Albert Wynn

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I absolutely have had that experience, and I thank the chairman for raising that point. As a matter of fact, I introduced legislation, I do not think it is going anywhere this session, which would say that if an agency lists a subcontractor, they have to use that subcontractor or justify in some legitimate way, for some legitimate reason, not using that contractor; otherwise, it is essentially fraud, it is a fraud on the public, it is a disservice to the contractor. So I think the chairman's point is certainly very well taken.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a constituent and one of Capitol Hill's finest, Officer Moses Hart. Officer Hart was appointed to the United States Capitol Police Force on October 15, 1973. He will be retiring on July 31, 2000, after almost 27 years of distinguished service. He has spent his entire career assigned to the House Division of the Capitol Police. For the past 10 years, he has been assigned to the Ford House Office Building. Over these years, Moses has made a tremendous difference in the lives of Members of the House, Congressional staff, and visitors from throughout the world. I wish him well in his retirement and hope he will take the time to enjoy fishing, one of his favorite hobbies. In addition, I am sure he will devote time to his number one love, barbering. Moses has been a licensed barber for more than 30 years. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in extending our sincerest appreciation and best wishes to Moses Hart upon his retirement for the United States Capitol Police Force.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to the Republican tax cut proposal for the rich, and I rise in support of the Democratic alternative. There are many of us in this House who would like to roll back taxes on Social Security. The problem is, we do not believe we ought to do it for the very rich or the super rich. The Democratic alternative quite simply says, we can provide tax relief for Social Security recipients, 95 percent of them, and do it in a fiscally sound manner. It seems to me now the Republicans have to answer the question: why should we give tax relief to people who make over $100,000, those seniors who make over $100,000 and who only represent 5 percent of the senior population. There is a fundamental question of fairness here. Second, there is the question of fiscal prudency. They take $117 billion out of the Medicare trust fund. They tell us well, we will put this money back by taking money out of the general fund and putting it back into Medicare. However, as has been pointed out time and time again, we have red ink. We will not have, when they get through tax cutting and spending, we will not have any money to put back into the trust fund. So on that score, this plan simply will not work. The Democratic alternative, on the other hand, saves $45 billion and makes much more fiscal sense, while still providing sensible tax relief. Second, there is a question of fairness. We will hear the Republicans talk about seniors who make $34,000, and that is not a lot of money. I agree, but why do they give a tax break to seniors who make $300,000 a year? That does not make any sense. Finally, I think we ought to consider something really important. Prescription drug coverage. We have 12 million seniors in Medicare who do not have prescription drug coverage, and I assure my colleagues, if we have this tax giveaway as propounded by the Republicans, we will not be able to provide a prescription drug benefit. So when we analyze the entire package, we get an excessive Republican plan and a fiscally responsible Democratic plan. I urge adoption of the Democratic alternative.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, today I congratulate Mr. Gary Francis Thomas upon his retirement from the United States House of Representatives Office of the Sergeant at Arms, after thirty-six years of service. Mr. Thomas began his career in Congress in 1965 working for the Architect of the Capitol in the Labor Room, where he served for five years. Upon completing his work with the Architect of the Capitol in 1970, Mr. Thomas transferred to the Parking Office, where he is now completing his thirty-six year career. Mr. Thomas began his career during the 89th Congress when Representative John W. McCormick was Speaker of the House and Lyndon B. Johnson was President of the United States. He has since served under eighteen Congresses and seven Presidents, rising within the Sergeant at Arms Office to the supervisory level. Mr. Thomas resides in the 4th Congressional District of Maryland, which I am proud to represent. He is the father of six, three boys and three girls, while his wife, Mrs. Janell Thomas, is currently expecting the couple's seventh child. Mr. Thomas is a man of conviction and community service, dedicating his free time to fostering youth development. He has also been an active Minister for the past ten years at the Remnant Ministries. Gary Francis Thomas' dedication to all he has served here in Congress will undoubtedly be missed. Whether it was assisting Members of Congress with car problems or issuing parking permits to staff, Mr. Thomas served the entire Capitol Hill community without reservation, always in high spirits and with a good word for everyone. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in extending our sincerest appreciation and best wishes to Gary Francis Thomas upon his retirement from the United States Congress.