Albert Wynn

Mr. WYNN

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

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill and I want to talk today about fiscal responsibility versus fiscal irresponsibility. Now, my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle would have you believe that this bill is just about the war effort and supporting homeland security. Let me tell you if that were true, we would have passed this bill last night. Democrats support the President's war against terrorism. Democrats support the war. Democrats support the weapons system that we need, and we certainly support homeland security since, believe it or not, we share the same homeland with my Republican colleagues. No, this debate is about the fact that the Republicans have slipped into this bill a measure to raise the debt ceiling. Let me repeat: the Republicans want to raise the debt ceiling. They want an extension of credit on the Nation's credit card. Now, what does that mean? This means that they want to raid the Social Security trust fund. They want to weaken Social Security for the baby boom generation. This also means that we will have an increase in long-term interest rates, which means that interest on home mortgages will increase. Now, the question we really ought to ask is why do we want to raise the debt ceiling? Why do they want more credit? Now, they will tell you it is the war effort, and we all ought to be behind the war effort. Let me give you the facts. Only 10 percent of the deficit is due to the war effort; 43 percent of deficit is due to the big tax cuts that the Republicans passed. Again, they are saying we have got to have an extension of credit. It is like a man whose house has a leaky roof. He comes to the credit card company and says I need an extension of credit because my roof is leaking. He ignores the fact that he bought jewels, bought furs, bought new cars and took big vacations. That is why he maxed-out his credit card. Now, they would also like you to believe that we are talking about the tax credit that most Americans got, $300 for a single person, $600 for a couple. That is not true. We are talking about the tax breaks that the Republicans gave the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. How much do they make? The wealthiest 1 percent make over a million dollars a year; and yet this year they have got $9,000 back in a tax break. Over the entire term of the tax break they will get $54,000 in tax breaks, but yet they tell you the problem is the war. The problem is not the war. The problem is the fact that we have given money to the very wealthy in this country. We should not let the Republicans hide behind the war effort to shield their irresponsibility. Democrats support our men at war. Democrats support our President and Democrats support our homeland. But we do not support fiscal irresponsibility. If they wanted to raise the debt ceiling, why hide it in a bill to support the war? Why not have an open and clean debate? They do not want to do that. They would rather slip it in. I say we should reject this bill, insist on a true war effort bill, and then insist on a clean debate on the debt ceiling because if they want to expand the credit line for the Nation's credit card, they at least ought to be up front and tell the American people why.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report to H.R. 3448, the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act. Let me take a moment and congratulate and thank our committee chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), for his outstanding work; as well as our own ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for his work; the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis); and my good friend and subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown). They have done good work in bringing this bill to the floor in the true spirit of bipartisanship. I am particularly pleased because this bill provides $1.6 billion for grants to States and local governments, the first responders of our frontline of defense, for public and private health care facilities to improve planning and preparedness activities. It will enhance laboratory capacity, educating and training for health care personnel, and develop new drugs, therapies and vaccines, all a very important task for our homeland security. This funding is particularly critical to upgrade our local health infrastructure to respond to a bioterrorism attack. I represent suburban communities just outside of Washington, D.C. After September 11, we realized how much we were on the front line. For instance, in my district in Montgomery County, Maryland, we require much-needed assistance to improve disease surveillance and also to train our local personnel, as well as to restore and improve our hospital preparedness, so this is very important to us. The measure also provides $1.5 billion of funding to expand the current stockpiles of medicines and vaccines such as smallpox. That is what people are concerned about in the area of bioterrorism, and the bill responds. Finally, the bill provides $300 million in critically important funding to upgrade and expand the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention facilities. It will allow, again, the training of personnel, particularly critical as we enter this new age; facilities improvement for combating bioterrorism in terms of upgrading the security of our labs and also, again, expanding disease surveillance. Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent bill. Again I commend our leadership on both sides of the aisle for putting it together, and I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 877.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House of Representatives is considering H.R. 3833, the ``Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002.'' I am a cosponsor of this legislation, which is important to parents and their young children exploring the Internet. This legislation makes good sense. As a parent of a 7-year-old who surfs the net, I am concerned, as many parents across this Nation are, about the unseemlier side of the Internet, which our children can be exposed to, through a couple of mouse clicks, or the misspelling of a website name. Where monitoring our children's use and installing filtering software helps, in the real world neither method is perfect. By creating the domain ``.kids.us'' and setting up guidelines on what is unacceptable in this domain, we go a long way to improving the safety of our children on the Internet. This bill creates a safe space on the Internet for our children, which is free from stalkers and free from the harmful imagery to which we do not want our children exposed. I applaud the work of the sponsors of this bill for this valuable legislation that will help make the Internet safer for our kids.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by also thanking her for her leadership in this very important effort. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his outstanding work, but I would particularly like to note the work of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) in making this legislation possible and in getting it to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, as we compensate the many families who have suffered and lost loved ones on September 11, we must never forget the American families who lost loved ones in the African embassy bombings. On August 7, 1998, two truck bombs exploded minutes apart, killing 224 people at the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The victims of the embassy bombings were killed by a madman under the same cold-blooded direction that resulted in the deaths of thousands of people on September 11: Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network. I strongly support H.R. 3375, the Embassy Employee Compensation Act, which would allow the American family members of the African embassy victims to receive compensation under the same procedure provided for the families of the victims from the September 11 attacks. The September 11 Victims Relief Fund was authorized under the aviation bailout bill enacted in September. Under that bill, the victims or the families of those killed may apply for tax-free relief from the Federal Victims Compensation Fund. Like the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund, the African Embassy Victims Compensation Act would authorize a special master established by the current victims' funds to consider appropriate compensation for the families of embassy victims under the same process as the families of the victims of September 11. Three embassy bombing victims with strong ties to Maryland lost their lives in the horrific bombing in Nairobi, Kenya. Jean Dalizu, age 60, was an executive assistant in the U.S. Liaison's Office killed in the embassy. She is survived by her son, Lawrence Hicks, a resident of Capital Heights, Maryland, in my district. Two victims from Bowie, Maryland, Consul General Julian Bartley, 55, and his son, Jay Bartley, 20, were killed in the embassy as well. Mr. Bartley had 3 decades of government service in several countries and his son was working in the embassy during the summer. Mr. Bartley had also worked as a congressional fellow on Capitol Hill which is where I met him. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 3375. We must do everything to assist the families of the African embassy bombings. While monetary compensation will not bring back the lives of loved ones, it will help families move forward. This is a case of fairness, equitable compensation but, most importantly, it is a case of compassion.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this so-called martial law rule. By definition, martial law is an improper process. I also rise in opposition to the underlying bill. In 1996, I voted for welfare reform because it made sense and it put people to work. It was a legitimate, bipartisan effort. This bill, unfortunately, moves us backwards. First of all, it is an unfunded mandate. My State of Maryland will have to pay an additional $144 million because of this bill. It requires more people working longer hours and does not provide adequate child support, and I think that is a grave mistake. Second, on the subject of child care, we have 15 million young people now who are eligible for child care under welfare reform who cannot get it. This bill makes the situation even worse. They give us a paltry $1 billion. We need $11 billion to take care of all of the young people who need child care as a result of their parents going to work. Third, they eliminate vocational education. Look, we do not need a generation of career burger boys. The object of welfare reform is to give people training so they can get into meaningful, decent, well- paying jobs. This bill will not allow them to do that. There are three good reasons to reject the underlying rule and one major reason to reject this rule, because it is martial law.