not truly be over until all men and women are equal, until people truly are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skins and until the time that those little boxes on applications for jobs no longer exist. I am proud to say I do believe we are on our way. I am pleased to join this celebration today to honor the memory of those who endured slavery and especially those who moved from slavery to freedom. The former slaves, just like George Washington and Abe Lincoln, Harriet Tubman or Martin Luther King, are true American heroes. I commend the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pappas] for introducing this resolution. I look forward to working very closely together with their leadership on this issue.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, politics is all about choices. One of the biggest choices facing lawmakers is the direction of the U.S. economy. We can go down the path of higher taxation, more welfare benefits, and more regulation. This is known as the European path. It is also the path chosen by liberal Democrats. The European path is a lot of fun for politicians. They can play Santa Claus, but it is not so much fun for the people. Just ask the people out of work in Germany or France, where the unemployment rate is twice the jobless rate here in the United States. The other path is a path in just the opposite direction: lower taxes, less regulation, welfare reform. That is the direction we want for the U.S. economy. That is the direction we want for Americans looking for a job, Americans looking for a better job, Americans looking for higher- paying jobs. This is the time to choose directions. This time the choice is clear. We must pass the tax cuts as part of a balanced budget. Choices, Mr. Speaker, that is what politics is all about.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, in 1985 a balanced budget deal was agreed to amid great fanfare. In 1990 a balanced budget deal was agreed to amid similar exuberance. In 1993 a balanced budget deal was agreed to that was greeted with more high praise from the liberal media. The budget is still not in balance. Mr. Speaker, what is it about this balanced budget agreement that is different? First, under a Republican Congress, the economic assumptions are conservative and realistic. Second, this budget includes the strongest step in entitlement reform since our welfare reform proposals of last year. Third, the resolve of the Republican Congress to balance the budget is the strongest this country has seen since 1954. Conservative economic assumptions, entitlement reforms, and Republican resolve, those are the keys to this balanced budget agreement. That, Mr. Speaker, separates this budget agreement from the failed promises of previous balanced budget deals.

Ms. DUNN

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