Jennifer Dunn

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I was detained due to being with FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh to assess the damage caused by the earthquake in the Puget Sound. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 22, ``no'' on rollcall No. 23, ``no'' on rollcall No. 24, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 25.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation, the Paul Coverdell Medical Research Investment Act. Under the current tax code, deductible charitable cash gifts to support medical research are limited to 50% of an individual's adjusted gross income. This bill would simply increase the deductibility of cash gifts for medical research to 80% of an individual's adjusted gross income. For those individuals who are willing and able to give more than 80% of their income, the bill also extends the period an individual can carry the deduction forward for excess charitable gifts from five years to ten years. In what is perhaps the most important change for today's economy, the bill allows taxpayers to donate stock without being penalized for it. Americans regularly donate stock acquired through a stock option plan to their favorite charity. And often they make the donation within a year of exercising their stock options. But current law penalizes these donations by taxing them as ordinary income or as capital gain. These taxes can run as high as 40%, which acts as a disincentive to contribute to charities. How absurd that someone who donates $1,000 to a charity has to sell $1,400 of stock to pay for it. The person could wait a year and give the stock then, but why delay the contribution when that money can be put to work curing disease today. The MRI Act is premised on a simple truth: People should not be penalized for helping others. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, relying on IRS data and studies of charitable giving, conducted a study on the effects of the MRI Act. It concluded that if the proposal were in effect last year there would have been a 4.0% to 4.5% income in individual giving in 2000. This amounts to $180.4 million additional dollars in charitable donations for medical research--dollars that would result in tangible health benefits to all Americans. If the additional giving grew every year over five years at the same rate as national income a billion dollars more would be put to work to cure disease. Over the course of ten years, the number jumps to $2.3 billion in new money for medical research. For many research efforts, that money could mean the difference between finding a cure or not finding a cure. The returns from increased funding of medical research--not only in economic savings to the country, but in terms of curing disease and finding new treatments--could be enormous. The amount and impact of disease in this country is staggering. Each day more than 1,500 Americans die of cancer. Sixteen million people have diabetes--their lives are shortened by an average of fifteen years. Cardiovascular diseases take approximately one million American lives a year. One and a half million people have Parkinson's Disease. Countless families suffer with the pain of a loved one who has Alzheimer's. And yet these diseases go without a cure. We must work towards the day then they are cured, prevented, or eliminated--just like polio and smallpox were years ago. Increased funding of medical research by the private sector is needed to save and improve American lives. New discoveries in science and technology are creating even greater opportunities than in the past for large returns from money invested in medical research. The mapping of the human genome is but one example. Dr. Abraham Lieberman, a neurologist at the National Parkinson's Foundation, was quoted in Newsweek as saying that the medical research community today is ``standing at the same threshold that we reached with infectious disease 100 years ago.'' The MRI Act encourages the financial gifts that will enable that threshold to be overcome. I hope you will join me in supporting it.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, nearly 2 years ago I pledged to dedicate my energies toward electing George W. Bush as the 43rd President of the United States. It is a commitment that many of us in this body make. Whether we are Democrats or Republicans, we are drawn to a candidate with whom we share values, somebody we can trust to carry the burdens of a large and diverse Nation. It is not a commitment we make lightly. Being a Member of Congress is an all-consuming lifestyle and often we find it difficult to even find time for families and friends. Yet we sacrifice because the cause compels us to do so. My colleague and good friend, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Dicks) made a similar sacrifice for Vice President Al Gore. We saw firsthand the energy and dedication that a campaign can instill in the American people. People from every walk of life and every background came together to comprise the large enthusiastic crowds that brought spirit and life to a movement. We all experienced the ebb and flow of a long campaign and felt the exhilaration of its highs and the disappointments of its lows. We felt it deeply because it was inseparable from our own spirit and because our investment was in human capital, time away from family and time away from friends. But the campaign ended. And when the campaign ends, governing begins. This treasured body is the soul of governance. Our Founding Fathers intended for the House of Representatives to reflect the will of the people. I believe the will of the people is progress. The American people showed extraordinary patience and faith in its governing institutions during this long and uncertain Presidential election. Let us reward them with progress. Today we pledge to form a productive and collegial relationship with President-elect Bush. Just two nights ago, both President-elect Bush and Vice President Gore urged us to put the campaign behind us and begin to develop the relationships that will lead to the progress the American people deserve. I am grateful for their words, and I am encouraged by my colleagues' commitment to fostering this relationship. Many challenges lie ahead, and I do not assume that all of our differences can be easily bridged, yet there is a remarkable agreement on the important issues that we must address. Mr. Speaker, campaigns end and governing begins. I wish all of my colleagues best wishes in this holiday season. When we return in the new year, let us begin the work of addressing the needs of this great Nation. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 5302, to name the United States courthouse in downtown Seattle as the ``William Kenzo Nakamura United States Courthouse.'' It is important to pay tribute to a man who made such great contributions to our nation. Private First Class Nakamura was an outstanding American, and this is a fitting way to honor him for giving his life to protect our freedom. Pfc. Nakamura grew up in what is now the Chinatown International District in Seattle. He was studying at the University of Washington when he was moved with his family to an internment camp in Idaho. Despite this hardship, Pfc. Nakamura joined the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, which went on to become the most decorated military unit in history. On June 4, 1944, Pfc. Nakamura provided cover for a retreating platoon in Catellina, Italy, and was killed by enemy fire. At first, Nakamura and other soldiers of color did not receive national recognition for their heroic deeds. Finally, this June, Nakamura and other soldiers received the Medal of Honor. I believe naming this courthouse after Pfc. Nakamura is a fitting tribute for a man who defended his country and the freedoms we all enjoy. Pfc. Nakamura's valor and heroic actions should never be forgotten, and his dedication to his country--the United States--should be honored. I encourage all my colleagues to support this resolution.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, the average woman spends 11 years out of the workforce to raise children, and it is often very tough for her to accumulate enough retirement savings to make a difference. We believe this is unfair. I will tell you what is in this bill. This bill allows women over the age of 50 to contribute up to 50 percent more to their retirement plan in order to make up for those years out of the workforce. This will make it possible for a working mother to build a nurturing relationship with her child and achieve financial independence in retirement. Part of financial security in retirement means having health care that is affordable and dependable. Unfortunately, the funding for Medicare+Choice has made it tough to offer coverage in certain regions of the country. In my State, nearly 30,000 seniors were sent letters by their health plans alerting them to the fact that insufficient reimbursements for Medicare+Choice is forcing them out of the State. The President is not helping our seniors by attacking managed care plans. In Washington State, tens of thousands of seniors enjoy the benefits of their health care plans and are worried about losing this option. We help in this bill. I urge my colleagues to boost retirement savings for women and protect health care choices for seniors.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for bringing Senate bill 2438 to the floor and I want to make a few comments on it. I appreciate his leadership and commitment to passing a very strong pipeline safety bill. We are all aware of the tragedy of pipeline accidents. In Washington State, as I am sure Members have heard from the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf), we have been dealing with this important issue ever since three young boys were tragically killed by a pipeline explosion in Bellingham on June 10, 1999, in our State of Washington. After consulting with the parents of the three youngsters and the mayors of the communities in the district I represent, I have supported stronger pipeline inspection requirements than this bill provides. But I truly believe that Senate bill 2438 is a meaningful step forward in strengthening our laws and protecting the people we represent. I believe, too, that a vote against this pipeline safety bill is a vote for the status quo. A status quo in which communities are unable to gather information about the pipelines that run under their schools and neighborhoods; a status quo that does not increase penalties for those who fail to comply with the law; and a status quo that says pipeline companies do not have to report a leak until 2,100 gallons have been spilled into our communities. Mr. Speaker, the status quo is not enough. We cannot simply place our hopes on future legislation and fail to protect those who live near the pipelines today. It is time to pass a strong pipeline safety bill and demand that the Office of Pipeline Safety enforce it. Today, we have an opportunity to pass a substantive pipeline bill that will increase and improve safety in our communities. It requires pipeline companies to provide information to the public and emergency agencies. It increases fines for noncompliance and the caps on maximum enforcement penalties. It requires pipeline companies to report any spills over five gallons so that our communities will be well informed and ready to respond. And it provides local citizens a forum in which to make recommendations to the Federal Government about the pipelines in their own neighborhoods. Pipeline safety does not end today. This is a beginning. And we can build upon this beginning by holding the Office of Pipeline Safety and pipeline companies accountable to Congress and to our communities. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, as President Chen Shui-bian, Vice President Annette Lu, and the people of the Republic of China prepare to celebrate their National Day on October 10, 2000, I wish to extend my sincere congratulations on their progress. Since its founding 89 years ago, the Republic of China on Taiwan has attained many remarkable achievements. Their progress ought to be recognized by the United States and emulated by the entire world community. For instance, Taiwan's economy is robust. In June of this year, exports and imports grew nearly 25 percent from the previous year. This growth is due in large part to Taiwan's embrace of the new economy, specifically information and high technologies. Not only has Taiwan experienced strong economic growth, but Taiwan is also a democracy in the truest sense of the word. Taiwan upholds the freedoms we, as Americans, hold dear, including free elections, free media, and free expression. Mr. Speaker, Taiwan is truly a model of success for many countries in the world. Taiwan deserves our congratulations and our support.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA as we know it. We have heard today how instrumental this act has been in helping women who are victims of domestic violence. In my district in Washington State, Eastside Domestic Violence finds women and children anonymous housing, counseling, jobs, and makes the initial transition out of a violent home a little bit easier for a woman. The physical and mental abuse these women suffer can be astounding, and women's shelters like Eastside Domestic Violence are crucial in helping them take their first, most difficult step toward freedom. Last year, I co-chaired the Bipartisan Working Group on Youth Violence with my colleague on the Democrat side, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost). The 24 Republicans and Democrats who comprised the Working Group heard frequently from law enforcement, academia, and family groups that a primary contributor to youth violence is violence in the home. Children raised in homes where there is violence are more prone to be violent offenders themselves. Unfortunately, once these children and their mothers are taken out of a violent home, too often they do not receive proper counseling. With this bill, we will reach more young people in need of counseling and a safe environment where they can be taught that violence is not the way to deal with conflict. We must break the cycle of violence. Mr. Speaker, reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act is one of the most important things we can do to stop youth violence and family violence. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of California (Mr. Herger).

