Albert Wynn

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, every summer, particularly in election years, Republicans run down to the well and they give us their usual, a big tax break, as though that were the answer to all the problems. They insult the intelligence of many American people. First, as usual, when we look behind the rhetoric, what we see is a tax break that basically benefits the very wealthy. But this year it is even worse because this is a fiscally irresponsible tax break that undermines our economy and creates higher deficits. We on the Democratic side of the aisle have an alternative. We believe, number one, we need long-term solutions, not short-sighted and short-thinking solutions. We need solutions that, number one, protect Social Security. We need solutions that, number two, can pay down the debt. When we pay down the debt the American people get a real bonus, they get lower interest rates, which helps them with buying houses and buying cars. That is what really matters. We need to pay down the debt, help families, help small businesses. And, third, we need to strengthen Medicare. Now, we will not hear the Republicans say a thing about Medicare. We can strengthen Medicare and provide a prescription drug benefit for our senior citizens. That is the long-term solution, not the short-sighted solution the Republicans are offering.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the Patients' Bill of Rights. As my colleagues know, health care in America works real well until we get sick or until we grow old. Then HMOs begin to tell us, ``Well, your concerns don't meet our criteria.'' or ``We're not going to refer you to the specialist that you need to see.'' or ``The person who is reviewing your case is not in; he's on vacation.'' Then our system breaks down critically. People are concerned about access to specialists. Sixty-two percent of the American population say they have a problem with HMOs because they cannot get access to needed specialists. ``Your specialist is not in our network.'' That is what we often hear. We need a Patients' Bill of Rights. We need to guarantee access to specialists. We need to guarantee redress in the courts when HMOs make decisions that hurt our health. We need to have a deterrent which says if they deny people access to specialists, if they deny people access to care, then they can be brought to a court of law, and they can be made to pay for it. That not only gives the victim a remedy, it gives the HMOs a strong incentive to provide high quality care.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise to take strong exception to this amendment. I represent the neighboring jurisdiction, the State of Maryland, and ironically enough, in concept, I agree with the gentleman. In our State we have those rights, and there is nothing wrong with it. But this amendment is wrong, because fundamentally it infringes on the rights of local government to make their own decisions. If the District of Columbia were a State, any other State, the gentleman would never consider imposing the will of this body on a State. They would argue States rights. In this cases it should be local jurisdictions' rights. The District of Columbia Council, in their wisdom, have made the decision that they want to ban handgun possession. I think we should respect that. We should not continue to treat the District of Columbia as a colony and treat it at our whim. We should honor and respect the local officials and local jurisdictions.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about gun safety and to pose the question, What policy will make us safer? Today in Congress we will debate the issue of gun safety and, most importantly, closing the loophole with respect to gun shows. The issue will be this: Should we be allowed to do a 3-day background check on people who buy guns or should we have a watered-down version that only allows 24 hours? Law enforcement officials such as the FBI say they need 3 days because sometimes there are thousands of Johnsons and Smiths that they have to run through their computers. What will make us safer: Taking the 3 days to do a thorough background check so a felon or someone with mental instability does not get a gun, or rushing through for the sake of convenience and letting literally thousands of felons get guns? These gun shows do not occur at neighborhood arenas or fairgrounds. Oftentimes it is somebody in a pickup truck who shows his guns at a small community. There is nothing wrong with that, but they should have adequate background checks. We have an opportunity to do it today. Madam Speaker, I urge us to vote for sound, fair, sensible gun control.