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I begin by thanking my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for holding the fort for me, as it were. This is a very important amendment to my district; very important to the entire State of Maryland. It deals with the consolidation of the Food and Drug Administration at a location in Montgomery County, Maryland, known as White Oak. Currently, the FDA has approximately 39 different buildings in 21 different locations, housing 6,000 employees. The purpose of this project was to consolidate those buildings, employees and locations into one site, the former Naval Surface Warfare Center in White Oak in my district. Importantly, this amendment would allow for the construction and design of a 100,000-square-foot center for drug evaluation and research. This is a very important laboratory in the overall work of the Food and Drug Administration. Equally important, or perhaps more importantly, the consolidation would result in significant savings. Specifically, we can save $200 million in lease costs over a 10-year period if we pass this amendment, which would allow for the construction of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Laboratory. In addition to serving the purposes of the Food and Drug Administration, this project will also help fill a void left in my district with the closure of the Naval Surface Warfare Center. As my colleagues know, in the course of base closings some facilities were no longer needed. And in the process of determining which facilities were not needed, we also developed programs and processes which would basically say that while we are closing this facility, we are looking at other options. One of the options that was considered and, in fact, agreed upon, was to consolidate the Food and Drug Administration at this site. It is a very beautiful campus-like setting, a wooded facility that could easily house the Food and Drug Administration in an appropriate setting which concentrates and brings together all of their facilities. We think this is a very important project, but we also understand that no construction projects were funded by the committee, and we are sensitive to the fact that we would not be given an inordinate preference in this case. I raise the amendment for purposes of increasing the profile of this particular issue in the hopes that the chairman would consider this project in the course of discussions in conference. I do not intend to press the amendment, but I believe this is an important project for the country in terms of consolidating the Food and Drug Administration, it is an important project for the community in Montgomery County and the Washington region in terms of having these facilities consolidated in an effective way and developing this new laboratory, and it is important for the taxpayers in terms of saving significant lease costs.

Mr. WYNN. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WYNN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his thoughts.

Mr. WYNN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. WYNN. Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the considerations, and I thank the chairman and my colleague for their cooperation.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill on foreign operations. I say this notwithstanding what I recognize to be a great deal of hard work on the part of the chairman and the ranking member, and notwithstanding what I think are very good provisions regarding aid to Armenia. But the sad fact is that this bill is another case in which our rhetoric far exceeds our actions. We talk a great deal about helping poor countries, but when we look specifically at the issue of debt relief, we find that we have provided a level of funding that is woefully inadequate. This bill contains only $82 million of the $472 million requested for multilateral debt relief assistance. I mention that because this debt relief is not the United States going it alone, this debt relief is in the context of working with the G-7 countries, the major developed countries in the world, who have made a commitment to provide debt relief jointly to sub-Saharan Africa and other developing countries. Why is this problem so bad? For example, consider Tanzania. The government spends four times as much money on debt payments as it does on health and education combined. In Uganda, Zambia, Nicaragua, and Honduras, the government spending on debt service is greater than government spending on health and education combined. These countries cannot develop under this crushing burden of debt. I would also mention that debt relief is not conducted in a vacuum. It is tied to democratization. It is tied to economic reforms. These reforms have been occurring, but these countries still need debt relief. Probably most crucial today, however, in today's debate, is this simple fact. Twenty-two million have died in sub-Saharan Africa of AIDS. The crisis in sub-Saharan Africa is pandemic. We have a situation in which those countries cannot provide the health care that they need to, the education about AIDS that they need to because they are providing debt service, debt service which basically provides money going from the poorest countries back to the wealthiest countries. We have an opportunity to exert leadership, to say to the world that, working in concert with other developed countries, we are going to provide debt relief, to put some action behind our rhetoric, to provide relief for AIDS, and to provide general debt relief so poorer countries can develop and progress. Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and also for her outstanding leadership on this issue. Let me begin by saying that I am very proud that Americans and specifically American taxpayers are not selfish, that they cannot bear the spectacle of 22 million people infected with AIDS in Africa; they cannot turn their backs on those people, and that they are not selfishly thinking only of their own concerns. With respect to this amendment, I am here to support it. Here are the facts: the President asked for $475 million, this committee only gave $82 million, and that is a travesty. Now, we hear a lot about corruption, but I am sure the chairman is not trying to say that the people who are dying in Africa ought to be sacrificed because of a corrupt leader. What we need to know about the facts of this issue is this: in Tanzania, for example, the government spends four times as much money on debt payments as it spends on health and education combined. What we need to know in this debate is that Uganda, Zambia, Nicaragua, and Honduras spends more on debt service than they spend on health and education combined. So this debate is not about corruption and it is not about wasteful spending. Now, here is an issue that really strikes me as interesting. The gentleman talks about how we need to be concerned about how the money is spent; we need to have conditions. We can apply conditions. The problem is, the committee did not just apply conditions, the committee cut the money substantially. It cut 80 percent of the funds that were going to be used for debt forgiveness. This is a project in which the United States and other developed countries are stepping forward and saying, there is a major epidemic, pandemic in Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, as well as in other countries, and we want to forgive debt as a group, this is true burden-sharing, to enable these countries to move forward, to spend money on health and education rather than on bad debts. This is a case where we really need to lead. Thankfully, the American people are not selfish. I think they will agree with us that we ought to adopt the gentlewoman's amendment; we ought to put the money into debt forgiveness; we ought to give these countries a chance, and we ought to respond to the crisis that exists in Africa.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to this bill. It is a bad product of a bad process. They shut out the Democrats today from introducing the Democratic alternative, and now they have on the floor essentially a bad bill. There are two ways to approach this. On the Democratic side, we have an expansion of Medicare, a guaranteed affordable benefit for all seniors who need coverage to help with prescription drugs. On the Republican side, we have a premium-driven system that basically is designed to benefit insurance companies. Now, I will tell my colleagues why this is problematic. The benefit is not guaranteed. They have a higher deductible. They have a higher premium. As a matter of fact, we do not have a deductible. They have a $250 deductible. It is a bad idea. We should not put this issue of prescription drug coverage in the hands of the private HMOs, and I will tell my colleagues why. We are already down here concerned about HMOs and are trying to pass a Patient's Bill of Rights, trying to get the right to see a specialist, trying to get the right for emergency care. The same people that are denying those fundamental rights are now going to be handling prescription drug coverage. I do not think that makes a great deal of sense. I believe we ought to opt for the Democratic alternative and reject the Republican proposal and reject the Republican process.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, on June 21, 2000 through June 23, 2000, I missed rollcall votes number 298 through 321, due to the death of my father, Albert F. Wynn. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes 299, 302, 303, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 321 and ``aye'' on votes 298, 300, 301, 304, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319 and 320.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Maryland for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join most of my Maryland colleagues certainly in strongly opposing this amendment. We have looked at this issue thoroughly and, as has been indicated through today's testimony, we are near unanimous agreement that this amendment is inappropriate. We have here fundamental safety issues with respect to Tolchester, and we ought to acknowledge that fact and then act upon it and not implement this amendment, which would, in effect, overturn a lot of the work that has already been done. This is a channel that has many shifts and turns in order to accommodate the traffic and, also, to accommodate safety concerns. Straightening the channel is a desirable objective. That is an objective that we are pursuing through, I say, the majority of the Maryland delegation. We have studied this issue thoroughly. As was indicated, Environmental Impact Studies are underway and we certainly cannot pre-judge them to be in the negative. Under the circumstances, I think it is both prudent and sound that we proceed with the position that the delegation has taken and reject this amendment. I would urge the membership to do so.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, in today I salute an organization that has been making wishes come true for two decades. This year marks the 20th Anniversary of the Make-A-Wish Foundation, an organization that fulfills the wishes of children fighting life-threatening illnesses. This organization's sole purpose is to bring happiness to children who confront harsh realities. Eighty-thousand children worldwide have had their wishes fulfilled by the Make-A-Wish Foundation. In Maryland alone, more than 1,200 children have had wishes fulfilled. This organization understands the fragility of life, and the wishes they grant are a true gesture of humanity. I think fondly of the way they helped one of my own constituents. Chris Palmer of Cheverly, Maryland was diagnosed with Sickle Cell Anemia as a baby. The Make-A-Wish Foundation of the Mid-Atlantic, fulfilled a wish for Chris in November, 1998. 1, along with Chris and his family are very grateful to the Make-A-Wish Foundation for all they have given him. I am proud of Chris Palmer's courageous fight with his illness. I commend the Make-A-Wish Foundation's devotion in bringing happiness to children like him. I also salute the many volunteers and donors who support and make up the backbone of the Make-A-Wish Foundation. I invite those interested in learning more about the Foundation to contact them at 1-800-722-9474 or on the internet at www.wish.org.