Albert Wynn

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 3150, the Secure Transportation for America Act, and express my strong support for the Democratic alternative. Today, we face a critical choice in aviation security--private profit versus public safety. Private airport security firms failed the American people on September 11th and continue to fail to provide adequate security for our nation's airports. For instance, on Tuesday October 23rd, a 68-year-old man departing from the New Orleans airport was able to carry a gun onto an airplane without setting off alarms. Similarly, in late September, a 63-year-old man made it through a checkpoint with a pistol in his pocket. This is unacceptable! Private airport security companies are concerned with profits. They have cut corners and hired the least qualified workers as cost-saving measures. Subsequently, private firms have failed to conduct background checks and have hired felons. In the face of this crisis, we do not have the time, nor the luxury, of ``monitoring'' a failed private system. Some argue that we should follow the ``effective'' European model of airport security that consists of private contractors. Our system has more than 400 airports and requires 20-30,000 screeners. In contrast, a typical European country has only three or four airports with no uniform security standards from country to country. Moreover, people who argue that the European system works well are wrong. Reports indicate that last month, a nine-inch knife, a sharp metal nail file, and even a 12-inch knitting needle bypassed security and were taken on British Airways flights. Similarly, people argue that we should follow the Israeli model of airport security, which consists mainly of public security and some private security. The Israeli model, however, is effective because nearly all of its security personnel, public and private, served in the Israeli Defense Force and are well oriented and trained in security issues. In contrast, our general workforce proportionally does not contain as many workers with rich security backgrounds. Nearly all, 82 percent, favor the federalization of airport security, while at the same time, the United States Senate voted 100-0 to federalize airport security. The choice before us is obvious-- federalize the workers. Our economy is failing in large part because people are not flying. People are not flying because they are not confident in our airport security. And, people are not confident in our airport security because of significant security lapses on and since September 11th. Americans understand that in order to fully restore consumer confidence in air travel, we must restore consumer confidence in the security system that protects them. Today, we face a critical decision. We must opt for a public system that works. Federalize our nation's airport security and protect the American people.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. The question is quite simple. Why have we not passed an airline security bill? Why have we not passed an airline security bill? After the events of September 11, we were very quick to rush in with a $15 billion bailout for the airlines because they needed to reassure people. They needed to keep flying. We need our airline industry. We did that. Then we came back with another $40 billion to help repair our torn city of New York and the Pentagon. That was fine. Today we came in with the real blockbuster, over $100 billion in so- called stimulus, basically giving tax breaks to special interests and the very rich. For example, 86 percent of the benefits of the stimulus package went to the very rich. We gave $20 billion in tax breaks to corporations by repealing the alternative minimum tax. They got a retroactive tax break of $20 billion. We also gave $20 billion in tax benefits for overseas corporations for financial services companies. What is that all about? My point is we have given away large sums of money in the form of tax breaks in the name of stimulus to our big corporations. They have been at the trough, but we still have not dealt with the question of airline security. We are actually working at cross purposes. We are trying to stimulate the economy while people are still fearful. Why are they fearful? Because the American public knows that we have not addressed the fundamental question of making sure that they are safe and secure when they fly on our Nation's airlines. We have not addressed the problem that the people who check baggage, who have the most important job of ensuring that destructive devices are not brought on airlines are underpaid, undertrained and ill- equipped. We have not addressed the fundamental problem that this is not a Federal security force, but rather a private sector force that is basically predicated on the bottom line, paying the least to cover airline security. That is a travesty. What do the polls say that the traveling public is insecure? The polls say that the traveling public is insecure because they see inconsistencies. We see effective checkout in one airport, significantly less effective checkout in another airport. Effective checkout going, but not coming. They recognize this insecurity for what it is. The fact that we do not have uniform standards and we do not have a federalized workforce. As has been pointed out, the other body across the hall has passed a bill by 100 to nothing. There is no dissent. Mr. Speaker, why can we not pass this bill? Because a few Members within the Republican majority feel we should not federalize the workforce? Why not? I would not speculate on their motives but it appears that there is a concern that they will become unionized and there will be more Federal employees and a larger Federal workforce. Is that so bad? I think not. But the real question which ought to be asked is will a well-trained Federal workforce make our airways safer; and I think the undeniable answer is, yes. On the one hand we have a stimulus package giving away major tax breaks to those who are very wealthy, but we have not yet addressed the question of the hour: Why have we not yet passed an airline security bill? I hope that we will take this matter up this week, address the Nation's business where it counts, make our airways more secure and get people back to flying and traveling and enjoying our restaurants and amusement facilities. That will stimulate our economy.