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me begin by recognizing the outstanding efforts the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), our committee chairman; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), our ranking member; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), our subcommittee chairman; and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), our ranking subcommittee member. They have done an excellent job on a very important piece of legislation. As an original cosponsor, I rise to wholeheartedly support this legislation. As we discuss energy self-sufficiency and national security, we must keep in mind that nuclear energy is an important part of a balanced energy portfolio. This Nation has 103 reactors that have a unique ability to power economic growth without polluting our air. This is the only expandable, large-scale electricity source that avoids emissions. Nuclear power is reliable and affordable, with production costs lower than coal and natural gas plants. Today, nuclear energy produces 20 percent of our electricity and is essential to our national security. However, it is important to recognize that there must be permanent disposal of nuclear waste. This is a reality which must be addressed and which we are trying to deal with here today. Electricity consumers under the National Nuclear Waste Policy Act have committed $18 billion since 1983 to pay for the disposal and storage of nuclear waste. The Federal Government has spent $7 billion in this same period to study Yucca Mountain, and we are right now overdue in fulfilling our commitment to electricity consumers. In my own State of Maryland, consumers have paid $237 million into the Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund since 1983. We in the State of Maryland are expecting the Federal Government to reach a conclusion. I believe the rest of the country feels the same. Yucca Mountain is a safe site for all Americans. Currently, spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste is temporarily stored in 131 above-ground facilities in 39 States. Mr. Speaker, 161 million Americans live within 75 miles of these sites. One central site provides more protection for this material than do the existing 131 sites. After 20 years of research, billions of dollars of carefully planned and reviewed scientific field work, the Department of Energy has concluded that the repository at Yucca Mountain brings together the location, the natural barriers, and the design elements most likely to protect the health and safety of the public, including those Americans living in the immediate vicinity. Used nuclear fuel storage in current power plants is safe, but nuclear power plants are not designed for long-term disposal. Permanent disposal, permanent long-term disposal will be managed by the Federal Government under this bill. The fuel will be stored 1,000 feet underground where it will be more secure. Now, many people today have talked about transportation issues. We have empirical experience. After 45 years of experience and 3,000 shipments of used nuclear fuel by rail and by truck, no radiation releases, no fatalities, injuries or environmental damage have occurred because of the radioactivity of the cargo. The Department of Energy will coordinate transportation routes with local and State officials so local communities will not be excluded from this process. When operational, there will only be one or two shipments per day. This is the reality. This is the challenge that Congress has been asked to address. With 20 percent of our electricity produced by nuclear power plants, how do we dispose of it? We have studied it for 20 years. The American taxpayers have paid billions of dollars to have it disposed of. We have a site and we have sound science. I urge us to pass this resolution and dispose of nuclear waste. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of H. Res. 392, which expresses our solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism. It is important to stand with our friend and ally, Israel, in times of stress and turmoil. While I have great sympathy for the loss of life of innocent Palestinians, I dare say that if our hometowns were being attacked by suicide bombers--no matter what their grievance--we would respond much the same way as Israel! Witness our war in Afghanistan. Civilian casualties are the ultimate cost of terrorism and the inevitable military response it provokes. While we stand strongly with Israel, we must not confuse passing a resolution with finding workable solutions to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Congress needs to press the Administration for a resolution to the conflict. To his credit, President Clinton tried mightily in his last days of office to broker a final settlement and came very close. However, Yasser Arafat refused a deal which many leaders around the world felt was reasonable. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration did not stay the course. Neglected, the conflict festered until the events of September 11th brought it back to the forefront of U.S. foreign policy. Now that the Administration is engaged in the peace effort with Secretary Powell as our highly competent point man, we need to stay engaged. We cannot, however, go it alone. In an age of global interdependence, we will need constructive assistance from the so-called `quartet'--the U.S., EU, U.N. and Russia--to help foster a deal that is fair to both sides. We must also push moderate Arab states to play a more constructive role in the region, as Secretary Powell has begun to do. Yasser Arafat will not accept a peace agreement that the Arab world believes to be unfair to the Palestinians. Their cooperation is essential. Stephen Rosenfeld's April 30th Op-Ed in the Washington Post suggested that perhaps it is time to reconsider our strategy in the Middle East. Endgame issues such as refugees, Jerusalem and the security of Israel's border should not be relegated to some unspecified date. This strategy has only resulted in piecemeal, and ultimately, unsatisfactory agreements. These tough issues should be clarified early on so that both parties can see the full scope of a peace settlement. In addition to Israel's security, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia risk being significantly destabilized if a lasting peace agreement is not reached. Also, our objectives in dealing with Saddam Hussein are significantly complicated by the continued violence in the Middle East. Thus, while we have to stand with Israel in her fight against terrorism, we also have to stand and work for peace. It is in Israel's interest and ultimately, our own.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 378, commending the District of Columbia's National Guard, the National Guard Bureau, and the Department of Defense for their assistance provided to the United States Capitol Police following the terrorist and anthrax attacks of September and October 2001. The events of September 11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks, increased dramatically the daily workload on U.S. Capitol Police Officers, requiring them to work longer days under difficult conditions. The heightened state of emergency, coupled with the increased need for counter terrorism training, resulted in the deployment of the D.C. National Guard to patrol the Capitol complex with Capitol Police Officers. The National Guard men and women, I am proud to say, stepped up to the plate and performed admirably. The combined efforts of the United States Capitol Police and National Guard secured the symbol of our Nation, the U.S. Capitol, for Members of Congress, Congressional employees, and most importantly, the American people. As a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 378, I will vote in favor of this resolution that gives credit where credit is due--to the National Guard and U.S. Capitol Police. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished leader of our delegation, for yielding me this time; and I thank the University of Maryland. I would say that I certainly want to join with him in this resolution commending the University of Maryland Terrapins basketball team. There is a new motto in our State. It says, the University of Maryland: whether they played football in January and basketball in April. We have indeed had a very fine year, both in football and now in basketball, and we are certainly proud to honor our outstanding Terrapins basketball team and their outstanding coach, Gary Williams. I would just like to offer a word of congratulations to the also very fine University of Indiana team that put up a good fight in the championship game; but as they say, the Terrapins prevailed. Many fans say, fear the Terrapin. I would say, love the Terrapin. We have had a great season with the great support from our fans, the entire university and the entire State promoting the Terrapins, and it has been a truly wonderful and outstanding experience. I would also note the outstanding story of our star player, Juan Dixon, who represents an outstanding example of triumph over adversity. He has emerged as not only an outstanding basketball player, but also an outstanding individual and role model for an individual who started off in less than ideal circumstances and, through force of will, perseverance and commitment rose to heights of accomplishments. I again hail the University of Maryland Terrapins.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to sound the alarm, particularly for our baby boomers. This budget breaks into the Social Security trust fund, breaks into the lockbox, and raids the trust fund to the tune of $1.6 trillion. Members remember the lockbox. It was our solemn promise not to touch Social Security trust fund money. Well, that has been obliterated. My friends on the Republican side of the aisle would be quick to say, well, you have to understand, the deficit is caused by the war. Not so. Only 10 percent of our deficit is caused by the war. Almost half of that deficit is caused by tax breaks for the very rich. What happens? We raid Social Security, creating an insolvency for baby boomers about to enter retirement age. We underfund education. We make a great noise about passing the Leave No Child Behind Act. What do we do in this budget? We underfund education by 16 percent. That is not right. We talk about prescription drugs, but this budget underfunds prescription drugs for seniors. This is an unfair budget. It raids the Social Security trust fund, and it should be rejected.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to lament the late great lockbox. You remember the lockbox. That was our promise not to spend Social Security trust funds on anything other than preserving the solvency of Social Security. Well, this administration's budget breaks into the lockbox. It obliterates the lockbox. The Congressional Budget Office reports that the Republican budget spends $179 billion from the Social Security trust fund on other programs. You will hear quickly that this is because of the war. That is not true. The deficit that is forcing us to break into the Social Security trust fund, 43 percent of it is due to tax cuts, tax cuts for the very wealthy, tax cuts for corporations like Enron who stand to gain $254 million in tax breaks. I think that is wrong. When we had a surplus a year ago and when we did not have a war, tax cuts made sense. But now today, facing a war, facing a deficit, we cannot afford these tax cuts. It breaks a promise that we made to the working families of America, and I believe it is just plain wrong.