Jennifer Dunn

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. It is a comprehensive trade agreement that will provide greater market access for businesses, enhance protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, and expand investment opportunities in both countries. While Singapore is the United States' 11th largest trading partner with two-way trade in goods and services of over $38 billion, their importance cannot be measured in trade alone. Singapore's strategic location makes it an attractive regional hub for many U.S. multinational businesses to export in Asia. This trade agreement is not only about expanding market access, but also ensuring that U.S. businesses remain strategically competitive among APEC countries and the Asia Pacific region. The U.S.-Singapore FTA will certainly benefit those of us from the Pacific Northwest. As you are aware, Washington is the most trade dependent state in the nation, with nearly one in three jobs related to trade. In 2000, 80 percent of Washington State's $103 billion worth of trade were with APEC countries. Let me give a few examples why the U.S.-Singapore FTA is important. For the 25,000 Boeing workers I represent, this FTA means keeping the aircraft industry viable in our community. Nearly 90 percent of Singapore Airlines fleet is Boeing aircrafts, making the airline one of Boeing's key customers in the Asia Pacific region and the world. Over the years, Singapore Airlines has added approximately $20-$25 billion to our economy. For our high tech firms, this FTA means strengthening intellectual property standards. I represent Microsoft's corporate campus and the software industry loses $12 billion annually due to counterfeiting and piracy. In this FTA, the Singaporean government will implement tough penalties against piracy and counterfeiting. For our ports, increasing the volume of trade in Asia Pacific region will create high-wage jobs that would otherwise not have existed. The Ports of Seattle and Tacoma handle approximately seven percent of all U.S. export and 6 percent of all imports. Without a doubt, expanded trade with Singapore will make our ports more critical and valuable to the U.S. economy. These are just some of the benefits of this FTA. More significant than the statistics and dollar value of goods traded, the U.S.- Singapore FTA reflects a continued commitment by President Bush, Ambassador Zoellick, and Congress to reduce global trade barriers. This FTA is a reminder to other nations in the region that they need to join us in furthering trade liberalization. Vote for this bill to implement the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, July 22, 2003, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes No. 401 and No. 402 because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been here, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 401 and rollcall No. 402.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate what the gentleman from Louisiana just stated. I think it is very important, since we are at the point of considering such a resolution on the floor of the House, for us to look at this situation as one in which there are two ships passing in the night. My Democratic colleagues seem to be referring to activities that happened in the library, with which we are all familiar. We are talking about the reason that the Sergeant at Arms was called to the committee in the first place. It is a situation that is not unknown to my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means. The gentleman in question has created this sort of situation before, so it is not anything new. We all understand that. There have been letters written in the past, signed by members of the minority caucus, castigating the behavior of the gentleman in question. That is why the Sergeant at Arms was called to our committee. I just have to say that if I had been sitting in the Chair at that moment I would have felt constrained to call the Sergeant at Arms. And I am sorry that the members of our wonderful committee that does most of its work with great dignity, who were missing all but one of its minority members because they were having a caucus in the library, but we who were sitting in the hearing room and all the people who were in the audience saw exactly what was going on; not the first time, not the second time, but it happened many, many times. This was a time when I believe it was entirely appropriate for the chairman to use his authority to regain order in the hearing room by calling the Sergeant at Arms.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Project BioShield Act of 2003. As the Members have heard today, Mr. Speaker, from the debate we have had on the floor, this is truly bipartisan legislation. It is also a major step towards giving Americans necessary protections to address the biological and the chemical threats that exist today. H.R. 2122 will provide for private companies the incentives they need to develop vaccines for biological agents. It also will increase our national pharmaceutical stockpile, and it will provide DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, better intelligence capabilities so that they can protect against biological and chemical attacks. Earlier this year, President Bush announced his intentions to develop a vaccination program that would protect against an attack involving biological and chemical weapons. For months, three committees, including my committee, the Select Committee on Homeland Security, have held numerous hearings to consider the best ways to protect our constituents. I believe it is time to pass this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this bill will provide $5.6 billion over a 10-year period to develop vaccines to protect against some of the most dangerous biological agents that this country and this world has ever known. These funds are necessary to create an incentive