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's airlines do need our help. They are indeed in a crisis situation. I know in my own State of Maryland, U.S. Airways, which has a major economic impact, is in real trouble. I think there is a large consensus that we ought to help them and we ought to provide the $15 billion that they will need to keep flying. But there is another question that needs to be asked that the American people need to keep at the forefront of their minds during these grim times, and that is simply this: What about the workers? What about the workers? Make no mistake. Even with this $15 billion infusion, there will still be layoffs; there will still be dislocation. Many of us have said, in this bill we ought to deal with those problems. We ought to deal with the problem of extending unemployment compensation; we ought to deal with the problem of extending health care benefits; we ought to deal with the problem of job retraining. I believe in balance and fairness. We ought to help the industry; we ought to give the $15 billion. But it is not fair to ignore the employees, the workers, the clerks, the baggage handlers, the cooks, the mechanics, the people that keep the airplanes flying and say, well you wait until later. That seems to be the approach of some in this body that we will take care of that later. They have made a commitment that they will indeed address the workers' concerns. I sincerely hope that they will keep that commitment, and I hope the American people will take them to task; that in the weeks to come, we will, in fact, on the floor of this House deal with the question of protecting our dislocated workers, because they are the people who truly keep America flying.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Secretary of State Powell had it correctly when he said, terrorism is a scourge on our civilization. I am pleased to stand in support of this call, this call of our military might to thwart the forces of terrorism. I am pleased because we must bring these terrorists not just to justice but to a punishment that will not soon be forgotten. But I also want to call up tonight our most important weapon, our national will. We must have the will to send a clear signal that our fight is with terrorists, not with the Muslim world. We must have the will in the face of gas lines, in the face of inconveniences, in the face of checkpoints. We must have the will to fight over the long haul. And we have that will. We must have the will and the resolve to make it clear that while we will make adjustments in our life-styles, we will not surrender our fundamental freedoms. In the final analysis, I believe the terrorists think we are too soft, that we are the soft, materialistic infidel. I think, as in World War II, we will show them they are wrong, because the message from our national will will be clear and simple. We will not yield. God bless America.

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 August 2001. American Veterans Committee (AVC)

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, unlike the old broadcast message, this is not a test, this is very real. Secretary of State Powell had it correct: This is an attack on our civilization. But in this, our darkest hour, we may also find our finest hour in our Nation's character and our Nation's will. We will help continue the rescue efforts. We will mourn the dead victims. We will pray for the families. We will salute our brave rescue workers, firemen, and policemen. We will also secure our communities, and we will bring perpetrators not just to justice but to a punishment they will not soon forget. God bless America.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, I begin by thanking the sponsors of this legislation, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), for their leadership on this very critical issue. I am very pleased today to rise in support of this legislation because it truly has bipartisan support. H.R. 2291, the Drug-free Communities Support Program Reauthorization Act, address one of the most serious problems we have in America today, the scourge of drug use and drug abuse. Unfortunately, many of our efforts in the war against drugs have been very disappointing. Fortunately, however, this program is a notable expect. It focus on two very important elements: first, it focuses on children, early intervention to prevent young people from getting involved in drugs, prevent young people from developing the drug habit. Second and critically and we have heard talk about this today, it focuses on local communities. Not all the knowledge resides here in Washington. And it is very important that we allow local communities, coalitions to come together to provide solutions that make sense in their neighborhoods. At the heart of this program are grants to broad-based local coalition groups composed of representatives of children, parents, businesses, the media, law enforcement, religious and other civic groups, health care professionals and others all working together to combat drug abuse in their communities. In my own district, an organization called the Community Services Coalition receives Federal funds which they match to serve these useful purposes. According to the project director, the program has identified some of the risk factors that lead to drug abuse and drug use. It has been a benefit not just to the individuals who are affected but also to their families and to the larger community. The grant helps identify successful programs and also