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and also for his leadership along with that of our committee chairman. I rise in strong support of this measure. We often talk about American ingenuity, American innovation. Well, it is here. The only problem is it is handicapped, handicapped and handcuffed by outdated regulation that prevents the deployment of broadband, and deployment of broadband is clearly the wave of the future. Small businesses in particular will need deployment of high-speed Internet service. They will need it for large bids. They will need it for large-volume orders. They will need it to put pictures up that people can get in a quick and rapid manner so that they can sell their products. That is why we need to deploy broadband now. We also need more competition with the cable companies. Everyone talks about cable rates and talks about competition. Well, we can have competition if we pass this bill. Broadband will provide that competition. Third, we talk about the digital divide, the fact that we have two communities, some that have it and others that do not. This committee did a good job on a bipartisan basis by guaranteeing a 5-year build-out to ensure that urban as well as rural communities, poor communities as well as wealthier communities would have access to broadband Internet under this bill. I think that is a tremendous idea, and I think it argues well for this bill. We cannot afford to have businesses leave poor communities because they do not have broadband. We cannot afford to have students in poorer communities disadvantaged because they do not have broadband when their wealthier colleagues do. This is a good and balanced bill, and I hope my colleagues will adopt it. I urge strong adoption of the broadband access bill.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Let me initially say it has been a pleasure working with him. He has been very responsive to a wide variety of points of view, and he has tried to craft a compromise. I have to say tonight that I am always very disturbed when I hear people say our way is the only way, whether it comes from some sort of fanatic or whether it comes from a so-called reformer. The fact of the matter is that politics is the art of compromise, and we, in working with the Ney-Wynn amendment, have tried to fashion a serious compromise. Let us talk first about soft money. Under the current law it is reported in today's paper the top 10 contributors have given between $1.3 million and $3.6 million. Under Ney-Wynn, we first said $75,000 per contributor to the national party. In the spirit of compromise, we reduced that significantly down to $20,000 per contributor to the national party. I do not think anyone can say that this is not a significant reduction in soft money or a legitimate attempt to address the concerns, nor a legitimate attempt at compromise. In addition to that, we limited the use of the money. People said we are concerned about national party attack ads. We prohibit national party attack ads. But we do say the soft dollars, this limited amount of soft dollars, can be used for legitimate party-building activities, that political parties ought to be able to do voter registration, voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities. Those are the only uses for the limited amount of soft money used in this bill, legitimate party-building. I note particularly that minorities, African Americans, Hispanics and others, are increasing their voter participation; and as members of the two national parties, we feel it is very important that there be funds available for these get-out-the-vote activities, voter outreach activities. So, again, we believe the Ney-Wynn approach is a better compromise. On the subject of the first amendment, we do not restrict advocacy groups in terms of broadcast ads during the final 60 days of a election. That is when the voters should be paying the most attention, should be needing the most information. We want people to be able to provide that information. We do not want to infringe upon their first amendment rights. Now, you will probably hear someone say they can have ads through PAC money. Well, what if you do not have a PAC? What if your PAC does not have any money? The point is, you should not have to have a PAC in order to express your first amendment rights; and we, under Ney-Wynn, do not interfere with those rights. Finally, we do not interfere with State parties. There has been no hearings, no evidence, to suggest that State parties are not competent to regulate their own campaign financing. Ney-Wynn says let State parties regulate State party activities. There is no reason to federalize campaign fund-raising at the State level. We believe this is a fair compromise addressing soft money, party building, first amendment rights and protecting the interests of the States. We do not feel we have to be stampeded into voting for my-way- or-the-highway legislation just to avoid a conference committee. Every other piece of legislation that comes through this body goes through a conference committee. This House has the right to work its will and send it through a thoughtful compromise. I believe that is