for private companies to do research and development on drugs that might not normally be in demand in the marketplace. I believe this investment is worthwhile, considering the possible effects of a large-scale biological attack. In addition to authorizing funds for this program, the BioShield program also addresses the sharing of intelligence. In order to develop an effective vaccination program, the Department of Homeland Security must have the intelligence capabilities to predict what the real threats are thought to be. By understanding the threats, DHS can focus its resources on those areas of highest vulnerability to the people who live in this country. This legislation will authorize specific funds to be used by DHS for terror threat assessment. In addition, it will require other intelligence agencies such as the CIA to share timely information and threat analyses with the Department of Homeland Security. One of the lessons we learned from the anthrax attacks during the fall of 2001 is the importance of responding to a biological attack quickly in order to minimize the damage it causes. While it is indeed tragic that during those attacks five people died, we all have to appreciate that. It could have been far worse if the vaccine had not immediately been available. H.R. 2122 will help us be prepared to respond quickly to agents such as ebola, plague and smallpox. I ask that we answer the President's call to develop the BioShield Project and that people support and that we pass H.R. 2122.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that we have this bill on the floor finally. I think it serves a real need, and it provides total flexibility to people who want to provide for the coverage of their health care expenses. One particular provision that appeals to me is one that we used to refer to as a catch-up health savings account contribution. We now call it a health savings security account, and these are accounts that are designed particularly for people who are age 55 or older. It gives them the right to contribute additional dollars every year into their health savings accounts because of particular situations they might have faced in the past. The flexibility of HSAs is widely known. These dollars can be used for any health-related expense as long as it is not reimbursed. For example, they can be used to pay for long-term care or for health coverage policy or doctors' bills or for prescription drugs; but what is special about the health savings security accounts is in the way it applies to people like me. Many people, particularly women, during their child-raising years took time away from the workplace and often did not add money into accounts like IRAs, or actually Social Security accounts, and ended up with big goose eggs when the time came to calculate their benefits. In this case, the health savings accounts provide for folks who took time off during their child-raising years, or to look after an ill parent; and it allows them to add up to 25 percent in additional dollars each year to their health savings accounts. This will begin in operation as soon as this bill is enacted. An individual age 55 or older can contribute $500 a year in addition to the total health savings account. That amount will grow to $1,000 in 2009, and I think it is a very sensitively written provision to help folks who have been away from the workforce or need this additional provision.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I for one am very proud that the President in his State of the Union address directed the Congress to put together a program that will cost about $400 billion to provide prescription drugs for seniors because I think it is time to keep our promise to the people we represent and provide a comprehensive and voluntary prescription drug benefit for all seniors. We have all heard stories of seniors paying too much for prescription drugs. This problem is even more acute among low-income seniors, especially for women who comprise half of Medicare beneficiaries with annual incomes below 150 percent of the poverty level. In this bill we help seniors on fixed incomes and those with high drug costs. A woman, for example, with an income of less than $14,400 today, which is 150 percent of poverty, will receive assistance from the Federal Government for prescription drugs. While all seniors will benefit, nearly 11 million or 34 percent of Medicare beneficiaries will qualify for additional assistance when this bill is fully implemented. Improving Medicare is not only about providing a drug benefit, but it is also about giving seniors access to doctors, hospitals, Medicare HMOs, and other services they need. To ensure access to doctors, we address the low reimbursements that they are receiving. We also increase funding for rural hospitals so that seniors can get the health care service they need right in their community. For Medicare HMOs, this bill requires Medicare to accurately account for military retirees in the formula and that means higher Medicare+Choice reimbursements in areas with military facilities. Strengthening Medicare also means improving the quality of life for every senior. For this reason I am very happy that we were able to provide preventative services like cholesterol screening, initial physical exams and chronic care management to help those seniors with serious diseases. Seniors will also have access to innovative treatments to deal with rheumatoid arthritis and other chronic diseases. This bill provides seniors immediate access to self-injectable biologics. Besides providing the choice of which drug works best for rheumatoid arthritis, these self-injectable treatments will allow seniors to receive treatments right in their homes instead of going to the hospital or to a physician's office and will take the burden off those hospitals, clinics and doctors. This is a real prescription drug plan, Mr. Speaker. It is one that provides up to 25 percent in drug discounts for manufacturers. It covers seniors to participate in the drug program, and it protects those with very high drug costs. It strengthens Medicare's future without compromising the benefits seniors enjoy today. I ask my colleagues to support a real prescription drug by passing this legislation.