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), but the fact is that his proposal does not repeal the death tax. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this veto override and our bipartisan effort to eliminate the death tax. In his veto message, President Clinton made several arguments defending the taxation of death, and he proposed targeted tax credits for small businesses and family farms. Unfortunately, this targeted approach being touted by President Clinton and Vice President Gore will target American families right out of relief. First, and perhaps most importantly, their proposal maintains the fundamental unfairness of the death tax. It says that at the end of your life, after you worked hard to provide a legacy for your family, the government is still entitled to nearly half the fruits of your labor. I cannot accept this, Mr. Speaker, because it so grossly violates the fundamental virtues of thrift, diligence, and hard work. Mr. Speaker, 95 percent of Americans believe that it is wrong to tax income during your life and then once again because you die to tax it once again. Secondly, President Clinton and Vice President Gore believe that they can exempt family-owned farms and businesses by raising the family- owned business exemption to $2.5 million. Well, I stand here to tell my colleagues that it will not work. In 1997, with the very best of intentions, this Congress created the family-owned business exemption in order to try to protect small businesses from the devastating effects of this tax. In order to qualify for this exemption, however, a family must meet many statutory definitions. These definitions have proven to be so overly complex that most estate planners tell us only 3 percent of their clients even qualify. Worse yet, those families who attempt to claim relief under these definitions find that the IRS challenges them two thirds of the time. So in the rare instance when a family qualifies, they find themselves spending thousands of dollars in attorneys fees to defend themselves from the IRS. Despite very good intentions, Congress simply cannot recreate in tax law the complex family relationships that exist in the real world, so the oppositions approach will not work. And we should not pretend that it will work. The Clinton-Gore proposal maintains high death tax rates and provides hollow relief for family farms and for businesses. Most importantly, it does not repeal the death tax. There is only one way to rid the code of this immoral, unfair, and economically unsound tax and that is to eliminate it. I urge my colleagues to keep their commitments to their constituents and to vote in favor of the veto override.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, seniors are living longer because of innovative new treatments that extend and improve their quality of life. Unfortunately, many of these new treatments carry a cost that puts a huge burden on the shoulders of seniors who are living on fixed incomes. Today will ensure that low-income seniors no longer need to have to decide between purchasing drugs and buying food or paying for rent. This bill of ours will provide all seniors access to affordable prescription drug coverage that will limit their out-of-pocket payments. In addition, for low-income seniors, the bill will provide drug coverage that is free of premiums, deductibles and copayments. Regardless of income, seniors will be able to have peace of mind that they will have access to a voluntary drug benefit plan. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, we offer seniors a choice of selecting a drug plan that meets their individual needs. We leave the decisions in the hands of seniors, not in the hands of government bureaucrats. In this way, we can make sure that those who offer drug plans are accountable to seniors who can choose to vote with their feet. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of our bill.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my friend Mr. Cardin of Maryland to introduce the Medical Research Investment Act. The MRI Act increases the annual percentage-of-income limitations for individual charitable contributions for medical research from 50 percent to 80 percent. To the extent that such medical research contributions by an individual exceed the enhanced annual percent-of- income limitation, such excess would be permitted to be carried forward for the succeeding ten taxable years, rather than for the 5 years allowed under current law. In addition, the legislation ends the unfavorable treatment of gifts of stock acquired by incentive stock options for an individual who gives publicly traded stock, earmarked for medical research, to a charitable organization during the first year after the date of exercise of the stock option. The MRI Act will prevent those taxpayers from being penalized with ordinary income tax or alternative minimum tax when they are trying to give away their wealth to help people. No longer will people have to sell $140 worth of stock to give away $100, or delay their contributions when that money can be put to work today curing disease. This country stands on the threshold of an important opportunity for philanthropy. More Americans than ever, many in the high-tech industries, have been able to amass an abundance of wealth in a short time, and are eager to invest in their communities and in their nation. This legislation allows such high net worth donors, who have the capacity to contribute significantly more than they can deduct under current law, to make large charitable contributions for medical research. It also allows those same potential donors, many of whom have a large part of their wealth tied up in stock options, to contribute their stock to a charity for medical research without incurring taxable income. Academic research on charitable giving has found, time and again, that individuals tend to give more when the price of giving is lower. This legislation establishes the favorable tax treatment that will stimulate charitable donations of cash and property to medical research. In fact, a study by Price WaterhouseCoopers estimated that if the proposal were effective this year, the additional giving spurred by this bill would be $180.4 million in 2000--over a 4 percent increase in charitable giving by individuals for medical research. Over 5 years, it would inspire over $1 billion