helps identify gaps in services because sometimes our intentions do not meet our efforts. We also need to identify areas which require further monitoring. Madam Speaker, I think this program is an excellent program. I am very pleased to support it on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill. The fact of the matter is that without a right to redress, the so-called patients' rights are worthless. Today we will hear the Republicans talk about the rights that they give patients, but if patients cannot get into court in an easy, convenient manner, they cannot redress their rights. Remember, it is the patient's back, the patient's knee, the patient's neck, the patient's facial scars that have to be corrected. If the HMOs deny a patient relief, they should have the right to go to court, and this bill does not do it. It guarantees every roadblock possible to benefit the HMOs; every presumption possible to benefit the HMOs. It wipes away State laws to benefit the HMOs. The protections are not in this bill, the protections are for the HMOs. That is what is wrong with this bill. They will say if we let patients go to court, they will not be able to get insurance. Studies have shown that the increase in costs are minimal; people are willing to pay it. In Texas, which has the right to go to court, they have not had a lot of lawsuits. Reject this bill.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I compliment her for her leadership on this issue. She has done a wonderful job. I also would like to thank my committee chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), for his support for this amendment. They told me in law school, when you are ahead, sit down; so I will not belabor my remarks. I do want to salute one of my towns. The city of Takoma Park uses biodiesel in its fleet. This is one of the bioenergy, biomass products that we hope to see expanded as a result of this legislation. I am very pleased to be associated with it. I also want to, of course, thank the chairman of the Committee on Science for his support.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey-Johnson amendment. In the Arctic Reserve, we have unparalleled splendor. We have 160 bird species, 36 land mammals, 36 types of fish. But they are not more important than the working men and women in America, if exploring that territory, exploiting that territory would yield oil to make us independent as some would have us believe. The reality, however, is that developing oil in ANWR will not make us energy independent. In the year 2015, we will be needing 24 million barrels a day. ANWR yields 300,000. This is clearly a case in which the juice is not worth the squeezing. Reject the ANWR development.

Mr. WYNN

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

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to focus on a problem facing our government, and that is unregulated and uncontrolled out sourcing, or, as it is sometimes called, privatization. The amendment specifically says that in contracting out, privatizing or otherwise giving Federal work to the private sector, that we adhere to existing law, Public Law 105-270. This law, known as the FAIR Act, the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998, basically says that whenever there should be an outsourcing, there shall also be a competition to determine that the taxpayer gets best value, best value in terms of quality and in terms of cost. Unfortunately, we find Federal agencies are not adhering to the FAIR Act; they are outsourcing without this control mechanism, and what we further find is that this outsourcing has not been beneficial to the taxpayer. Let me give you an example. In the fiscal year 2000 Defense Appropriations bill, my Republican colleagues wrote, ``There is no clear evidence that the current DOD outsourcing and privatization effort is reducing the cost of support functions within DOD with high cost contractors simply replacing government employees. In addition, the current privatization effort appears to have created serious oversight problems for DOD, especially in those cases where DOD has contracted for financial management and other routine administrative functions.'' My point is, there is no evidence that outsourcing is, per se, better than Federal employees. The United States Government has a great resource in its Federal employees. We also have a great resource in private sector companies. We ought to have a competition in which Federal employees can compete against private companies for those jobs that are considered for being contracted out. That is what this bill would do. It is quite simple. It would give the taxpayer best value, both in terms of quality and in terms of cost. It merely requires the agencies to abide by our current law, which requires competition. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on a couple points made by my good friend and colleague from Northern Virginia. First of all, it should be clearly understood, this amendment would not affect any existing contracts. Any existing contracts, commercial or non- commercial, are not affected by this bill. Second, this bill is current law. Now, the gentleman may be correct in some respects that current law does not work as well as we would like, but that is not unique to this body, unfortunately; and efforts are under way to streamline current law. But it is current law; and it does say before you out source, you should have competition. We regularly come to the floor and talk about the benefits to the taxpayer of greater competition. There should be more competition. Does the process take too long? Not necessarily, when you consider the length of some of the contracts involved, 3-year, 5-year contracts. The process is a reasonable process that gives Federal employees a fair opportunity. If Federal employees are not performing some of these IT functions now, there would be no competition between Federal employees; it would be competition purely between private sector versus private sector. On the other hand, however, if Federal employees are performing these functions now and if they are doing a good job by virtue of both the cost that they charge to the Government as well as the quality that they provide based on their experience, then they should have the opportunity to compete to perform that contract as against a private sector company that is applying for that contract for the first time and may not be able to provide the same value. I believe this is a reasonable approach. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to acknowledge the gentleman is absolutely correct, he has been very generous in attempting to work with us and allowing us to have hearings on this issue. I want to make a few brief points that I have to emphasize. One, no existing contracts will be affected by this amendment; two, if this work is not currently being done by Federal employees and is in fact being outsourced and competed among private sector companies, that will continue. So those concerns probably do not apply. Now, what we are saying in this amendment is simply this: follow existing law. Existing law, the FAIR Act, says there shall be competition, private-public competition or private-private competition. In the case of Federal employees who are doing a good job, they ought to have the right to compete to keep their jobs, to do the work and give the taxpayer best value. If the private sector company can do it better in terms of value and costs, then the private sector would get the contract. Finally, the suggestion has been made that since we are having a GAO study, we do not need this amendment. I reiterate, this is the law. We ought to follow it. If the GAO study comes back and says we need to change the A-76 process, make it less burdensome, I would be the first one to say that is a good idea and we ought to do that and accommodate the need to streamline the process. But competition is good for America, whether it is competition between two private sector companies or whether it is competition between hard-working Federal employees with high levels of competence and private sector employees, companies who want to take their jobs. Let the competition begin. I believe this amendment is consistent with that philosophy.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment that we normalize our relationship with that tiny island 90 miles off our coast. I do not think any of us are here today to condone Castro's actions. That is not the point. The point is that we need a rational foreign policy toward Cuba that is not based on emotion. Yes, we want cop killers back in the United States. No, we do not condone gulags. But there are gulags in Cuba. There are gulags in China. There are gulags in Korea. That is not the point. We need a rational policy. Second, the policy we have is not rational, and it has failed. It has failed for 40 years. It failed even when the Soviets abandoned Cuba. If this embargo did not work when the Soviets abandoned Cuba, it is never going to work. All it does is impose hardships on the Cuban people, and that plays right into Castro's hands. Members of the State Department have said privately that this embargo is just what Castro wants, because it bans Cuban nationalism and allows him to continue his regime. Let us normalize our relationship as we have done with China and other countries.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, let me begin by offering my congratulations and commendations to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), as well as to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), my Republican colleague, for their leadership in bringing this matter to our attention; but for their efforts, Juneteenth might be a little-noticed footnote in American history. That certainly should not be the case, because, while it is not recognized on a par with the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation is like the Declaration of Independence, part of our tradition and passion for freedom in the United States. It is a very interesting episode in our history, and I find myself fascinated by it, that Abraham Lincoln, through executive order, declared the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863; but somehow the word did not get to slaves in Texas until 2\1/2\ years later, on June 19, 1865. There are lots of stories as to what happened. There is some that say that the original messenger was murdered. There are others who say the Union soldiers who had the message thought that they would hold off so the slave owners could get in another season's worth of planting and reaping before the word went out that slavery was to be no more. Whatever the case was, on June 19, 1865, Major General Jordan Granger led Union troops into Galveston, Texas, and announced that, in fact, slavery had come to an end; and now the relationship between the former slaves and the former masters was going to be that of employer and free laborer. As you might imagine, some of the newly freed slaves did not wait around to negotiate a labor agreement on this subject. They immediately left their plantations, their formers owners and headed north, as well as to other parts of the country where they had family, to begin their new lives. There were many who did stay around to talk about it, and out of that experience evolved what we have come to call Juneteenth, the celebration of the Emancipation Proclamation. It arrived out of a rural tradition of a family gathering, of picnics and barbeques and, generally, a notion that this is a great thing, this freedom, that we are very pleased to be a part of it and let us take advantage of it. It also evolved into an opportunity to focus on questions of education and self-improvement which was really what freedom from slavery was all about, an opportunity to get education and, most importantly, an opportunity to express that freedom through self- improvement. Today