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, later this week, we will pass a prescription drug benefit for all seniors in Medicare that is affordable and voluntary. We will protect the poorest seniors by helping pay for their drug costs immediately. By using the same principles already used by private companies, we will lower drug costs for seniors by passing along to them bigger discounts from manufacturers. We will also strengthen Medicare for future generations by providing preventive care such as cholesterol screening and initial physical exams, and chronic care management for seniors with serious and complicated illnesses. We can only strengthen Medicare's future if we are able to ensure access to the services that seniors need today. In this Medicare bill, we increase payments to doctors and hospitals, especially in the rural communities, so that seniors can get better health services when they are needed. For much too long, our parents and our grandparents have paid too much for their drugs. We have an opportunity now to change this, by passing a prescription drug bill for all seniors.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, every morning 180,000 of our fellow citizens go to work with one main thing on their mind, to prepare, to prevent and to respond to a potential terrorist attack in the United States. These people work for one of the 22 agencies that have been brought together under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security. Homeland security has new meaning since September 11. We can no longer assume that we will be protected from terrorist acts. We now live in a world where we must prepare for possible attacks. For this reason, I was proud to support the President's request for the creation of a Department of Homeland Security that is solely focused, with a very laser-like focus, on the prevention and protection from terrorist attacks in this country. Since its inception on January 24, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security has made significant strides in protecting the country from terrorist attacks. Let me give a few examples. In March 2003, the Department opened its door and then it launched Operation Liberty Shield, the first comprehensive national plan to increase protections of American citizens and national infrastructure. Homeland security funding has increased over 1,000 percent from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2004, and this has allowed States and localities to purchase new technologies and tools for first responders. Recently the Department ran TOPOFF II, a simulated exercise in Seattle and Chicago using large-scale weapons of mass destruction. Exercises like this are very important to provide first responders the experience needed to know when the decisions are going to be made, who is going to make these decisions, and how to handle our resources. While the Department of Homeland Security has had great success over the last 5 months, there are still many issues to be resolved. The House of Representatives took the appropriate steps at the beginning of the 108th Congress in establishing a Select Committee on Homeland Security to help Secretary Ridge in guiding and overseeing the newly created Department. As with all Federal agencies, it is very important to hold this large Department accountable to the people we represent. The Select Committee on Homeland Security will act as the people's voice to focus attention toward our security. It will listen to the first responders, it will find a better way to get the millions of dollars that have already been allocated and should have been already received by first responders, such as $45 million in grants allocated to the State of California, but not received by their first responders. We need to help solve this problem. It will be a focal point between Congress and the administration to coordinate the necessary resources to best defend our Nation. I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and other members of our committee to develop legislation and provide oversight that will aid the Department of Homeland Security in their mission to prepare, prevent, and respond to a terrorist attack to protect our constituents all over the country.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 281, I call up the bill (H.R. 8) to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2003. The bill before us has been cosponsored by over 200 Members of the House from both sides of the aisle. This approach is simple. It makes elimination of the death tax permanent. Although the bill is only one short sentence, it will have a powerful impact on the millions of people we represent. Two years ago, Congress voted to phase out and repeal the death tax. Due to the Byrd rule, however, the tax will come back in full force January 1, 2011, imposing a maximum tax of 55 percent on estates. In the last Congress, a majority of the House voted on three occasions to remove this sunset in the law and make repeal permanent. We are here today to complete this unfinished business. I have no doubt we will hear a great deal of rhetoric from those who want to keep the death tax alive. Repeal only helps the wealthy, they will say. It will reduce charitable giving; it will increase the deficit; it will jeopardize Social Security. Time and again these arguments have been raised. The simple truth is none of them holds water. Does repeal of the death tax help only the wealthy? The Joint Economic Committee in 1998 underscored how repeal of the death tax will help