dollars in additional medical research. In my home state of Washington alone, the increase in the first year would be $3.67 million. Increased investment in medical research consistently results in an improvement in the health of Americans and in the health of America itself. For instance, increases in life expectancy in the 1970's and 1980's were worth $57 trillion to America. Indeed, improvements in health have accounted for almost one-half of the actual gain in American living standards in the past 50 years. It is anticipated that if medical research reduced deaths from cancer by just one-fifth, it would be worth $10 trillion to Americans. Personal, medical, and insurance expenditures would be reduced, as would public expenditures for Medicare, Medicaid, and other governmental medical assistance programs. Losses in national productivity due to illness would be reduced as well. In a country where cancer costs the nation in excess of $107 billion annually, diabetes costs us $105 billion annually, and Parkinson's Disease in excess of $25 billion annually, there is certainly room for improvement in health. Quick and steady improvement is only possible with increased funding of research. Today at the introduction of this bill, Cathy and Caity Rigg of Enumclaw, Washington joined us to tell their story. Caity is 8 years old and suffers from juvenile diabetes. She and her mother Cathy have been tireless advocates for increasing both government and private funds to find a cure for diabetes. Under this bill, we will greatly enhance the available funds for research. I am attaching Caity's remarks since I believe that she, more so than anyone, can attest to the difficulties of living with a debilitating disease. Mr. Speaker, the time to act--to secure the significant gifts that many individuals are anxious to donate to charities--is now. We are entering an era of explosive growth in knowledge that will substantially advance scientists' ability to understand, prevent, and cure disease. I hope I can count on the support of each Member of Congress to pass this bipartisan bill. It is crucial to the health of every American. Thank you Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn. Thank you to all the congress members here today for remembering kids like me. My name is Caity Rigg and I'm 8 years old. I've had diabetes for 4 years now. In second grade last year we had our 100th day of school. My teacher asked if I had $100 to spend what would I do with it. I wrote that I would give it to the doctors so they could find a cure for my diabetes. I still take 4 shots of insulin every day in my tummy, legs and arms to keep me alive. Sometimes it hurts really bad and I cry but Mom always hugs me. I poke my fingers to get blood all day long so I can see if I need food or medicine. When I need food I sometimes feel really bad and my head gets dizzy. I see nurse Julie at school every day to check my blood sugar. Some days its good but some days I need juice or a shot in my arm. I don't want to do it anymore, but I have to so I don't go blind or lose an arm or leg or something bad. Mom promises there is no diabetes in heaven, but I want to get rid of it before then. Please help me by passing the Medical Research Investment Act so that more money will be donated to help scientists and doctors find a cure for me and other children who have to go through what I do. Thank You!!

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I was not recorded on rollcall votes 292 and 293 on Monday, June 19, 2000. Had I been present on Monday, June 19, 2000, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 292, a motion to rise offered by Representative Waxman. I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 293, an amendment offered by Representative Waxman, to H.R. 4365, the Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. I have consistently voted to eliminate government funding for tobacco programs and increase government efforts to reduce the use of tobacco in our society. I will continue to support efforts to keep tobacco companies accountable for the health care costs associated with tobacco related illnesses. In particular, we must continue to educate our children on the hazards of tobacco use and enforce laws that curb underage smoking.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor of the House today. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), for the hard work he has done over the years as we move this important endeavor to the floor of the House. H.R. 8 has the support of 246 Members of the House of Representatives, 46 Democrats, and one Independent. There is one main reason, Mr. Speaker, why the majority of this Congress and 85 percent of the American people support the repeal of the death tax, that reason is fairness. It has been said that only with our government are you given a certificate at birth, a license at marriage, and a bill at death. One of the most compelling aspects of the American dream is to make life better for our children and our loved ones. Yet the current tax treatment of a person's life savings is so onerous that when one dies, the children are often forced to turn over sometimes more than half of their savings of their parent's hard work during their lifetimes to the Federal Government. Even worse, not only does this take place at an agonizing time in the life of a family, but often these people are forced to watch their loved one's legacy be snatched up by an entity not known for its great insight in spending taxpayer funds. This is not fair. Death should not trigger a tax. We should not dishonor the hard work of those who have passed on. This is especially true, Mr. Speaker, of minority and women-owned businesses. Minorities understand that sometimes it takes two to three generations to build an economic foothold in a community through a family-held business. That is why the Black Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the National Indian Business Association, and the Pan-American Chamber of Commerce support H.R. 8. In addition, a recent study by the National Association of Women Business Owners revealed that women-owned businesses on average spend $1,000 a month complying for the death tax. These dollars should go to benefits like health coverage for the 44 million who are uninsured. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on the floor to vote for H.R. 8.