we do have a celebration called Juneteenth to mark that historic occasion. This occasion, however, does reflect forward to events that happen today in America. You can say in the case of Juneteenth, things do not always work the way they were intended, a message arrived 2\1/2\ years late. Recently in Florida, things did not work the way they were intended, and you have to excuse the African American community if we are a little bit skeptical. We consider there to have been great disenfranchisement, and things did not work the way they should have. People who were eligible to vote were denied an opportunity to vote to a significant degree. Madam Speaker, out of Juneteenth comes not just skepticism, it comes hope, because the newly freed slaves had hoped that they would be full participants in America. And despite the difficulties that we have seen in the Florida in the past election, we are moving forward with hope that an electoral reform bill will come out of this Congress, which will make sure that things that did not go the way they should have will go the right way in the future. Juneteenth is not just a celebration of what happened. It is also an important milestone in our American history and a marker for our future conduct. It joins many other cultural celebrations, Cinco de Mayo, St. Patrick's Day, the Chinese New Year, as a part of our diverse American quilt. It is an important occasion, an occasion for great celebration, the emancipation of the slaves in America. I am delighted to be a part of this celebration; and again, I thank the sponsors.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, we may be actually watching Congress at its best; that is to say, that we have managed to, number one, address one of the Nation's most pressing concerns, improving our education system; and, two, we have done it in a very bipartisan method. To that extent, I want to begin by offering congratulations to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for his hard work and also to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), a Democratic chairman. I think this is a great example of what happens when we work together. We deal with the Nation's business. This is not a perfect product, however; but it certainly is a very good product. The administration, many of my Republican colleagues want to talk about accountability. We need to ensure the students perform and the schools perform. Those are very good things. My State of in Maryland has been a leader on the question of accountability. The additional tests will help us measure whether our students are achieving or whether we are passing them through. But in addition to accountability, we also need resources; and that is why I am very pleased that additional resources are in this bill for title I to help disadvantaged students, also for teacher training and class size reduction. I would like a little more for class size reduction, but clearly there has been a substantial improvement led by the Democrats saying we need resources in addition to accountability. Reading, the foundation for educational achievement, is funded adequately, and I am very pleased with that. And my personal issue, after- school programs, received a substantial increase. We need to provide opportunities for young people to have constructive after-school activities to provide a total environment. Let me add that we also have in this bill something called public school choice, which is part of the accountability mechanism, and I think that is a good idea. Now, we will hear later about private school vouchers. I think that is a very bad idea. But giving students the opportunity to attend other public magnet schools or charter schools or schools that are performing helps enforce accountability. I think that is very good. Now, this is not a perfect bill, and there are serious concerns on the question of school construction and school modernization. We have talked a lot about technology. We need more money to modernize our schools to utilize the latest technology. But some things are very basic in terms of school modernization. Some fourth graders standing out on the steps taking a photo-op with their Congressman said to me, ``Congressman, we need air-conditioning. Because when it gets hot, our teacher gets grouchy.'' And I think that is a real good advertisement for school construction. I hope we pass this bill.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I have to say, I am really amazed when I listen to my Republican colleagues. They acknowledge that the economy is getting weaker, they acknowledge we are having layoffs, but then they tell us we are going to have greater surpluses. It really does not make sense. They move on and say what we really need is a bloated tax cut for all Americans. It is not for all Americans, it is for the rich Americans, because the richest 1 percent get 43 percent of the tax benefit. Where is the fairness in that? Let us talk about education. The Democratic alternative gives us $150 billion more for education. That means for teachers, smaller classrooms, more computers, more books, and school renovation. The Republican budget does not compare. Let us move on and talk about debt reduction. I have not heard them talk about debt reduction. The Democratic budget gives us $915 billion more in debt reduction, which means lower interest rates for all Americans. Finally, let us talk about law enforcement. The Democratic budget gives us $19 billion more for local law enforcement, more cops on the street; and that is a good thing. At the end of the day, the choice is very clear. The best budget for all Americans is the Democratic budget. I urge adoption of the Democratic alternative.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Moreover, I thank the gentlewoman for her outstanding leadership in this special order commemorating Black History Month. She has done a marvelous job over these two days, and we certainly appreciate her efforts.