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I rise to take a strong stand to urge defeat of the previous question. There is a lot of rhetoric about the digital divide, but no one is really doing anything about it. We now have an opportunity to back up our rhetoric with an investment in our future. Specifically, there are proposals, one by my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), which I support and one which I have introduced which would say that yes, we ought to cut the excise tax, but we ought to take a small portion of the excise tax and make an investment in closing the digital divide. Is the digital divide real? Absolutely. Consider a family making over $75,000 is 20 times more likely to have a computer than a poor family. Consider that in public schools, wealthy school districts have a ratio of seven students to one computer. Poor school districts have a ratio of 16 students to one computer. We can do something about it by taking a small portion of this tax and directing it not to the general fund but to the specific purpose of bringing our young people into the 21st century by providing computers that can be used in schools, in recreation centers, for training programs, for broad-band, for other uses. We are making a sound investment in our future. It is time that we eliminate the empty rhetoric about the digital divide and really did something about it. This is our opportunity. I hope my colleagues will defeat the previous question, allow the substitute amendments to be considered by this body and allow us to really work toward closing the digital divide that everyone is so happy to talk about.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this trade agreement. When people talk about this, the first thing they say is, we ought to have a trade agreement so we can engage with China. Well, if this theory is so smart, why do we not try with Cuba first? Because some of the same people who have dramatic opposition to engagement with Cuba, our neighbor 90 miles away, think that this is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I have severe questions about this agreement. It seems to me we have come to a point in our history where we worship at the altar of new markets to the total exclusion of all other foreign policy objectives, and I do not think that makes good sense. Let us talk about engagement. We have been engaged with China, and the report card is abysmal. They have not complied with the provisions of GATT, something that is already in place. We annually renew our trade relations with China. Let us see the results. Human rights violations continue to proliferate. They have not been reduced. We look at our trade deficit. It is the worst in the history of the United States. They outnumber us six to one in terms of our trade relationship. They have a distinct advantage in our relationship with them; our engagement with them certainly has not helped. When we look at piracy of intellectual property and when we look at every element of our relationship, we see we have not benefited from this so-called engagement. I urge rejection of the trade agreement.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the American Veterans Committee (AVC). The American Veterans Committee is an outstanding organization of American veterans with ongoing concerns and interest in our foreign policy and international affairs. I submit for the Record their International Affairs Platform and Resolutions, as prepared by the American Veterans Committee, International Affairs Commission and adopted by the American Veterans Committee (AVC) National Board at the National Board Meeting, Tuesday, August 26, 1997, with appropriate changes as of November 1999. International Affairs Platform We, the members of the American Veterans Committee (AVC), believe that in international affairs the objective of the United States of America is the maintenance of peace. All else aside, the world must avoid the holocaust of nuclear war. The end of the Cold War, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the fall of the Berlin Wall brought much hope of the avoidance of nuclear war--at least among the major powers--in the foreseeable future. Many international problems remain, and the United States has been active--along with the United Nations--in dealing with hostilities in the Middle East and the Balkan States, Central and Southeast Asia, such African states as Somalia, Rwanda and Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo), and in Central America and the Caribbean. The work of the United States has aided in establishing and restoring elective governments wherever possible. Within that framework, our foreign policy, like our domestic policy, must seek always to enhance social justice for and the welfare of the individual, in all classes and without regard to race, religion, ethnicity, language, sex, sexual orientation, or age. Our policies should strive for realization of the world envisioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a world in which all might eat and sleep in safety, live under and vote in an elective government, with realistic hope and opportunity their reasonable aspirations.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. We need a continuing resolution, an automatic continuing resolution, for one simple reason. Pause and think a moment. We were elected to run the government, not to stop the government, not to shut it down. The current structure we have in place, and this is no slap at the appropriators for whom I have a great deal of respect, masks two things. The current structure masks either our ineptitude, our failure to come to a reasonable agreement on budget agreements, or it masks our selfishness. The notion that our personal and perceived objectives are more important than the government of the United States, that it is more important that we get our way than it is that we have museums open, that we fund our military, that we send out Social Security checks, some people in this body think their decision-making is so important that it is worth shutting down the government. I disagree with that notion. I think that a continuing resolution maintains the status quo. If one feels that cutting the government is that important, continue the debate and negotiate. If they feel expanding government is important, continue that debate, but in the meantime do not shut down the government. I support the Gekas amendment.