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I might just mention that the gentleman who has just completed his speech has just experienced in his own State of Maryland the repeal of the death tax led by a Democrat legislature, a Democrat government, and led in particular by Obie Patterson, a liberal Democrat himself. Mr. Speaker, as much as it excites me to listen to the opposition talk about reducing the death tax, the substitute is a hollow attempt to make it look like we are providing relief. It does not do the trick here. Here are the four reasons why: First, and perhaps most importantly, it does not repeal the death tax. The substitute maintains the fundamental unfairness of the death tax. It says that, at the end of one's life, after one has worked hard, one puts one's heart and soul into building a business or a farm to provide a legacy for one's family, the Government still is entitled, in, many cases, to more than half of the fruits of one's labor. I cannot accept this because it is so grossly in violation of the fundamental virtues of this Nation: thrift, diligence, risk taking, hard work. Ninety-five percent of Americans believe it is wrong. Ninety-five percent of Americans, Mr. Speaker, believe that it is wrong to tax income during one's life and then tax the same assets again just because one dies. Secondly, the current death tax rates are the second highest in the industrialized world. The only nation that is higher than us in death tax is Japan at 70 percent. Under the substitute, the United States still would have the second highest death tax rate in the world, behind bastions of free market capitalism like France and Sweden. Our international competitors have recognized the unfairness of this tax. It is time now for the United States Congress to recognize it as well. Third, opponents of H.R. 8 say they can exempt family-owned farms and businesses by raising the family-owned business exception to $2 million. It will not work. It has already been tried. It has already been proved to fail. Let me explain. When the Treasury Department came out with their figures saying that only 3 percent of estate tax returns are primarily composed of farm and business assets, I wanted to know what they wanted. I did not argue with their number. I wanted them to explain. So I called the Office of Tax Analysis at Treasury to ask them what their definition of ``primarily comprised'' is. Their answer? At least 50 percent of the overall value of the estate. What the opponents of H.R. 8 do not tell us is that, in order to qualify for the family-owned business exemption, at least 50 percent of the overall value of the estate must be comprised of business or farm assets. What about the individual's home? How about the 401-K or any other savings? What about any assets in that estate that are not the business or the farm? This definition hurts especially small family-held farms and businesses. So if they do believe their Treasury numbers, which they must believe because they have been touting them throughout the debate, they must concede what we have always known, that only 3 percent of family farms and businesses will ever qualify for their relief. Their own Treasury analysis exposes the false relief they are proposing. Fourth and last, the substitute raises the death tax burden on all States at the same time it reduces rates. Under current law in States that still have estate tax laws, a family will receive a Federal death tax credit equal to their State death tax liability. This substitute eliminates the tax credit for States that have a death tax. The net result is that the substitute slightly reduces the rate, but this is offset by an increase in their death tax liability because of a loss of the credit. The substitute raises taxes, maintains high death tax rates, provides hollow relief for family farms and businesses. Most importantly, it retains the death tax. There is only one way to rid the Code of this immoral, unfair, onerous, economically unsound tax, and that is to eliminate it. I urge my colleagues to reject this substitute. Let us get rid of the death tax once and for all. Support H.R. 8.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, this week the House will vote on H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act, a bipartisan bill supported by 244 Members of the House, including 46 Democrats and one Independent. Mr. Speaker, repeal of the death tax is supported by a huge coalition of folks all over this country. The Black Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the National Indian Business Association, many environmental groups and the National Association of Women Business Owners. Twenty-five years ago, women were given access to business loans. Now, many are struggling to pass their life's work on to their children. According to their most recent study, women business owners spend an average of $1,000 a month on estate planning just to prepare for the death tax and keep the family business in the family. With 44 million Americans without health insurance, a majority of them working for small businesses, that $1,000 a month could go a long way toward providing benefits for employees. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important measure. Support repealing the unfair death tax.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about another facet of this great debate about opening up trade with China. For decades our foreign policy needed to rely on strong international leadership that was backed by scientific ingenuity embodied in the tip of ballistic missiles. It was our unwavering commitment to freedom and confidence in our ideals that helped to seal the victory over Communism. Although our ideals and our commitment are the same today, clearly the tools of freedom and democracy are changing. In the next century, it will be the diplomacy of trade, and the growth of the Internet that ensure continued United States leadership throughout the globe. The power of the Internet will define the way we communicate in our personal relationships, our business dealings, and in our political advocacy throughout this new century. And once again, the United States is leading the revolution. In fact, some of the most powerful and innovative high-tech companies in the world are based in the United States. These companies employ the most highly-paid, highly-skilled workforce in the world and are helping to raise the standard of living for millions of Americans. So what does it mean that the new bilateral trade agreement signed between the United States and China commits China to living under the information technology agreement? Mr. Speaker, it means that tariffs on United States computer equipment will phase down to zero in China and the growing middle class in China will begin to have access to low-cost tools with which to link themselves to the world. Despite attempts by the Beijing government to control content on the Web, the unleashing of the Internet by foreign-owned companies can only mean less control from Beijing and greater independence and control for the Chinese people to experience economic freedom. The Internet is a liberating force for Chinese citizenry who are anxious to engage in the world. If we do not normalize trade relations with China, however, we will cede our international leadership to our trading partners, such as the European Union, which just finalized a trade agreement with China last week. Equally as important, if we do not clear the way for China's accession to the World Trade Organization, the strong democratic government which continues to flourish on the island of Taiwan will never be admitted to this international body of trading nations. That is why Chen Shui-bian, the newly-elected President of Taiwan, supports normalizing the trade between China and the United States. Clearly, the United States and every other WTO member country will benefit by having Taiwan as an official member of the WTO. Yet it is the policy of the WTO that Taiwan will not accede to the body and enjoy the benefits of its membership until China itself accedes. Earlier this year, I introduced a resolution to express a sense of Congress that Taiwan should accede to the WTO as the next order of business at the same general council meeting at which China accedes. I am very pleased that my colleagues, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) have agreed to include this language in their proposal. Mr. Speaker, the United States has proven to be on the right side of history time and time again, because we do not deny the fundamental need of the human spirit, individual liberty. As the promise of free and fair trade spreads this message, we should neither fear this opportunity nor apologize for the advancement of American ideals. Engaging China as a willing trade partner and taking our message to her people will prove time and time again to be the right course. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this effort.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I joined Representative Metcalf in support of H.R. 3558, the Safe Pipelines Act of 2000, to improve safety and provide states greater discretion to review and inspect interstate liquid pipelines. This vital legislation requires pipeline companies to inspect the pipelines both internally and with hydrostatic tests. To improve access to information, this legislation requires the U.S. Department of Transportation to post the location of all pipelines on the Internet and inform the public of accidents, leaks, and spills. While the June 10th accident in Bellingham, Washington, has caught our attention, we must examine how to improve the integrity of the pipeline and instill public confidence that we are adequately protecting those who live near a pipeline. I remain supportive of hydrostatic testing as a method to ensure the integrity of the pipelines. However, we must also review the regulatory, maintenance, and day-to-day operations of the pipelines comprehensively to better serve our communities. On May 13th, I held a public meeting to discuss efforts to improve the pipelines. With a panel of experts, we discussed the need for better communication between local elected officials and the pipeline companies servicing the Puget Sound area. We must remain vigilant in protecting our neighborhoods not only today but also in the future. Congress can help in this process by passing meaningful pipeline legislation this year.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, on March 28, 2000, I presented Patty Wood and the Washington Association for Biomedical Research with the Research! America's 1999 Award for Exceptional Contributions as Volunteer Advocates for Medical Research. Patty has been an energetic advocate, spokesperson, and volunteer for the Northwest Kidney Centers and the Washington Association for Biomedical Research. As an organ recipient herself, she understands the importance of organ donation and the value of biomedical research in giving people a second chance. I also want to acknowledge Dr. Joseph Eschbach, President of the Washington Association for Biomedical Research, and Susan Adler, the Executive Director of the Association, for their outstanding commitment in educating the public on the benefits of funding biomedical research. On April 16-21, 2000, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer featured a five- part series on the use of animals in biomedical research. Enclosed are the first two articles of the series. Reprints of the complete five- part series can be obtained directly from Susan Adler, Executive Director of the Washington Association for Biomedical Research, at the following address: 2033 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98121. The articles can also be viewed on the Association's website at www.wabr.org. I hope that these articles will help educate the public on this important issue. [From the Seattle P-I.com Opinion, Sun., Apr. 16, 2000] Animals and Research Part 1: Unlocking the Secrets of Genetic Disease Through Animal Research (By Joseph W. Eschbach) In my office and at the hospital, I diagnose and treat a myriad of illnesses--some life-threatening, others not so serious. In performing these tasks, I need to keep up with the advances that make it possible to treat these illnesses. I also need to talk with my patients about the medical procedures, surgery and medicines I recommend and/or prescribe and the research that makes them safe and effective. A young patient, Bobby, recently came to my office with a fever and complaints of ear pain. The diagnosis--a middle-ear infection--is common, particularly in children, and accounts for many a missed school day. While the infection can usually be cured with an antibiotic, in the future most children will not get this infection because of a recently developed vaccine. This vaccine was first shown to be effective and safe in studies involving rats, guinea pigs and chinchillas. I told Bobby's mother that this vaccine, which immunizes infants and children against the organism that causes the infection, will soon be available--in time to protect his baby sister. Not only will this vaccine decrease the incidence of recurring infections, it also will reduce the need for taking antibiotics. I tell Mrs. D, who once had serious chest pain, that the device used to open up the blockage in her heart arteries was first tested and perfected in dog studies. During their training, the surgeons who performed her subsequent bypass surgery were able to practice and perfect their surgical skills on dogs, before operating on humans. Growing pressure by animal rights groups has recently caused some medical schools to close their dog laboratories. For these future surgeons, their first introduction to performing complex procedures will be on patients. I am concerned about how this will affect the future of these people. Animal models have been the key to unlocking the secrets of many genetic diseases. The genetic makeup of animals and humans is similar, which has allowed scientists to study diseases in animals with genetic defects similar to those in humans. One day, Jim came in complaining that he spontaneously fell asleep under the most embarrassing situations: at work, with guests and while watching his favorite football team. A neurological exam confirmed that he had narcolepsy, a disease caused by a defective version of the gene called hypocretin receptor 2. Much of what we know about narcolepsy comes from studies on a breed These dogs were also used to initially test the effectiveness of certain drug therapies, including the one I prescribed to Jim. This drug alone is ultimately expected to help the 250,000 Americans with narcolepsy, as well as dogs with the disorder. The flu has been a major cause of days lost from work and even death in young and old. Jackie recently came to the office with a fever of 102 degrees and a bad cough; she was feeling horrible. Examination and initial laboratory tests suggested she had the flu and, while waiting for confirmation of viral tests, she was prescribed a new ``anti-viral'' antibiotic designed specifically to combat influenza. This drug is the result of years of testing, first in rats and rabbits, and then in humans, and represents a major advance against this illness. Sarah has diabetes. The insulin she requires allows her to live a relatively normal life; until recently, the insulin was derived solely from the pancreas glands of pigs and cows. Recent advances in recombinant molecular biology techniques have made human insulin available, as well. Insulin-dependent diabetes was uniformly