Ney-Wynn, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me the time and also for his hard work in the course of developing this issue. Let me begin by saying I take strong exception to the statements by some of the media and some of my colleagues who say that our political system is corrupt in order to advance their own ends and to pass campaign finance reform. There may be Communist dictatorships that are corrupt, there may be Third World despots that are corrupt, but I stand here today for the proposition that the Congress of the United States of America is not corrupt. There have been no indictments, no convictions to justify the essentially self-serving accusations made by some Members of this body who support campaign finance reform. We differ on issues, we have different constituencies, we have different approaches to economic prosperity. That is all fair game for debate, but I believe to call this institution corrupt is totally unjustified. It paints with a very broad and a very misguided brush. There are ways our system can be improved, but I do not hear the broadcast media or the print media calling for free air time or free ad space. The role of money in politics is not for personal gain, as would be the case if this were a corrupt government. Rather, money in American politics is a function of free speech, the ability to communicate views through the mass media. Thus the drive for campaign funds is not motivated by corruption, but rather by the necessity to pay for ad time and print space. There is certainly room for reform to reduce the amount of money in politics and to reduce broadcast attack ads by national parties. That is what many of us want to accomplish with the Ney-Wynn bill. I did an analysis under Ney-Wynn. The top 10 contributors of soft money would have contributed $21 million less than is currently allowable, but excessive bans on so-called soft money only weaken the political parties and strengthens the influence of wealthy individuals and candidates while reducing the role of our national parties. Next, consider the right of free speech by issue advocates, whether liberal or conservative or even moderate. This is unconstitutionally restricted under the Shays-Meehan bill during the most critical time just before the election, 60 days before the election. This is not only unconstitutional, I submit that it defies common sense and our supposed goal of promoting an informed electorate. National political parties have an important core function in terms of get out the vote, voter education and voter registration. These functions are critical to both party building and to ensure greater participation in our political process. This is particularly important for minority groups, African Americans, Hispanics, and others, and these functions should not be relegated to so-called other groups whose agenda we are not aware of, but who may, in fact, represent special interests. These are functions the parties should perform. Moreover, the Shays-Meehan bill restricts State political parties. I submit the States can regulate political activity within their borders. We should not be federalizing elections. Finally, let me conclude by saying that self-appointed reformers suggest that Shays-Meehan would solve the Enron problem. That is patently absurd. Campaign finance reform would not have enabled Enron to avoid bankruptcy. Campaign finance reform would not have saved those employees and investors from losing their money. It is totally misleading to suggest that Shays-Meehan would have or could prospectively solve the Enron problem. What we do know is Enron, Arthur Andersen and the accounting industry gave politicians, Senators and House Members lots of hard money. Shays- Meehan does not get rid of hard money; therefore, these direct contributions would continue. But we also know that our system works because disclosure exists. Disclosure allowed us to know who got what, who got how much, and ultimately it allows the voters to make the decisions, not the reformers. That is the way our system should work. I urge adoption of the rule, rejection of Shays-Meehan and the adoption of a compromise approach that would protect national parties, restrict soft money and not interfere with the States. That is the Ney- Wynn substitute.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and also for his outstanding leadership on this issue. I rise in strong support of Israel's fight against terrorism. The blood of combatants is unfortunate but understandable. The blood of innocents is intolerable and unacceptable. Today, we deal with that blood; and we first have to say that we must not have and shed the blood of innocents on either side. Now, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) correctly made the distinction that sometimes in the course of collateral damage innocent Palestinian blood has been shed, and we must say in all sincerity that that is truly a tragedy. But today we address a different situation, the targeted and deliberate shedding of innocent blood of Israelis, Israeli youth in many instances; and that is unacceptable. But it is not enough to come down here today and condemn from afar. I think we also have to today say, in addition to the fact that we condemn terrorism, we have to examine our role as a country, our foreign policy. We cannot stand on the sidelines. We have to have more engagement. We have to press for a workable and serious cease-fire. We have to continue the peace process, because it is only through the peace process that we can end the shedding of innocent blood. And we have to have accountability for individuals and countries, some of whom are our allies, who tolerate, incite, and ignore the proposals of hatred within their own borders. Because it is this cycle of hatred that really causes the violence that we decry today. So we need to both condemn today the terrorism that caused these tragic deaths and also look inside our own foreign policy to see how we can do more to combat this problem that is affecting the Middle East today.