minority-owned businesses. Both the National Black Chamber of Commerce and the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce support repeal of the death tax. Robert Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, said in 2001 that ``elimination of the estate tax will help close the wealth gap in this Nation between African American families and white families.'' Supporters of the estate tax say that it does not really affect rural communities or farmers. Mr. Speaker, I represent rural communities and timber landowners. Earlier this year experts at the United States Forest Service published findings on just how devastating the tax affected rural communities. Over a 10-year period, 36 percent of forest estates owed the Federal estate tax. In 40 percent of the cases where a Federal estate tax was due, timber or land had to bo sold to pay part or all of that tax. The amount of forest land harvested to pay the Federal estate tax was approximately 2.6 million acres every year. Forest land sold was nearly 1.3 million acres per year; and roughly 29 percent of the land sold was developed, or it was turned into subdivisions or converted to other uses. Supporters of the tax say just lift the exemption amount, but that does not solve the problem. As inflation erodes the value of the exemption level, it will just mean more acres will be sold or harvested or developed. This is not the answer. They say repeal of the estate tax will reduce charitable giving. In ``The CPA Journal'' of August 2001, Arthur Schmidt said, ``Philanthropy will likely increase as a result of the repeal of the estate tax, both at death because of the greater net resources available, or during the lifetime of the taxpayer as a result of the remaining tax efficiency of the charitable income tax deduction. In either case, the net present value of philanthropy will likely increase.'' Does the estate tax really promote charitable giving? IRS statistics show that in four out of five cases of taxable estates no bequest is made. No bequest is made in four out of five cases. Would estate tax repeal jeopardize Social Security benefits? Federal receipts as a result of the death tax represent less than 1.5 of all total revenues. None of that money goes to Social Security for the trust funds, and eliminating the tax will in no way affect Social Security benefits, not one bit. The death tax does not prevent accumulation of wealth. It does not promote charitable giving. It does not lead to increased economic growth. It is not a tax on sin. It is a tax on virtuous activities like savings and investment, activities we should be encouraging. It increases the cost of capital for small businesses. It affects rural communities. It imposes financial burdens on minority businessmen and -women. In sum, the case for the death tax has been made, and it has been over and over again in this House thoroughly rejected. Woodrow Wilson signed the death tax into law in 1916, and the time has come to get rid of it for once and for all. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 8 and opposing the substitute amendment and providing small businessmen and -women, family farmers and minorities with the capital they will need to expand, to create jobs and grow the economy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to remind the gentleman from California, whose State is in very financial straits, that in the year 2002 his State and estates in that State sent to the Federal Government $4,201,408. Actually that is $4,201,408,000 to the Federal Government, which I am sure his State could have made use of. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a great member of the Committee on Ways and Means and very much in touch with his constituents on repealing the death tax. (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DUNN. As the gentleman knows, retaking my time, I have already cosponsored that measure and supported it in the committee. We have worked very hard on that and will continue to do so. It affects a number of States. It is important to get rid of it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris), a very active member of the freshman class.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am strongly opposed to this amendment, and I want my colleagues to look at it very closely and be very clear about what this amendment would do. It establishes a permanent death tax. It is a huge tax increase on small business and family farms. This amendment would increase taxes on farmers, on timber growers, on small businessmen and small business women, and it would not only take money from their pockets and send it to Washington, D.C.; it would practically force them to take more money from their pockets to pay lawyers, insurance salesmen, and estate planners. And why? So they will not have to send their money to Washington, D.C. to comply with this permanent death tax. There are people who think this is a good thing. I do not understand it; I do not question their intent, I simply acknowledge that that is the case. We have already debated the issue surrounding the death tax, but let us look closely at the impact of this amendment, because I think it puts on display the philosophy of those who want to keep the death tax. Under current law, the tax rate for estates is due to fall in 2004, in 2005, 2006, and 2007. For 2 years, the rate would remain at 45 percent and then be totally repealed in 2010. This amendment eviscerates that tax relief. Some estates may benefit under this amendment. If you are unlucky enough that your business is not doing well and you fall below the $3 million threshold that is in this amendment, you benefit. But what this amendment tells you is this: do not be successful. Do not save your money. Do not invest your money. Do not grow your business. Instead, it encourages you to spend it now, sit back, consume that estate, because the government