Mr. WYNN. Yes, I will be happy to do that. But as I say, the gentlewoman from Ohio has done a magnificent job, and we all appreciate it. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the occasion of Black History Month to speak about electoral reform. There was a saying that those who do not learn the lessons of history are destined to repeat them. I want to comment for a few moments about a relatively ugly episode in American history, the disenfranchisement of African-Americans. Return first to the era known as Jim Crow, an era in which African- Americans were legally and systematically denied the right to vote. They were, in essence, denied democracy. They were denied full citizenship. They were denied the very things that make us proud to be Americans. Techniques such as poll taxes, literacy tests, requiring African- Americans to recite the Constitution, physical harassment, the denial of jobs for those people who chose or decided they wanted to vote, all of these were mechanisms that were used to systematically disenfranchise African-Americans during this period of our history known as Jim Crow. In the sixties, and as a result of the civil rights movement, we saw a major mobilization as people of good will of all colors, races, and creeds came together to mobilize against this disenfranchisement and begin the movement known as the voting rights effort. Unfortunately, in 1964, three such individuals, Michael Schwerner, James Chaney, and Andrew Goodman were killed while working in Mississippi to protect that fundamental aspect of American democracy, the right to vote. But even more recently, a decade ago in New Jersey, under the thinly- veiled notion of ballot security, a program was instituted to actively discourage African-Americans from voting with physical intimidation and the presence of off-duty law enforcement officers designed to discourage people from voting. This brings us to the present day and what I would like to call ``the fiasco in Florida.'' Now, there are a lot of people who say to the African-American community, ``You need to get over it. The election is over.'' Let me emphasize that this is not about the Gore campaign. This is not about who won that election, although that is certainly important. What this is about for the African-American community is that the incidents we saw occurring in Florida recalled the incidents of the Jim Crow era; recalled the incidents surrounding the deaths of Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman; recalled the so-called ballot security programs. So this is not just a matter of who won or who lost, this is a matter of a threat to what we believe are our fundamental rights. What did we see in Florida? The use of identification requirements to discourage voters, requests for photo identification, which is not required in the law. Suddenly police checkpoints sprung up in African- American communities, discouraging people who might be on their way to vote and then to work. We found voters turned away, being told they were not in fact registered when in fact they were. College students, eager, enthusiastic about voting for the first time, were turned away. There were allegations that the motor-voter program did not effectively register people. People who in fact had their voter registration card in hand were turned away by election officials. Of course, as you heard from the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), my colleague, faulty detective voting machines were disproportionately located in African American communities. All of these incidents bring to mind a very, very ugly episode in our history, and we are determined not to relive the mistakes of the past. We are determined to, in fact, learn the lessons of history. To that end, I would say we need to do three things. First, we need to have a full Justice Department investigation of voting rights violations in Florida. That would give the administration an opportunity to truly prove that they want to extend the knowledge base and ensure that everyone has fair access to the voting process. Second, we need legislation, legislation that would provide money to States so that they can buy modern voting machines and we can have uniform voting technology. We also need to protect disputed ballots so people who believe they are registered could vote on a temporary basis and have that vote preserved until the legitimacy of their voting status could be determined. Let me take a brief moment to mention another item that ought to be corrected by this Congress. Individuals who are convicted of crimes, served their sentence and served their parole, ought to have their voting rights restored. They have paid their debt to society. Our prison system has said they have been rehabilitated, they ought not be denied that fundamental rights to vote. Mr. Speaker, when I began I said that those who do not learn the lessons of history are destined to repeat them. I think the final lesson we need to learn on the occasion of Black History Month is that continued vigilance is necessary to protect our right to vote. We cannot take it for granted. We need to register more voters. We need to educate voters as to their rights, and we need to protect the voters who come out and want to vote. We need to protect voting rights. I believe we have learned the lessons of history. We have been reminded by virtue of what happened in Florida, and I hope as we reflect on the meaning and the history of African American History Month, that we will take to heart these ideas and ensure that never again in America will our citizens of any color be denied the right to vote.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute Julian Dixon. I believe he represents the very best of this institution. Not because of fiery rhetoric, not because of eloquent words, although he was certainly capable of both, but because of his ability and his skill to work within this institution across the aisle to accomplish things, to get things done for the American people. In my mind that is the true standard of greatness in Congress. Not to make the most noise but to get the most done. I admire particularly the fact that he could stand in the face of popular trends and tell you the real deal. He could tell you the truth. He could speak the truth in the face of overwhelming odds. It did not matter. Julian had something to say. We have all come to respect what he had to say. He was a wonderful man, a kind man, a gentle man, and he was a very wise man. I think that is important. We do not have enough wise men in this institution, people who are thoughtful and reflective and consider the issues and not just popularity or not just their own political future. I admired Julian Dixon greatly. He was one of the Members that I would emulate. But aside from policy, Julian Dixon could be a real friend. When I heard of his passing, the first thing that I thought of was that I did not finish the book because we talked about books on numerous occasions and he had recommended a book to me and I had not finished it. I feel bad about that. But I assure you, Julian, that I will finish the book. In closing, I would just say that we have truly lost a giant in this institution, one who represented the great potential of Congress and one who represented our greatest accomplishments, getting things done on behalf of the American people in a most selfless way. He was a true public servant and a great American.