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the rule to H.R. 3338, the Defense Appropriations bill. The rule precludes the House from considering the Obey amendment, which would provide needed increased funding for homeland security. While the underlying bill does increase funding for homeland security, it simply does not go far enough. It is homeland security on the cheap. The rule precludes the Obey amendment, which, among other things, would provide $150 million in grants for local firefighting units. In addition, the bill does not provide adequate funding to help local governments meet their increased police and emergency personnel needs since September 11th. This rule does not allow for increased funding for local law enforcement that is critical for the protection of Americans across the country. Since September 11th, local governments have been carrying most of the burden of responding to the increased security and emergency needs of our citizens that include: periodic lengthened shifts, additional patrols at sensitive facilities and structures, and responding to the growing number of false alarms and hoaxes. This results in a higher rate of overtime for governments in order to pay for security and emergency personnel. These important responsibilities fall on local governments who had tight budgets prior to September 11th. Now they are even tighter. The federal government must provide aid to local governments to insure that our first responders remain one of our strongest links. Moreover, the bill does not provide any additional funds to increase port security. The Obey amendment would have provided an additional $200 million in grants for port security upgrades. We must provide security measures at seaports to prevent the shipment of bombs and weapons of mass destruction through our seaports. The bill does not provide increased funding to secure our vitally important Strategic Petroleum Reserves. The Obey Amendment would have provided $5 million to secure our petroleum reserves. Several weeks ago, with the Administration's support, Congress passed a resolution urging the Secretary of Energy to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to its full capacity. It defies logic for us to spend the money filling this vital reserve without securing the facilities that store the petroleum. As we address threats on our homefront, we should also be fully prepared to fight an asymmetric war abroad. We must, therefore, take all steps necessary to reduce U.S. casualties, which requires minimizing incidents of friendly fire. The Automatic Acoustic Target Recognition programs, not fully funded in the bill, involves the identification of aircraft and vehicles by the background acoustic signature obtained from intercepted radio transmissions or proximate ground sensors. The program contributes to the detection of troop and vehicle movements, the proper identification of aircraft and vehicles to prioritize fire control and to prevent friendly fire casualties. When this bill goes to conference, I urge the conferees to do everything they can to save the lives of U.S. military troops and fully fund this program. I urge my colleagues to reject the rule. We must not fund the war against terrorism on the cheap. We must recognize our needs at home and abroad and that means adequately assisting local first responders, securing our vital resources, securing our ports, and minimizing the loss of U.S. military personnel.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This is a bad rule, specifically in the area of homeland security, because it forces us to provide homeland security on the cheap. What they do in this rule is block the Obey amendment. That means they block an additional $150 million for local firefighters. It is not just about what the President says, it is what local governments needs. They need firefighter money, they need money for local police. They are paying for overtime, lengthened hours, special security details, protecting facilities, and they need additional resources. We also need more money for our port security and we need money to protect our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That is blocked in this rule. We can have a better rule. We can have real homeland security. Oppose the rule. It is a bad rule.