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the underlying bill. I, like many of my colleagues, am not exactly enamored by the procedural pass that brought us to this point, but I think the underlying bill has tremendous merit; and, therefore, we should move forward. This is an opportunity for us to chart a transition path from providing economic assistance to providing trade assistance to Africa, to help Africa move from economic dependence to economic self-reliance by providing a modest, and it is not a big step, but it is the right step, a modest improvement in our trade relations, modest trade opportunities for Africa. We are going to enable them to add many of their own concerns. It goes without saying this is a regional world that has been struck by both tremendous droughts and economic hardships as well as the health problems associated with the AIDS epidemic. They need help. This bill will help them help themselves. This is also an opportunity for the United States because we are not talking about international welfare. We are talking about benefiting the United States as well. This is a market of 700 million people in sub-Saharan Africa. To the extent that they are able to generate an engine of economic growth on their own soil, it creates opportunities and jobs for Americans. We need to pursue this specific course. Now, my colleagues will hear people talk about transshipment and the fact that Asian countries will merely use this as a means to evade existing trade regulations and restrictions. Not true. This bill contains very tough and stringent protections against transshipment. It is movement in a right direction in another front, and that has to do with workers' rights. In fact, unlike the China bill that we will be spending a lot of time on, this bill puts a lot of emphasis on the importance of workers' rights: The right of association, the right to organize and bargain, the right to be free of compulsory and forced labor, and minimum wage standards, things that we believe in this country, workers' rights, are an integral part of this bill. So it is a good bill on that ground. Finally, I would like to comment on the Caribbean Basin Initiative parity because it is a question of parity. It seems to me that the Caribbean nations ought to have the same parity, be on the same economic footing as Mexico. It is not a perfect arrangement, but certainly if it is an imperfect arrangement that works for Mexico, it ought to be an imperfect arrangement that works for the Caribbean countries. Again, we are in a situation where we are trying to help countries who are poor, considered ``Third World countries'' move forward in a noble economy. Certainly the Caribbean initiative provisions of this bill makes sense on those grounds. So at the end of the day what we have is a bill that is not a giant step, but is a correct step that we ought to take to improve conditions in poor Third World countries by providing them trade opportunities. I believe we ought to vote for this bill, and I strongly support it.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, recognizing my colleague's last statement, I certainly will not take the entire 5 minutes. But I do believe I would like to comment on this bill. I sat in on the committee hearing and I listened intently. This is a very important issue. Clearly, we do need more diversity of voices in the media. Mr. Chairman, at the same time, however, it came to light in the committee that there were concerns and legitimate concerns about the quality of signals and the possibility of interference. And so, the concept of a study I think makes eminent good sense. The concern I have, as has been articulated by my colleague the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), is simply this: Why should we absolutely have to come back to Congress before any action can be taken? Let us put the burden on the broadcasters to say this is a bad idea. If the study comes back and shows that we can have diverse voices think low-power radio without any significant interference, then we ought to move forward. My father is blind. He listens to the radio as his primary source of communication with the outside world and certainly wants a clear signal. But I think I also want the opportunity to have other voices heard if they could be done without interfering with my father's portable radio. With that in mind, I support this amendment. I believe it is a fair and reasonable approach that will allow us to move forward if there is no interference with the signal and allow these diverse voices.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) for yielding, and I also recognize the hard work of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in strong support of the CBC budget. The Congressional Black Caucus gives a progressive vision with an emphasis on education. We need to look to our future, and that means protecting education for our children. The CBC budget emphasizes an increase for Head Start to help our youngest children; an increase in Pell grants to help young people who are trying to go to college; and, critically, an increase in the 21st century schools programs that will enable us to provide care for young people after school to address the problem of crime and violence. This is a progressive vision of a budget that will work for all Americans. I urge support of the CBC budget.