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud The Republic of China on Taiwan for generously offering $300 million in humanitarian aid to the Kosovo refugees. President Lee Teng-hui's considerate offer is representative of Taiwan's commitment to protecting and promoting human rights and fulfilling its responsibilities as a member of the international community. The Republic of China on Taiwan is faced with Chinese Communist aggression on a daily basis and experiences first hand the threat of aggression. Through their aid contribution to the Kosovo refugees, the Republic of China on Taiwan serves as an example to the international community that with generosity and kindness toward their fellow human beings, peace can be achieved worldwide. The $300 million aid package includes emergency support for food, shelters, medical care, and education, as well as short term job training for some Kosovar refugees in Taiwan. Moreover, Taiwan has sponsored a humanitarian mission to the refugee camps in the Balkans in which Kosovars were supplied with essential relief items. This aid package certainly comes at an opportune time. As the Serb troops begin their pullout, many stranded refugees in the Kosovo mountains are in dire need of food, clothing and shelter. This assistance will contribute directly to their needs and will be critical in the uphill battle of rebuilding their homes. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in commending the Taiwan government for its efforts to promote peace in the Balkans and assist in the safe return of nearly one million Kosovars to their homeland.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud and honored to be a part of this effort to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Ms. Rosa Parks. Ms. Parks is a hero to the Nation because of a simple act of defiance. She refused to give up her bus seat in the ``colored'' section to a white passenger after a long day at work on December 1, 1955. At that time, segregated institutions were accepted as the way of life in Montgomery, AL, and throughout the South. Yet, this day was different. The weary Ms. Parks, on her way home from a department store where she was employed as an assistant tailor, decided that her rights as a human being--in this case the right to rest her tired feet--were the same as anybody else's, regardless of her color. Ms. Parks probably did not consider her actions extraordinary. After being arrested and then being released on bail, Rosa Parks agreed to allow her attorney to use her case as the focus for a struggle against the system of segregation. In December of 1956--just 1 year later--the Supreme Court ruled the segregation of buses in Montgomery, AL, unlawful. Through her single act of civil disobedience, Rosa Parks triggered a monumental movement in America for both civil and human rights. Because of her personal conviction, Rosa Parks is a true hero, not a glamorized figure on a pedestal that our society often promotes, but just an ordinary citizen with extraordinary courage. She serves as a living example to us all that someone has to take a stand for what is right, even if it means taking the risk of being inconvenienced. I am particularly pleased that we are honoring her, not posthumously, but while she still can ``smell her roses.''

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for allowing me this opportunity to speak on this measure. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this measure, and I also would like to compliment the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for her leadership as well. This is not just about competition. This is not just about economic interests. This is also about people and neighborhoods and livability. It is about noise. One of the issues that I want to talk about is the increased level of noise associated with increased flights. Lest my colleagues think this is an all-Illinois battle, I hasten to add that Reagan National Airport impacts the citizens of my district along the Potomac in Maryland. We are already in negotiations with the FAA over the noise problem affecting my constituents. Now, we understand that we have to have flights, and we understand that commerce must continue, but it seems to me that there ought to be a reasonable balance and a fair consideration given to the concerns of Joe Citizen. What the citizens are saying is that they cannot enjoy their homes because of frequent flights. They cannot enjoy their homes because of cracked walls due to airport noise. They cannot enjoy their homes when their furniture and their artifacts rattle across the dining room table. What they are saying to us is we need to control the increase of air flights coming into their community. That is what this amendment does. It enables us to consider the interests of the average citizen as we determine our national policy. Reagan National Airport is unique. Unlike many airports that are far outside the city limits, those of us in Congress, of course, know Reagan National Airport is practically in Washington. That is how we make our flights home, those of us who have to leave. That means that it impacts a lot of communities. To add additional flights to this airport is particularly onerous because it affects citizens of the District, citizens from northern Virginia, citizens in Maryland, and it affects them in an unfair way that is not necessary. We have a reasonable balance under the existing law. We ought to maintain that and continue to work to take into consideration the interests of Joe Citizen.