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the ``Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act of 2001'', a bill I am proud to cosponsor. Mr. Speaker, most pharmaceuticals have not been tested and labeled for pediatric safety and use. We've heard it time and time again, children are not small adults. With that in mind, why would we cut an adult dosage of medication in half and assume it's appropriate for treating a child's condition? It isn't, and that is why this legislation is so important. This legislation re-authorizes a program that has proven to be the most effective way to generate studies of medications in children. Before the law was passed, 80 percent of drugs given to children had been tested only on adults. Since then, 60 studies have been conducted to assess the safety and effectiveness of medicines used in children, and another 400 are under way. Physicians who prescribe medications for children, and parents who administer them, now have more information about appropriate dosages, as well as, the side effects of medications in the pediatric population. It has truly been a remarkable achievement for children's health. As part of the authorization of these ``pediatric exclusivity'' provisions, FDA was required to submit a report to Congress describing the results of the program and commenting on its success. FDA's report, submitted in January, stated that an unprecedented number of pediatric studies had been conducted and crucially important new pediatric labels were improving medical care for children. According to a GAO study, ``as of April 1, 2001, 28 drugs had been granted marketing exclusivity extensions, and research results have provided new and useful information about how drugs work in children, which have been incorporated into labels for 18 drugs.'' This information, previously unavailable to parents and doctors, includes new information about dosing, important new safety considerations, extension of dosing, safety, and efficacy data to younger patients, along with development of age-appropriate formulations. Because Congress was uncertain as to whether this program would be successful, it chose to ``sunset'' the provisions at the end of calendar year 2001. It is now time to re-authorize this highly successful program, to ensure that its accomplishments continue and that pediatric studies and labeling for many more drug products will be achieved. The 6-month period of exclusivity assures priority of pediatric studies, and helps to justify establishing infrastructure necessary for doing pediatric studies. The exclusivity has been the primary driver in building capacity and expertise in pediatric drug development. The ability of a pediatric research program to pursue unique pediatric illnesses, and pediatric-predominant diseases is dependent on such R&D resource allocations. As a proud cosponsor of H.R. 2887, I encourage all of my colleagues to follow Representative Eshoo's leadership in supporting the continuation of this successful research program.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution to express my appreciation for Turkey's offer to provide special forces in support of Operation Enduring Freedom--the war against terrorism. As a member nation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization located closest to Afghanistan, Turkey is the first Muslim country to offer direct military participation in Operation Enduring Freedom. Turkey's offer is further proof that our coalition against terror is not a war against Islam, but a war against evil. Mr. Speaker, during this critical time of international cooperation, it is encouraging to see Turkey, a key Muslim ally, offer to join forces with our forces to combat a heinous world evil--terrorism. I welcome this offer and urge the passage of this resolution.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by acknowledging the gentleman's hard work, and as a matter of fact the hard work on both sides of the aisle. I think both the chairman and the ranking member worked very hard, and it was a well-intentioned effort. Unfortunately, I have to take exception to the product that the House passed calling itself airport security. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the motion to instruct. I think we all do. We want to move quickly on this matter, and certainly by the end of this week we ought to have it resolved. As I said, I do not believe the House product is the one that ought to be adopted. We have seen a virtual litany of security breaches over the last months. We would think that after September 11, that the private agencies that my Republican colleagues would like to rely on would have tightened up their ships. That has not been the case. On October 23 out of New Orleans, a gun was brought on. Last week, at Kennedy Airport, there were massive breaches of security. Then this past weekend at Chicago Airport, a stun gun, seven knives, and a can of mace, through private security. Mr. Speaker, my colleague interestingly says this redundancy at O'Hare shows that the system worked. Let me pose a question: What if the person who got through the first level of private security had used those weapons, those knives, that stun gun, that mace? We could have had the loss of life. We could have had serious injury. The fact of the matter is, private security has not worked. If we want good screeners, we have to have good pay. We have to have benefits. It is clear that private companies, looking at the bottom line, will not provide this kind of pay, this kind of benefit, and provide us with the kind of quality screeners that we need. If airport screening is truly an important job, and it absolutely is, we should have Federal employees out of the Justice Department performing this task. Members will hear that we ought to adopt the European model. Clearly, the European model is not comparable. In Europe, each country perhaps has two or three airports. In this country, we have ten times that many. We cannot compare ourselves with the European model that in fact has not worked as efficiently as some of my Republican colleagues would suggest. What we do know is this: eighty-two percent of the American public wants a federalized security force. The Senate voted 100 to nothing for security at a Federal level. We ought to adopt a federalized security system, and we ought to do it quickly.