fatal before the 1920s when Drs. Frederick G. Banting and Charles H. Best, through experiments in dogs, proved that insulin corrected the disorder. On the horizon, thanks to experiments in several animal species, is the hope that the specific pancreas cells that produce insulin (islet cells) can be transplanted into any diabetic and cure the condition, eliminate the need for insulin shots and eliminate long-term complications. There are many other stories I could tell about how my patients have benefited from animal research. The hypertension medication, the ultrasound technology and the organ transplant techniques and immunological methods were all made possible because of experiments using animals. Animals & Research, a five-part series Part 1: Unlocking the secrets of genetic disease through animal research Part 2: Improving medical treatment for animals Part 3: Animals are key to discovering new medicines Part 4: The ethics of using animals in research Part 5: How research animals live Some patients express concern for these animals and ask why they need to be used for research. I reassure them that researchers must comply with strict federal regulations requiring care and use protocols be carefully reviewed by an animal care committee, whose membership must include an experienced scientist, a veterinarian and a member of the general public. Alternatives to animals are used whenever possible (cell and tissue cultures and computer modeling), but these findings ultimately need to be confirmed in a complex intact animal. I also try to put the use of research animals into perspective. More than 95 percent of all animals used for research in the United States are laboratory-bred rats and mice. Contrary to popular belief, dogs, cats and primates together account for only about 1 percent of all the animals used in research. Data from October 1997 through September 1998 indicate that about 100,000 dogs and cats were used in research in that year, which compares with between 2 million to 7 million unwanted dogs and cats killed annually in the nation's pounds, as reported by the Humane Society of the United States. Bobby and his sister; Jackie; Jim; and Sarah, as well as every American alive today, have benefited in some way from animal research. However, many other illnesses still are in need of cures, such as cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer's and others. It is the promise of animal research that provides our hopes for having longer, healthier lives.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), to require a biennial budget. When the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and I served together on the Commission to Reform the House of Representatives in 1993 and 1994, we came out with some pretty important recommendations that then were passed into law when we took over the running of the Congress, for example, the Open Meetings Act, the first ever private audit of the House of Representatives, reduction of staff and committee by a third, which allowed us to run this body at $200 million less than the other party had run it the year before. But the most important of all of those recommendations is the one that is being considered today on the floor, and that is implementing a biennial budget. It will bring us much more value for our tax dollar by allowing us to focus more on the efficiency of Government and the scrutiny that Federal programs should receive. Biennial budgeting will bring greater trust in Government. By allowing greater deliberation over budgeting by the legislative bodies, we can assure our constituents that their tax dollars are being spent wisely and judiciously. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, the proliferation of the Internet has been the most liberating force in American life in recent history. It has spawned a whole new vocabulary, created a forum for social interaction and education, and brought unprecedented productivity to the workplace. Most importantly, it levels the American playing field. It makes it possible for the poor and underprivileged to gain access to educational materials once found only in the new schools of affluent suburbs. It also makes it possible for today's woman to make her mark in the business world while balancing the rigorous demands of work and family. The Internet is the essence of freedom and must maintain this feeling of uninhibited access. With the development of such a powerful social and business tool, however, come many challenges and temptations. The most pressing challenge before us now is how to conform a decades-old tax system based on geographic boundaries to a new world for which there is an unlimited capacity for exploration. The biggest temptation will be to find a quick solution to the potential loss of local government revenue due to E-commerce. These are serious issues with which we must deal with great deliberation. We cannot afford either to create barriers to Internet access through new taxation or to pretend that the increasing rate of E-commerce will not negatively impact money to support local schools, police, and parks. For this reason, I supported the Internet Non-Discrimination Act to extend the current Internet tax moratorium for another five years, and I call on all parties to begin a vigorous debate that will bridge the divide between the need to keep the Internet free of new barriers and the legitimate concern of local governments that rely on sales for basic services. This is a complex provision, and there has been some public misperception about the current moratorium and what an extension means. The moratorium has three main components: one that deals with Internet access and two that deal with E-commerce. First, it prohibits the implementation of a tax on Internet access. As I have previously stated, access to the Internet has revolutionized the lives of millions of Americans. We cannot allow barriers to be erected that will make it harder for families living on the edge of poverty to have access to this powerful tool. Second, it prohibits the collection of ``discriminatory'' taxes on the Internet. If there is a product that is sold at the corner grocery store without a sales tax, it should not be taxed if purchased over the Internet. Third, it prohibits ``multiple'' taxes. If an individual purchases a good from another state, that good should not be taxed by both states. All of these measures have allowed people to enjoy the unfettered freedom of the Internet while helping to create millions of new jobs. It is equally important to understand what the moratorium does not do. Neither the original Internet moratorium nor the extension passed today in the House affects the ability of states to levy sales taxes on Internet purchases. As stated above, the moratorium bars only multiple and discriminatory taxes, and taxes on Internet access. The current rules governing the ability of states and local governments to collect sales tax or taxes on remote sales were set by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992. The moratorium and its extension leaves these rules untouched. Nevertheless, the explosion of Internet traffic since this ruling has already made many of its guidelines problematic for state and local governments. This new world without borders must be redefined in order to provide local governments the ability to protect funding for key government services. Local governments must also participate in a discussion about streamlining the tax systems in the over 6,000 different tax jurisdictions throughout the country. They cannot simply expect that companies--whereever they are or whatever their size--will dedicate the untold amount of resources necessary to duplicate all of these tax systems, figure out how much tax to charge a given item, and then remit that tax to the particular government. Through streamlining these tax systems and providing some degree of uniformity, companies will be much more willing to partner with state and local governments. The Internet is changing the fundamental structure of our society and we are well served to change with it. Resisting its benefits or trying to mold it to reflect our byzantine government systems will only limit its full potential. As we work to ensure that the Internet will be unencumbered by new barriers, let us join together to create an environment in which E-commerce and local communities can flourish together.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, the generous hearts of Americans know no income or class boundaries. Tens of millions of people give annually to support charities such as their local churches, youth and family organizations, and medical research programs. It is a testament to the willingness of families to give back to the community on which they rely on for so much. Yet, under current law, only a small portion of individuals who contribute to charities receive a tax benefit for their gifts. This is because the deduction that is provided for a gift to charity is only available to taxpayers who itemize on their returns. These filers represent only 30 percent of all taxpayers. Today, along with Senator Paul Coverdell, I rise to introduce the Neighbor to Neighbor Act. This important proposal will extend the charitable deduction to non-itemizers and will grant them tax relief on the first dollar of their gift. Under the bill, joint filers will receive dollar-for-dollar deduction on their donations up to $1,000 and individuals will receive a deduction on their donations up to $500. The Neighbor to Neighbor Act will benefit 67 million charitable givers and will for the first time encourage and reward contributions made by all taxpayers. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, this bill will provide $52 billion in tax relief over the next 10 years. Most importantly, since the overwhelming majority of non-itemizers are low- and middle-income Americans, this is genuinely broad-based tax relief. One important element of charitable giving is being able to plan a contribution with the tax deduction in mind. For most taxpayers who now receive the deduction, however, this means performing an estimate of future tax liability and making contributions accordingly. This can be an inefficient and imprecise method. The Neighbor to Neighbor Act will eliminate the complexities of this current system by allowing both itemizers and non-itemizers the ability to contribute to charities through April 15th and deduct that contribution from the previous year's taxes. As a result, taxpayers will have the ability to contribute after they receive their tax information at the beginning of the year and can precisely calculate their liability and give back accordingly. The Neighbor to Neighbor Act acknowledges the important role that all Americans play in building strong communities through private charities. By every measure, these groups are more effective at instilling strong values in our youth and transforming society from the ground up. I urge my colleagues in both the House and Senate to support this important bill.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1070, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act. This legislation provides States the option of providing Medicaid coverage to uninsured, low-income women who are diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer as part of a screening process by the Centers for Disease Control. While the CDC's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection program helps identify women with breast or cervical cancer, it does not provide any coverage or any treatment. These women patients not only face a terrifying battle with cancer but they also must find ways to pay for the care they need. H.R. 1070 rectifies this problem by helping low-income women get the medical treatment they need. The bill is vital to help save the lives of women throughout our Nation. It would make the best gift Congress could offer if we were to pass H.R. 1070 by Mother's Day. I am pleased that this legislation soon will be considered on the floor of the House. It is a good bill and will do the job. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure and an honor for me to be involved in this worthwhile effort to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Ronald and Nancy Reagan. I want to thank my colleague, Jim Gibbons, for his effort on this important legislation. Together, the President and First Lady selflessly dedicated years of their lives to lifting the American spirit and bettering the quality of life for every single American. I continue to be inspired by President Reagan's ideals of lower taxes, stronger families, limited government, and peace through strength. In 1989, I had the opportunity to personally thank President Reagan for his contributions to America. That was shortly after the Berlin Wall fell and the land he once declared an evil empire began to finally dissolve. The fall of the Soviet Union would not have been achieved had it not been for Ronald Reagan's insistence on a strong military. During his tenure in office, he boosted the morale of our military personnel by providing them with the equipment, training, and support they needed to be successful. By restoring our national defense, he protected democracy and rebuilt national pride. President Reagan's policies helped lift us out of the malaise of the late 70s, when interest rates were in the 20 percent range, unemployment was at record highs, and inflation reached the double digits. The economy recovered, and more Americans were working than ever before. President Reagan believed that cutting tax rates would increase, not shrink, Federal tax revenues, and he was right. in 1981, he worked with Congress in a bipartisan manner to turn his belief into law. The unprecedented economic prosperity America is now experiencing is due in no small part to the idealistic spirit and the anchored beliefs that Ronald Reagan brought to his agenda as our President. Today, that historic bipartisan effort continues to be recognized as a defining achievement that fostered economic growth and human ingenuity to raise the quality of life in America. Though he has withdrawn from public life, we will never forget his great achievements. They are evident all around us, and now is the right time for America to say thank you. Some people have thanked him by naming airports, schools, and buildings after him. I have a son who is proud to carry his name. And here in Congress, we can begin by awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to our former President and his loyal First Lady who shared his burdens and his joys, Ronald and Nancy Reagan.

Ms. DUNN

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, the most important gift parents can give their children is a quality education. This precious gift will open doors of opportunity, and it will ensure that a parent's wish is fulfilled: that the next generation will enjoy a better quality of life than the last. Educating a child is not easy. It is expensive, too often bureaucratic and much too often out of a parent's control. For the moms and dads who are struggling to give the gift of education to their children, help is on the way. The Education Savings and School Excellence Act will help families save for their children's educations and give parents control over where their children are educated. On behalf of the 90,000-plus children in the district I represent in Washington State, those children heading to college, I urge the United States House to pass this important legislation. We must do all we can to assure that no child is left behind.