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Templeton Elementary School, located in my Congressional District in Riverside, Maryland, for being named a National Blue Ribbon School. Templeton Elementary has a diverse enrollment of approximately 750 students with just over 70% coming from low income households. This Blue Ribbon Award bestowed upon Templeton Elementary School by the U.S. Department of Education is a tribute to the school's academic accomplishments. Working within the tenants that ``learning is valuable, respect is essential, communication is vital, consistent attendance is necessary, and teachers and parents must form a partnership to ensure student success,'' the students, parents and dedicated staff have demonstrated what is possible through their collective efforts. Despite having a high percentage of children from low income homes and being within a school system with severe financial constraints, this school has excelled. Templeton serves as a model of the odds that can be overcome through both commitment and dedication.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to support sensible gun safety legislation to protect our young people. We have a lot of problems in this country and espionage is one of them, but the most pressing problem we have today is gun violence. We need to pass sensible gun safety legislation now. First, we need to pass child safety locks, so that babies and young people cannot get ready access to guns and have accidents of tragic consequences. Second, we need background checks at pawn shops and at gun shows, so thugs cannot buy guns off the market and then sell them in our communities to our young people. Third, we need to ban these high-capacity ammunition clips that are imported into our country. This is not the movie Matrix. We are not having gunfights with drug lords on the streets. The average citizen has a right to have a gun, and I believe that, but we in Congress have a responsibility to enact sensible gun control. The second point I want to make this morning is we need to do it now. This is not rocket science. We need to move on gun control legislation this week, before we go home.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall vote No. 97 and subsequent votes due to a bout with pneumonia that resulted in a stay in the hospital. I have listed each missed vote below and how I would have voted on each measure had I been present. Rollcall votes: No. 97 ``yes''; No. 98 ``yes''; No. 99 ``no''; No. 100 ``no''; No. 101 ``no''; No. 102 ``no''; No. 103 ``yes''; No. 104 ``yes''; No. 105 ``yes''; No. 106 ``yes''; No. 107 ''yes''; No. 108 ``yes''; No. 109 ``yes''; No. 110 ``no''; No. 111 ``yes''; No. 112 ``no''; No. 113 ``yes''; No. 114 ``no''; No. 115 ``yes''; No. 116 ``no''; No. 117 ``no''; No. 118 ``yes''; No. 119 ``no''; No. 120 ``yes''.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 472. Mr. Speaker, this is not the way we ought to go in terms of doing the most important job we have, which is counting the American public. Obviously, the census determines the allocation of resources across our country. What do we know? We know the last time we tried to do this we had numerous mistakes. We missed 8 million people. We double counted 4 million people. We are trying to correct this, and the scientific community says that the most accurate method for counting Americans is through statistical sampling. Why is that relevant today? Because this bill, sometimes described as a Trojan horse, will say that we will give local communities opportunity for participation. The effect of this bill is to deny the Census Bureau the opportunity to conduct statistical sampling. What happens is the resources needed in time for sampling are drained away by local participation. But because local participation always sounds like a good idea, they think they can get away with it. Under current law we can have local participation, and we should have it. Enhanced participation is provided for under current law. In addition, the Democrats are supporting the Maloney amendment which would provide enhanced local participation. We can have local participation, we should have statistical sampling, we should not have this bill.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his outstanding leadership as we debate the budget. This has been a very good debate because I think it highlights the differences between the two parties, and it gives the American people an opportunity to make some very fundamental choices. On the one hand, the Democrats are saying that there are some very real and large problems in this country that need attention, problems like Social Security and extending the solvency of the Social Security program, problems like Medicare, extending solvency there, and problems like education, which needs our serious national attention. On the other hand, the Republicans offer us the panacea of tax cuts, tax cuts that largely go to the wealthy. What happens in the Republican budget is this, the poor and the middle class count their tax breaks in terms of tens and hundreds. The wealthy count their tax breaks in terms of 10,000s. These tax breaks that they talk about do not add to the solvency of Social Security by one day. They do not add to the solvency of Medicare by one day, nor do they address any of the education problems we have in this country. These tax cuts do not give us a single teacher. They do not give us a single additional classroom. Point of Order

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I understand the objection. I think it is more the gentleman does not like what I am saying as opposed to the relevancy of what I am saying.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair specify what is the objection of the gentleman to the statement I am making?