is going to take half of that estate anyway, and everybody knows how wisely the government spends our money. Because the more successful you are and the harder and the more you work, the more expensive it will be for you to hand that business on to your children. Does the amendment promote charitable giving? No, it does not. Does it redistribute the money it raises to those who are less wealthy? No, it does not. Does it equalize income among different layers of society? No, it does not do that. Does it help pay Social Security benefits? No. Opponents of death tax repeal make all of those charges, but when they bring forth their own proposal, we can see it for what it really is: a tax increase, pure and simple. A way to put money in the pockets of the Federal Government. And because the exemption level is not indexed, there will be free money to the Treasury. Inflation grows, but the exemption stays just the same. As the economy improves, as businesses grow, as people invest and work hard, they will be penalized, because someone in Washington, D.C. said you can only be so successful, an arbitrary limit, and then you pay. That is what this amendment is about and that is why it ought to be voted down. Mr. Speaker, we hear time and again the arguments of those who want to keep the death tax. We hear about equality, about Social Security, about charitable giving, about enormous concentrations of wealth. But when it comes right down to it, it is about money. Mr. Speaker, this approach is the wrong approach. This policy has outlived its day. This philosophy is not what made our Nation great, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this substitute. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the chairman of the Committee on Small Business.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to remind the gentleman from California that his State, in the year 2002, sent $4,201,408,000 to the Federal Government. And you can about double that for the cost of complying with the death tax. That is what comes out of the economy. And so his figure of $80 billion, just take that and double it and that is what has been taken out of the economy. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a wonderful contributing sophomore Member.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think the gentleman has created not just a near miss, but a big, big miss when we speaks about family farms. Families own 99 percent of the Nation's farms and ranches, and they are capital intensive businesses. Their assets are not liquid, and so for that reason they are very much at risk at having to pay very large estate taxes. Nearly 20 percent of farmers have paid Federal estate taxes in the previous 5 years. Seventy-seven percent of farmers report that they spent money each year on estate planning. Not only are we hitting the family farms and the people who are employed by them, but we are also wasting dollars that go into this economy not for the purpose of stimulating this economy, but to pay for life insurance policies, estate planning, and everything else that is there when there is unpredictability and they need to provide for the future of their business and the business that employs so many people throughout the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a very strong member of the Committee on Ways and Means who has been close to his folks at home on this issue and who has done a great job for us on codifying the issue in the State of Arizona.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the gentleman from Wisconsin that we did vote three times on this legislation last year in different forms; and, in fact, the legislation passed each of the times by a bipartisan majority. It also passed in the other body by a bipartisan majority. But, unfortunately, because of their strange rule system, it required a 60-vote margin to pass in that body. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), a very prominent member of our sophomore class.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the Policy Committee, a cosponsor of this bill, and a longtime supporter and leader on this bill.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I remind the gentlewoman from Washington State that his State in the year 2001 sent back $578 million to Washington, D.C., with about an equal amount for compliance with that law. Also as a representative of a forested district, 36 percent of forest estates owe the Federal estate tax, 29 percent of the land was sold or developed or converted to subdivisions, and 1.3 million acres per year of forestland in this Nation were sold. The amount harvested to pay the estate tax was about 2.6 million acres every single year. I respect his point of view on this particular bill, but I think that there are many people who will be affected if he does not vote for this bill.

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

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), a great member of our committee.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), freshman member of our class who has been one of the most active on the repeal of the death taxes.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), who has been with us from the beginning, who is a strong advocate and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), a very valuable member of the Committee on Ways and Means, a gentleman who knows what he is talking about because he has been through it personally.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 12 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) for the purposes of control, a gentleman who has been very involved in the development of our legislation and very much a supporter of it as he has come to Congress as a freshman Member. He will present differing points of views from people who come from all over the country who are members of the freshman class.