Jennifer Dunn

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of points in response to things I heard during the debate, and I appreciate the participation of the freshmen Members of Congress. Their viewpoint is very energetic and fresh. It is very valuable to hear what they have to say. There has been mention in the past of the National Farmers Union, and I want to assure people listening to this debate that the American Farm Bureau, which has 5 million members, supports permanent repeal of the death tax, as do the Agricultural Retailers Association, the Alabama Farmers Federation, the American Society of Farm Managers, the Rural Appraisers, the American Soybean Association, the American Nursery and Landscape Association, the Farm Credit Bureau. I could go on and on. There is a list of 25 organizations here that support the permanent repeal of the death tax. Why is that? The reason is they want predictability. One of the previous speakers talked about unpredictability because the act will not go into effect until 2010, 7 years from now. These farmers support permanent repeal because they do not want to have to bet on the fact that their farm will be within $3 million, which is the limit in the Pomeroy amendment. We hear talk about $6 million, and that is for two members of a family. They do not want to put those dollars into providing for estate planning and purchasing life insurance policies so liquidity will be there when the time comes that they are taken from this vale of tears and their children have to pay for the inheritance of their estate. They want to use those dollars and put that capital into their businesses and farms and into their equipment and land and into the employment of many, many people who will lose their jobs once farms close down. Mr. Speaker, we have another speaker who would like to speak about the death tax. He is a long-time Member and very active in this debate through the years. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think Members have a good idea of what we are going through here today. We have been through this issue before. Each time I am very happy to say that the House of Representatives has stood up to get rid of the death tax repeal permanently. Three times in the last Congress the House voted to repeal the death tax. We are here today only for one reason and that is that the rules of the other body have stymied this tax relief for small business people and for family farms. Some of my colleagues would say we should throw in the towel. They say the Senate will never pass this legislation, so why not compromise? Why even take up the permanent repeal piece of legislation? That is the statement made by the Pomeroy substitute. We faced similar arguments not very long ago when we considered an economic growth package, but the House did not throw in the towel and the legislation that is now law reflects to a very deep degree the policy decisions that were written right here on the floor of this House of Representatives. Thanks to the tenacity and the leadership of the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the will of the House prevailed. Frankly, I am very optimistic that we will ultimately prevail on permanently repealing the death tax. I hope Members will not be swayed by the rhetoric and the hyperbole on the other side because we have heard lots of it today. On this issue, the opposition rhetoric and reality have very little in common. Why should Members vote against this amendment? Let me tell you why. Number one, it will be a retreat from the tax relief this body voted 2 years ago. In fact, it would reinstate a permanent death tax. Number two, we need to permanently repeal the death tax so that small businesses and family farmers can plan their future and invest in their businesses. We do not need to make them spend the fruits of their labor on estate lawyers and accountants and insurance policies. Number three, this is a direct vote against the President's proposal to repeal this tax permanently and that is based on 80 percent of the American people who think that the death tax is an unfair tax. We need to inject greater fairness into the Tax Code. Do not be swayed by the arguments of those who say this is about a tax break for the wealthy. This is a relief from a burden that takes money from middle-income people who run their small businesses and their family farms. The wealthy people can afford to hire lawyers and accountants to avoid the burden of the estate tax. This is not about charitable giving and it is not about the wealthy. It is about people who are trying to raise money for the Federal Treasury and using an abhorrently unfair, misguided tax to do that. When people argue in favor of keeping the death tax, I am reminded of a story about Samuel Johnson, the English literary critic. An acquaintance of Johnson's had been unhappily married for a long time, and when the man's wife died he almost immediately remarried. Dr. Johnson said, ``That's an example of the triumph of hope over experience.'' That is what this is about, Mr. Speaker. It is about people who are wedded to misguided hope over experience. Mr. Speaker, I think we have had enough experience with the death tax, nearly 90 years worth since 1916, and that is why we should reject this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 248, I call up the bill (H.R. 2185) to extend the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we consider H.R. 2185 to extend unemployment benefits for millions of displaced workers. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today. This bill will extend the current unemployment insurance program until December 2003 with a phase-out until March 2004. My legislation will allow dislocated workers to receive 13 weeks of benefits in all States and an additional 13 weeks for workers who live in States with high unemployment rates such as Alaska, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. The bill will help approximately 2.4 million displaced workers nationwide. In my home State of Washington, the unemployment rate has again increased from 7.1 percent to 7.3 percent, making it the third highest unemployment rate in the Nation. Mass layoffs continue to have an adverse impact on our State's economy, especially in the aerospace industry. I represent more than 25,000 Boeing workers, many of whom have already lost their jobs. As we work on a jobs and growth package to provide an immediate boost to our economy, we must also give displaced workers the peace of mind in knowing that they have a little time to find a job. So what does H.R. 2185 do? It achieves the following: it extends unemployment benefits until December 31, 2003, with a phase-out until March 31, 2004; it extends unemployment benefits for 13 weeks in all States for displaced workers; it extends unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks for a total of 26 weeks in high unemployment States. This bill will cost $6.5 billion over 10 years, and it will help about 2.4 million workers nationwide. I think it is important that people realize that the Congress has done a lot to help unemployed workers. We feel this is the time to continue generosity and to help some of these folks who are trying to get jobs. The existing unemployment extension expires at the end of this month with a phase-out until August. Congress has now extended unemployment benefits three different times: first in March 2002, 13 weeks for all States and 26 weeks for high unemployment States; secondly, in January 2003, 13 weeks for all States and 26 weeks for high unemployment States; and, lastly, in April 2003 an additional 26 weeks for airline and related industry workers. We are extending the safety net for workers struggling to find a job while stimulating our economic growth by reducing taxes for individuals and encouraging business expansion. By extending unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks in all States, we can help the 2.4 million workers, and in my State, 60,000 workers, who need this kind of help. Our unemployment system has worked well for many years, and it serves people during economic downturns. We are constantly reviewing the unemployment program to ensure that it helps those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. It is a temporary program, and now is the time to extend these benefits in a temporary way to help those folks who need to be helped. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a very valuable member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Ms. DUNN. Because they have already received Federal benefits in the past.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a very trusted and good member of our committee. (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), from one of those high unemployment States.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to remind the gentleman from New Jersey that, under this bill, 124,250 of his constituents will receive unemployment coverage.

Ms. DUNN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), a former Governor and current valued Member.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think, to put the comments of Mr. Greenspan in context, because he made them at the meeting of the Joint Economic Committee yesterday, where I was present, he said: ``I have always been of the opinion, and stated before this committee previously, that our unemployment insurance system seems to work rather well. It is not overly generous, which would induce the type of increased levels of structural unemployment which we see in other countries which have these types of things, these types of structures. But unemployment insurance is essentially restrictive because it's been our perception that we don't want to create incentives for people not to take jobs. But when you're in a period of job weakness where it is not a choice on the part of the people whether they're unemployed or unemployed, then obviously you want to be temporarily generous.'' And he says, ``If you go forward with additional extensions, I would be careful to keep the extensions relatively short and renew them again if necessary.'' That is exactly what we are doing. He says, ``Because we're not quite clear at this stage what the path of short-term economic activity is. A number of major economic forecasters have forecasts for the third quarter, which is just about in front of us, of 4 percent growth at an annual rate. And that is a relatively long list.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time that remains for both sides, please?

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the gentleman from Washington in that anybody who cannot find a job wants to, which is why we are going to pass tonight the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003. I do want to also remind the gentleman from Washington that the Congress has been watching over the concerns of States like Washington that have been the recipient of many unemployed people, and we have not done nothing. The debate tonight makes it sound like the Federal Government has done nothing. In the State of Washington specifically, we have followed up 30 weeks of State benefits that the residents of our State are eligible for with 26 weeks of federally funded benefits that we passed in March, 2002, and extended again another 26 weeks in January of 2003, and then we matched the State for 9 total weeks of Federal- and State-funded benefits. We added on 7 weeks of State benefits for aerospace and timber workers who are in training programs. If we total that all up, it comes to 65 weeks for all dislocated workers, 98 weeks for aerospace workers and 72 weeks for timber workers. I think the extension that we are going to do today, which for the State of Washington would provide 60,000 new people with unemployment benefits, is the right thing to do. With luck, if we play our cards right and the economy responds in the way we hope it will, we will not need to extend unemployment benefits, but if we need to, we will be there and do it, as Alan Greenspan says, on a temporary basis. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Oregon (Mr. Walden) who talks from experience since he is from the State with the highest unemployment.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, some of these speakers on the other side have talked about folks who have been covered in the past by Federal unemployment insurance, but they do not make that point. They make it sound as though they never have been covered. I think it is important to reiterate that the Congress in March of 2002 extended to folks 13 weeks of Federal unemployment and 26 weeks for high unemployment States; extended it once again in January 2003, 13 weeks for all States and 26 weeks for high unemployment States; extended it again in April 2003, an additional 26 weeks for airline and related industry workers; and that many States also have provided for unemployment benefits. Some States have additional benefits to help those who have exhausted their Federal benefits. For example, States have the option to provide 13 weeks of extended benefits at a 50/50 State and Federal cost share. This is after the 26 weeks of State and 13/13 weeks of Federal benefits, where we matched the States. Additional Federal funds have been given to States to provide for unemployment benefits in any way they wish. They are done under the Reid Act. In March 2002, Congress allocated $8 billion to States under the Reid Act. States have the flexibility to use this money to pay for an additional unemployment benefit if they choose to do so. At this time States still have $6 billion of unused funds under the Reid Act. Congress also provided, as I said before, targeted additional benefits to airline and related industry sectors. So I think it is very, very misleading to make it sound like this is the first time we have thought of people who are unemployed. We have kept very close watch over these folks, because we feel their pain and we want to make sure they are provided with the help they need to go out and get jobs. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the high- unemployment State of Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very valued member of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn).

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to do a comparison between the bill that we are talking about on the floor tonight and the bill that the Democrats have often brought up as being a better bill. The Democrat plan is not targeted. It guarantees 26 weeks of benefits, regardless of local economic conditions in a State. Our bill is targeted. It provides immediately 13 weeks of Federal assistance to those who need it now, and it targets additional benefits to States that have high unemployment rates. The Democrat plan is too long in duration. That plan would extend the program through October, 2004. We might be out of this recession by October of 2004. Our goal is to create jobs. We are enacting tax relief for all Americans that will give our economy an immediate boost and create new jobs. Our bill continues the unemployment benefits through December, 2003, with a phase-out through March, 2004. That means Congress can come back, as we have consistently done in the past, and review the economic conditions at that time and decide if we need to extend unemployment benefits. Also, in the growth bill, in addition to these unemployment extension benefits, we will provide $20 billion of Federal assistance to States in the jobs and growth package. This is a good solid unemployment package. It should pass.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether to give my speech on tax relief or Medicare, but I am going to choose tax relief tonight. I certainly do hope that the gentleman from Washington realizes that this bill is practically identical to the one that was in his committee, the Committee on Ways and Means, and my committee, that we passed last week; and he should know this bill very well. Certainly we do on this side of the aisle. Earlier this week, Alan Greenspan testified before the Joint Economic Committee on which I serve. He pointed out that taxing capital discourages investment, so when we reduce taxes on dividends and capital gains, we are encouraging saving, and we are reducing the cost of capital for companies, and we are also producing and promoting economic growth. One of the most important issues facing our country today is the need to stimulate economic growth to create jobs. The best way we achieve this goal is to pass a jobs and growth package, one that leaves money in the pockets of individuals and families and encourages businesses to invest in business. This package will quickly lower everybody's tax rates. It will send rebate checks to millions of parents with children, and it will assist seniors who depend on dividend income to supplement their Social Security benefits. This bill goes a long way towards promoting capital investment by allowing small businesses to deduct the cost of major purchases. It increases productivity, increases demand in our economy, and it stimulates production. In all, we expect to create over 1 million new jobs by the end of next year. While we work to stimulate our economy, we also need to help those still seeking jobs. Unemployment in the State of Washington is above the national average. Unfortunately, in fact, we are consistently in the top three States with the highest unemployment, and I am very happy today we were able to pass legislation to extend unemployment benefits so that people will have more time to get the training and the financial assistance they need to find jobs. It is time to pass this jobs and growth package. It helps workers, families, low-income and middle- income taxpayers. I urge its adoption.