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, the point I was making is that in the context of debate on national policy, there must be areas of comparison and contrast. I was attempting to establish a contrast between the Democratic approach and the Republican approach. They have now brought up a straw man and claimed this is what they are advocating, when actually they wanted to use the President's budget as a vehicle upon which to punch, a vehicle that we Democrats are not talking about. We Democrats are talking about a specific vehicle which I am in fact addressing, a vehicle that addresses Medicare, Social Security and education. Now, I do not see how that is not relevant, but I can see how it might be disturbing to my Republican colleagues. The point is we have an important opportunity today to make a choice: a Republican approach that wants to hit a straw man and produce tax benefits for the very wealthy; or a Democratic approach that is fundamentally sound and addresses the key problems of America today. I think we ought to opt for the Democratic approach.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the resolution. The only problem with being a world leader is that sometimes we have to lead. In the first instance, leadership requires patience, and in that context, although I strongly support the resolution, I believe it is premature. We have representatives in the region attempting to negotiate a framework for peace. We should not be debating whether or not we are going to intervene at this point. Having said that, I do support our intervention in the context of this resolution. It seems to me that leadership also requires taking some risk and also adopting some unpopular positions. I do not think anyone is cavalier about putting American troops in harm's way, but the fact remains that if we are going to support peace around the world, if we are going to try to maintain and promote an environment for peace, we have to get involved. Amendments later today will set parameters for our involvement. We are not talking about an extensive involvement. We are talking about a limited involvement, with the limited use of American troops. The fact remains we are a world leader. We are a leader in NATO, and if we want to maintain that position of leadership, we cannot back away, we cannot cut and run when we are confronted with an unpopular situation. Some will say in the course of this debate, we do not know what the objective is. The objective is abundantly clear. We are trying to maintain a framework for peace and maintain an environment for peace. We are trying to prevent genocide. Thirdly, we are trying to prevent the spread of this violence throughout the region, which could lead to even greater catastrophe. This is not a popular situation. This is a situation that calls for American leadership. I think we should proceed on that assumption, allow U.S. troops to be involved to a limited extent in the context of a negotiated treaty. I hope people will rise above narrow concerns and take a broader view. We used to have a notion that Americans were about preserving world peace. I think we should continue to adopt that position.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller-Kildee amendment. One thing should be very clear in this debate. Flexibility is not an end, it is a means to an end. I think some of my colleagues get so wrapped up in the notion of flexibility that they think that that is really the problem. The problem is educational attainment. We got into this business because in the recent international tests, we found American students scoring below the international average, and we said we need to get serious about improving educational performance by all American students. We are prepared to spend $50 billion over the next 5 years to address this problem. But the issue is not just flexibility, the issue is also accountability. How can we assure that the money we spend actually results in improved performance? Now, I am from one of the 12 States that had this experiment. I am from Maryland, and Maryland officials, the Superintendent of Schools for the State of Maryland supports the Miller-Kildee amendment, because we understand that we must have stringent accountability. Not just accountability in name, and not just accountability in rhetoric, but accountability with real teeth. There are several things that need to happen. There needs to be some specific assessment, goals and assessment vehicles. We use a set of tests in the third, fifth and eighth grade to accomplish this objective. Now, I hear my colleagues saying, well, each State is different. That is true. We do not tell the State how to do it; what we tell the State is, you present us with a plan, your plan, for how you want to achieve these results, and I emphasize results. What are going to be your goals, and what are going to be your mechanisms. Now, some people say, well, we can pull the plug in 2 years. Well, that could be 2 years of wasted money if we do not have stringent assessment tools, goals and mechanisms on the front end, and that is simply all the Miller amendment is saying, is that we need to be serious about accountability, because we are spending the taxpayers' dollars, not just for some elusive goal of flexibility, but for some real, tangible performance results. Second, the Miller-Kildee amendment says that when we spend this money, it has to benefit all students, not just some students, or not just the overall aggregate. We need to know what black students are doing, what Hispanic students are doing, what poor students are doing, what female students are doing. It specifically says, you must aggregate your data so that even if your State is making progress, we want to see how female students are doing in math and science, we want to see how Latino students are doing in specific subject matters; are African-American students learning to read with the money the Federal Government is spending. So this is not an outrageous or an intrusive amendment. It is a perfecting amendment that takes the concept of flexibility, which I support, and says, we need to get serious about flexibility. I believe the Miller-Kildee amendment addresses these concerns in an effective, nondestructive way and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute Maryland's 1999 Mother of the Year Mary Curtis Aranha. She will represent Maryland at the national convention of American Mothers, Inc. (AMI) in Honolulu, Hawaii, on April 27, 1999, where a national Mother of the Year will be selected--a practice that began in 1935 with Sara Delano Roosevelt. A resident of Capitol Heights, MD and my constituent, she has been cited by Governor Parris Glendening for her devotion to her family as well as her tireless efforts on behalf of the education and moral development of other children and families throughout Maryland. As Principal of Benjamin Foulois Traditional Academy, she introduced a program of character education and mother mentoring that has inspired emulation in many Maryland communities and has received national recognition. She now leads Maryland's Office of Character Education where she combines both her professional and volunteer efforts on behalf of children and families. AMI, founded in 1933, the official sponsor of Mothers Day, is the sponsor of the Mother-of-the-Year program where outstanding mothers from all walks of life and ethnic, racial and socio-economic backgrounds in America's 50 states and the District of Columbia are honored as representative of the ``best in the state''. The organization which has chapters in local communities throughout America provides outreach programs that enhance the growth and well-being of families. Mr. Speaker, please join me in cheering Mary Curtis Aranha, Maryland's 1999 Mother of the Year.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the Democratic proposal on education and specifically the modernization of our schools. Improving education in America requires all levels of government to pull their load. Today, local and State school systems are working very hard to improve education, but there is a Federal role. We ought to be providing assistance to local school districts who are trying to modernize their schools. This problem takes on many faces. Perhaps the most obvious one is the face of temporary buildings in front of school systems. We have lots of temporary buildings that were supposed to be there for 1 year. They are now there for 10 and 15 years, and they are proliferating. They are growing these little pods. It is almost like Monopoly to see these little toy schoolrooms being built. We need to address that problem. We have systems that have major ventilation problems and major heating system problems and major air conditioning problems and leaking roofs, and we need to address that problem as well. And we have school systems that lack modern technology. Over half the schools in this country are not wired to assume the technology that exists today. We need to modernize our schools. We need the Democratic plan.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, now that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have finished beating up on the President, perhaps we can deal with the real business of America. The most important issue facing us is what to do about Social Security. We will hear my colleagues talk about big government and bad government, but the reality is that it was the government and the Democrats in Congress who gave us Social Security. We need to take strong steps to ensure its solvency. The Democrats, along with President Clinton, have laid out a reasonable framework which says we will save the surplus for Social Security. Sixty-two percent of the surplus should go to preserving Social Security through the year 2055. In addition, we want to save Medicare. We want to take an additional 15 percent of the surplus to make sure that Medicare remains solvent through the year 2025. We have put forth on the table a framework for addressing the problems that really confront America, addressing the problems of our growing senior citizen population. On the Republican side, they are still trying to figure out what they want to do on tax cuts, tax cuts for the very wealthy. We can spend money on our seniors or we can spend it on the very wealthy.