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2346, the Citizens Band Radio Enforcement bill. This legislation will go a long way towards solving an ever-increasing and intrusive problem, the illegal operation of CB radios. To be sure and I must emphasize, the vast majority of CB operators are law-abiding citizens who use their radios properly. However, rogue operators do exist across the country who regularly operate their CB radios at power levels far above the legal limit. When these operators boost their CB power levels, it often causes bleeding into nearby frequencies. I am actually reminded of an old science fiction program, the Outer Limits, in which a rogue radio operator boosted his frequency above allowable limits creating a highway for which an alien appeared on our planet. In the real world, however, Americans who are unfortunate enough to live near these illegal CB radio stations experience only interference with their telephones, televisions and other electronic equipment, a very serious problem. Worst, these transmissions are often profane and occur at all hours of the night and day. This intrusive practice is simply not a neighborhood nuisance, it borders on trespass. Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission does not have the power or resources to adequately police illegal CB radio operators around the country. As a result, victims are left helpless to defend against this growing intrusion to their privacy and the quiet enjoyment of their homes. The bill before us would protect the American public by allowing local law enforcement officials to enforce existing FCC rules regarding CB radios. Victims of this type of harassment can be given assistance by local authorities to shut down these rogue operators. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important consumer legislation with the improvements that have been described this evening. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), and another original cosponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for the efforts to bring this bill to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I would only like to say the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has put a good perspective on this bill. It does not shake the Earth, but yet it is very important to our constituents to show that we are, in fact, here working, carrying out the public's business. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me the time.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking first the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), the chairman of the Committee on Small Business for his keen insight, hard work and dedication on this issue. He has worked very hard and I am most impressed, and I thank him for his leadership. I also thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member, for her tenacity and determination for bringing this bill to the floor, the result of which is a bipartisan piece of legislation that will help the small business community in America. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. As we have heard, small businesses are the engine of growth in America. Small businesses are a source of important competition in America, and small businesses are a source of diversity in America, as women-owned businesses, African American-owned businesses, Hispanic-owned businesses and Asian-owned businesses and others are coming to the American workplace offering their goods and services to the United States Government. The sad fact, however, is that bundling has begun to displace these businesses, has squeezed many of these businesses out, and I believe that is wrong, unfair, and not good for this country. In 1995, the White House held a conference on small business and one of the major recommendations from that conference was that we limit and restrict bundling because it was displacing small business. Now, the response from the other side is that we need this bundling because it is more efficient. The problem is, they have never been able to prove that. What has happened, however, is that big companies have gotten these contracts to the disadvantage of small businesses. Let me tell my colleagues what happens, and it is really an unfortunate situation. A contract where we may have had 10 or 12 competitors competing to offer the government the best price are now squeezed out because that contract is now consolidated into one huge contract. So the big company with very little or no competition gets this huge regional contract and then, with no competition from the little guys, does not necessarily give the Government the best price. What they do, however, is skim off the profit margin from that contract and then subcontract back out the contract to small businesses, leaving them with no profitability. That is one of the perhaps lesser known problems with the contract bundling. Unfortunately, bundling is proliferating. There are currently four major contracts within DOD alone projected to surpass $25 billion. The Navy Internet contract, the Air Force FAST contract, the Marine food service contract, and the Navy janitorial contract in San Diego. In each instance, analysis shows these contracts can be performed by small businesses, and that there is no national security threat that would justify bidding these contracts on a bundled basis. What has been the result of this pattern? Well, although DOD procurement has increased from $109 billion to $116 billion from 1998 to 1999, we have had a decrease of 34 percent in the number of small business prime contractors, a decrease of 25 percent in the number of minority-owned firms, and a decrease of 38 percent in the number of women-owned businesses. To be brief, we are losing our small businesses, they are being squeezed out, displaced, or they are having their profitability denied because of the practice of contract bundling, and we need to stop it. We need to demand that if the taxpayers are going to be served by bundling, that the people doing the bundling document and prove it. That is what this bill requires, and that is why I think it is so important. One final note. It is important that small businesses not be just subcontractors, that they be prime contractors, because one of the requirements of bids is that one has experience as a prime contract, so not only does bundling deny small businesses, it precludes their growing into larger, more profitable companies. We have an excellent bill here, it is a bipartisan bill, it will enable us to find out whether bundling is good for America or bad for America, and it will give, ultimately, small businesses a fair chance. Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the bill, and I thank both the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership.