Jennifer Dunn

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Budget for yielding me this time. We have talked about death tax repeal for a long time. For years, literally. We have talked about the effect the repeal of the death tax would have in freeing small business to create more jobs. In fact, if this resolution is successful, small businesses estimate that 200,000 jobs would be created in this next year in this country. Certainly at a time of economic downturn, that is the sort of growth piece of tax legislation that we are looking for. We have talked about the effect of the death tax on women-owned businesses. In fact, the National Association of Women Business Owners a couple of years ago did a survey and they discovered that the cost of compliance to comply with the death tax is about $1,000 a month for the average small business owned by women. These are dollars, Mr. Speaker, that these women would like to put into benefits for their employees, into health care coverage, a huge need in this Nation. These dollars are wasted dollars. They go to pay for life insurance coverage so that at the end of a person's life, that payment to the tax man, to the IRS man that has to be made in cash within 9 months, could be done and made easier on the family because of the life insurance policy proceeds. We have talked about why members of the conservation and environmental community support the permanent repeal of the death tax. They do not want to see subdivisions pop up in beautiful farmland that had been a huge benefit to everybody in the neighborhood. We have talked about the Black Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Indian National Council, all the groups that are on board with us to permanently repeal the death tax. For the minority community, it takes three generations to develop a business that creates standing. They do not want to have to give up their businesses that they have put their hearts and souls into developing. It is a bad tax. We encourage our neighbors to consider this bill and to pass permanent repeal of the death tax so that those dollars can be where they will not be wasted to build the economy of this Nation.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, September 19, 2002, I was unable to be present for roll call votes No. 402, Recognizing the Teams and Players of the Negro Baseball Leagues, and No. 403, the Waters Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 3295--Help America Vote Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll No. 402 and ``yea'' on roll No. 403.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand and speak on behalf of this bill. It has been a long time in coming. I want to congratulate Chairman Thomas for successfully negotiating this agreement. America has been falling behind in expanding trade since the expiration of TPA back in 1994. We produce the highest quality services, the most bountiful crops, and the most advanced technologies in the world. Yet the high tariffs we face overseas destroy our competitive edge. While our foreign competitors weave a web of preferential trade opportunities for themselves, American companies, farmers, and workers continue to face higher tariffs and other barriers that hinder access to American products and American services. In Washington State where one out of three jobs is related to trade, we know that expanding trade opportunities works for America. Today we renew our commitment to engage in trade by passing a TPA bill that will expand access to markets and reduce other trade barriers. TPA will enhance our competitiveness, create jobs, and help bolster our economic recovery. It is time for Congress to pass TPA.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I think special kudos should go to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) because they put so much leadership and commitment into bringing this bill to the floor. This debate has gone on for a long time. The first bill that we voted on during this debate was 2 years ago, and we could not get the votes then. We have worked on this bill consistently with the help of a lot of our neighbors in Washington State and a lot of members from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for putting together a good bill. In Washington State 3 years ago, there was a pipeline explosion in the area of Bellingham. It is the area that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen) now represents, and at that time Congressman Metcalf represented. Both gentlemen were very involved in this debate. They had a problem to solve for the neighbors who lived in their communities, and success has finally greeted us here on the floor of the House tonight. We have worked on this bill ever since. Three years of work to put together a bill that would be appropriate, a bill where we could release some information but be very aware that if terrorists are looking for a way to endanger our communities, we have to be somewhat careful on how we phrase the public information portion of this. I want to summarize a few of the elements that are in this legislation that make it much better than anything we have ever had before in protecting our neighbors and our neighborhoods from any explosion or any kind of emission of toxic substances into the environment. The legislation tonight talks about inspection of gas pipelines every 5 years. It will be mandated. There is flexibility left so that we can do it in the proper way, so it will not be a huge new expense to the companies but will also perform the program that we are interested in, which is to make sure those pipelines are not corroded, are not broken, and will not result in a horrible explosion like the one that the parents of those children in Bellingham had to live with 3 years ago. It also establishes a program to certify that critical pipeline employees are qualified to do their jobs. This has never been required before, Mr. Speaker. I think this bill puts out there in print what we expect from the companies who are engaged in operating pipelines. It also increases penalties for pipeline safety violations. Why is this important? It is important, Mr. Speaker, because we want those companies to take very seriously the requirements we have handed to them. Sometimes money tells the story. To penalize them in a monetary way we think is very important. It also provides for increased State oversight of pipelines. We want the States involved. We would like to have community advisory boards. We are going to increase the amount of personal activity done to keep these pipelines safe by allowing the communities and the neighbors to advise the companies that come up with good ideas that we may have missed, that might have fallen through the cracks on this legislation. I think it is also very important that communities be given access to information about the pipelines that run underneath their schools, underneath their homes, underneath their neighborhoods. Everybody in the process agrees that this information ought to be out there. We have not yet agreed how this information should be available. I hope this information can be addressed as this bill moves forward as we go through the conference committee with a good strong House bill that will be debated by Members of the Senate and the House so that we will come up with something really strong. The answer to this particular public access question may be part of homeland security. It may have to be a compromise. What I want, Mr. Speaker, my mayors to be able to walk in and see the most up-to-date maps that outline these pipeline directions so that they will be able to instruct people who are digging trenches for water mains or digging trenches for the construction of foundations of homes or schools. I want them to know, these communities, where these pipelines run and we all appreciate that. In an era which is different since 9-11, where terrorists can get control fairly easily of information, we have to massage this. But I think each of us appreciates the fact that this information must be made available. Mr. Speaker, for 3 years we have tried to pass this bill. We have tried to put this bill together in a way that would protect our communities. This bill moves closer to that objective than anything I have seen so far. It is a compromise, but I think it provides us the basis for a good, strong community approach that will allow us to provide that protection for our communities that we worked so hard to do. Mr. Speaker, as we move closer to our objective, as we get a good bill out of the House, I urge our colleagues to support this. It is a fine bill. My congratulations to everybody who has been in the process.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 11, 2002, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes No. 293 and No. 294. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 293, in favor of H.R. 2733, the Enterprise Integration Act of 2002, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 294, in favor of H.R. 2486, the Tropical Cyclone Inland Forecasting Improvement and Warning System Development Act of 2002.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important values to all seniors is that they be financially independent in their retirement, and that means they do not want to be a burden on their children and that means access to affordable health care. The high cost of prescription drugs and the lack of prescription drug coverage has caused many seniors, and especially senior women, to be very worried about their independence. I was sorry to have witnessed early this evening my women colleagues in the opposition claiming that older women will not be helped by this bill because I have seen how older women are being forced to make tough decisions about whether to spend their limited dollars on necessary prescription drugs or other of life's necessities. Our mothers and grandmothers are outliving our fathers and our grandfathers. They are living on fewer dollars for more years, and they are far more likely to develop chronic medical conditions. This bill does benefit women. This bill helps seniors on fixed incomes and those with high drug costs. A woman living on an income of less than $15,000 a year will receive total assistance from this Federal Government Medicare program for prescription drugs. While all seniors will benefit because any senior can opt to buy this coverage, nearly 17 million or 44 percent of Medicare beneficiaries will qualify for additional assistance when this bill is fully implemented. Perhaps the most important part of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that no senior under this coverage will ever have to pay more than $3,700 a year for their total of drugs. Improving Medicare, though, is not only about providing drug benefits. It is about giving seniors access to doctors and hospitals and Medicare HMOs and other services they need. So we put some additional benefits in this bill to ensure that doctors will continue to serve seniors. We increase the reimbursements those doctors receive. We also help rural, urban, and teaching hospitals care for seniors and low-income individuals. For Medicare HMOs this bill requires Medicare to account for military retirees in the future, which means higher Medicare+Choice reimbursements in every county in this country with military facilities. I urge my colleagues to support this fine bill.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to acknowledge the important work that is performed by our nation's oldest sorority, Gamma Phi Beta, as it celebrates 128 years of service. It was my pleasure to serve in this leadership institution that prepares young women for service to the community. The Gamma Phi Beta mission is simple, yet effective: ``To foster a nurturing environment that provides women the opportunity to achieve their potential through life-long commitment to intellectual growth, individual worth and service to humanity.'' My involvement with this sorority provided all three of these objectives and I was lucky to have such a valuable experience. When Gamma Phi Beta was founded in 1874, very few women were attending the handful of our nation's universities that would accept them. Four bold women at Syracuse University in New York formed the first Greek organization for women, which now boasts a membership of over 120,000 women worldwide. In fact, the term ``sorority'' was coined in reference to this chapter. Gamma Phi Beta is known as one of the ten oldest women's organizations in America. Gamma Phi Beta has been a vital force in lifting women from roles of subservience in our nation's educational system to positions of leadership. Their commitment to helping young women strive for excellence in all aspects of life has helped generations of American women reach their full potential. I am proud to be a lifelong member of such an important group of women and I congratulate all members of Gamma Phi Beta as they host their 2002 biennial convention, ``History in the Making,'' in Washington, D.C. I commend the work of Gamma Phi Beta for celebrating the role of women worldwide and I wish them the best of luck as the organization continues to promote community service, leadership and self-reliance for all women.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this vital legislation to provide certainty and predictability in pension retirement benefits for the people I represent at home in Washington State. I want to compliment my two colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), for taking leadership to help all women who are being very diligent in their effort to become independent as they plan for their retirement years. This bill enables millions of women to devote more money to retirement savings, to accumulate assets more quickly, and to maintain their benefits in one retirement plan as they go from job to job. Women choose to leave the workforce for many reasons, including to raise a family or care for ailing parents. Often during those years they are unable to take full advantage of employer-sponsored pension funds. The retirement protections in our bill allow women to make catch-up contributions to their pension plans to make up for the time they spend away from the workforce. Before Portman-Cardin, it was very difficult to consolidate retirement funds from different plans into one plan. We took away these restrictions in our legislation to reflect the changing employment market. Today, we have more women working who tend to change jobs more frequently than do men. By enhancing portability, we ensure the retirement benefits follow the employee as she changes jobs. With more women working outside the home, Mr. Speaker, we have to modernize our retirement laws to take into account a more diverse workforce. We have now, for example, 70 percent of young mothers with young children still in the home in the workforce. It is about time we make up for them and create for them a further opportunity to gain self-reliance during retirement. So I do not think we can afford the effort that is being made by some of our opponents to turn back the clock in 2011, and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, the Tax Code has many unfair and inexplicable provisions, but none is more harmful to young people wishing to marry and young families than the marriage penalty, the bill we are debating today. To increase the tax burden on a couple simply because they choose to marry is unjust. We ask for neutrality, to get in there and give extra credit to married people, or support single people ahead of married people, and this is the bill we are debating today. Last year we passed the bill that alleviates the marriage penalty, but the problem is that it returns in 2011. So now we need to make it permanent. I find it amusing, if not unexplainable, that the opponents of this bill are talking on the one hand about how we are impacting the deficit situation in the United States by the passage of the bill we are debating today and, on the other hand, being truthful by saying that this bill does not take effect until 2011. So you cannot have it both ways. We do not impact the financial situation of the United States by which we are all very concerned, but by the time this bill would go into effect, in fact, it would be January 1, 2011. Every number that we have puts us in the surplus position, whether it is in the Social Security Trust Fund or the national budget by that year. So double-counting the dollars that would provide for the extension permanently of the marriage penalty is political. It is not fair. The marriage penalty is discriminatory to working women. Right now, the Tax Code creates a disincentive for women to earn above a very low threshold. Women who make a salary that is on a par with their husbands are taxed in an extraordinary way, and the reason is that their additional salary upon marriage moves in to combine and thrust the young couple into a higher marginal rate. It is not a problem if there is a single wage earner, but in today's society we see 70 percent of young women, women with young children, in the workforce, so it has become increasingly a more and more common problem for all young people. According to conservative estimates, 36 million American couples right now are paying, on average, $1,700 more per year in taxes because they are married. In my district alone in the State of Washington, about 73,000 couples are adversely affected by the marriage penalty. This is wrong and we need to change it. As newlyweds start out in their new life together, they should not face a punishing tax bill. I urge my colleagues to help young couples to put them on the road to success, to establish in their lives full usage of the American dream, to support the Permanent Marriage Penalty Relief Act that takes place in 2011, takes away all that discrimination against the marriage of two young people, both of whom are in the working world.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I remind the previous speaker, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), that the State of Maryland sent $582 million to the Federal Government in payment that is not used in their own State. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a very effective member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) that $711 million are taken from his State to give to the Federal Government as a result of the estate tax. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman from Wisconsin that his State sends $380 million to Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), a strong proponent of the repeal of the death tax over a period of years.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I will remind the gentleman from California that $4 billion goes from the State of California as a result of the death tax, dollars that could be used by small business people to increase employment. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman who just completed his talk from South Carolina that $231 million goes from his State that could be used to cover health care coverage for small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

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

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), one of the newer members of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of our time to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), our conference chairman.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Democrat substitute is a short-term fix, and it is really a scam. It is masquerading as real tax relief. As I listen to the gentlewoman talk about the incidents in her State of Florida, it occurs to me that the numbers tell a different story. They are complaining about our not having enough money to spend on certain programs, many of which I think are very worthy and many of which we are spending money on. But in the Democrat substitute over the first 5 years, they are spending $22 billion compared to the $9.2 billion that we spend in ours. They are actually raiding the coffers to a much greater extent themselves. Mr. Speaker, their bill does not address rates. After the $3 million credit, the family is forced to pay taxes starting at a 50 percent rate on every dollar over the credit. It does not start at 1 percent. It starts at 50. For businesses valued at $6 million, this means a tax bill approaching $1.5 million. Under the substitute, the United States will still have the second highest death tax rates in the world after Japan, behind bastions of free market capitalism like France and Sweden. Secondly, every attempt to provide the death tax relief has been a failure. We all know what happens when a tax is left on the books. It simply grows back. It grows back in this case with a vengeance. Inflation alone can subtract 30 percent of the value away from the exemption that the substitute requires. If we do not pull the death tax out by the roots, there is no guarantee that the exemption will not be reduced totally by a future Congress. The Pomeroy substitute also sets an arbitrary limit on the size of a protected business. It essentially tells businesses to be successful but not too successful. Unless the $3 million exemption were adjusted for inflation, as I said, within 10 years inflation could decrease its value by 30 percent. The Pomeroy substitute will actually cost over twice as much in the next 5 years as immediate repeal. I think this alone is a very important way to view this substitute because it is being sold as something that will allow us to take care of the involvement of the cost of that bill in a more effective way and it certainly is not true. Finally, and perhaps most importantly of all, the substitute affirms the flawed notion that it is fair and reasonable to tax people at the end of their lives. Instead of rewarding them for saving or building a business, being successful, we punish them by assessing on them a very burdensome and unfair tax. I urge my colleagues to reject the substitute, eliminate the death tax once and for all. We can do that by our vote today in the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip of our Congress.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the State of Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), a very valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.