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to talk about the major problem facing American society, and that is how we deal with our aging population. I believe that the American population wants us to deal with the real problems, and that is Social Security and Medicare, and we must put that first. That is what the Democrats are proposing, that we solve the problem of Social Security first. Now, on the Republican side of the aisle we have a reincarnation of that old TV show, ``Tax Relief for the Rich.'' How can we figure out a way to give more money to the wealthy? The public should not be fooled. This is not an across-the-board tax break. Look, if you are in the middle class, the average return that you will see is about $100. Sixty percent of Americans will only get a tax return of $100. But if you make over $300,000, you will get $20,000. Who benefits from this so-called tax increase? The very wealthy. And that is the theme that the Republicans have repeatedly put forth: Tax relief for the wealthy, or as I like to call it, Robin Hood in reverse. We should put Social Security first and deal with the real problems of American society.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I certainly yield back to the ranking member.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the ranking member for yielding. (Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to these articles of impeachment. We are perhaps at one of the lowest points in American politics. We are in the midst of a parliamentary coup. The party in the majority want to remove an elected president. And that is the parliamentary system. That is not the democratic system. They are doing so without legitimacy. Legitimacy demands bipartisanship. There is no bipartisanship on the floor today, simply the will of this majority to drive out this President, a true parliamentary coup. This debate has brought out some of the worst features of man. I have to say it. First of all, hypocrisy. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Second, unfairness. The Members of this body on both sides would like to vote on a censure resolution. The Republican majority will not allow that. The American people believe censure is an appropriate response. The Republican majority will not allow that. And third, there is a very unseemly obsession with this matter to the exclusion of what used to be called the war effort. It used to be we got behind our young men and women, we focused on what they were doing. This crowd now believes that their partisan agenda is more important. At the bottom, this is about sex. Now, the Republicans also jump up and say, no, it is about lying. Well, even if you accept the allegations that they are making, it is about lying about sex. That is not an impeachable offense. If, in fact, they want to make the argument that this is about the rule of law, then the President is not above the rule of law, the President can be prosecuted. Do not believe the President can escape prosecution for these offenses in a court of law. The President can be prosecuted after he leaves office. The Founding Fathers left to us the question of impeachment, which is not legal; it is a political exercise which we are engaged in today. Unfortunately the Republicans have lost all sense of proportion of judgment. They talk about law, but they do not talk about justice. Justice looks at the situation and fits the sanction to the crime. In this instance we do not have high crimes and misdemeanors, we have low crimes and misdeeds. In truth, we ought to have the sanction option, we ought to look at another way to respond to the situation, but we do not have that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, this crowd, this Republican leadership is forcing us to remove the President, and that is a tragedy, and that is in fact a low point in American politics.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Representative Thomas J. Manton for fourteen years of service to the citizens of the United States and New York City. Congressman Manton departs Congress with the respect and admiration of his colleagues for his accomplishments and dedication to our nation. Congressman Manton's life truly is a shining example of the American Dream. He was born in 1932 to Irish immigrant parents and grew up in New York City. He graduated from St. John's University and St. John's Law School. After being admitted into the bar in 1963, Congressman Manton served in the United States Marine Corps as a flight navigator and as an officer in the New York City Police Department. Eventually however, he practiced law as a senior partner in a Queens law firm. Recognizing the chance to continue serving the public, Congressman Manton successfully ran for the House of Representatives in 1984 and for seven consecutive terms has honorably served our nation. Since coming to this legislative body, he has served on the House Committees on Banking, Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House Administration and, for the past ten years, on the Commerce Committee. Needless to say, he has had many achievements, including championing the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1990, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Financial Services Reform. Also, as Co-Chairman of the Congressional Ad-Hoc Committee on Irish Affairs, he has been a strong voice for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. Congressman Manton was instrumental in the implementation of the McBride Principles and the recent Good Friday Irish Peace Accord. Mr. Speaker, since entering this body six years ago, it has been an honor and privilege serving with Congressman Manton. His work for the 7th District of New York has been outstanding, and his constituents can be proud of his tireless efforts on their behalf. I wish him success in his future pursuits and happiness in the years to come.