Albert Wynn

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this measure, the Oil Price Reduction Act, although it will not do that but I think it is important that we do send a signal that we are concerned about this issue and that we recognize this issue hits at the very heart of America's prosperity and it hits at every American family. I want to make a couple of observations, though. This is a bipartisan issue, and it really deserves some bipartisan solutions. Unfortunately my Republican colleagues in many instances chose to play politics. They denied concrete amendments which would have really done something, amendments to use the strategic reserve to calm the marketplace, amendments to provide incentives for greater production, a reserve that could help the Northeast with home heating costs. Those are real action items that we could have done on a bipartisan basis but they said no and blocked the amendments. Second, I want to observe that since they have been running this place for the last 6 years, they could have instituted an energy policy that would have made us self-reliant. They have not done so. Third, I want to observe that this bill is not a bad idea but it does not do anything more than the President already can do. So let us not oversell this. The President has the right to engage in these negotiations. He should and in point of fact he is doing so in the form of a quiet diplomacy that we believe will yield positive results when OPEC meets. But it is important that we do send a signal and Congress in fact does have a role. What am I saying? Simply this. We need to say to our foreign oil- producing allies that there is a link between your cooperation and our generosity in foreign aid. When I look at the foreign aid request of Indonesia for $135 million, of Nigeria for $80 million, of Russia for $252 million, I believe these countries can play a constructive role in helping us lower oil prices. I do not think we should have to beg. I think we should send an important signal to them which this bill does. That is, that we are serious about oil prices in this country and we expect and hope that our allies will be supportive. I think that is an important first step. But we need to do more. It needs to be more concrete and we need to do it on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I never cease to be amazed at how my Republican colleagues can take basically a good idea and turn it into a vehicle to give more tax relief to the very wealthy. It absolutely amazes me. We do have a good idea here. We ought to help small businesses. Small businesses are the engine of America's economy. They create half of the jobs and contribute to half of the gross domestic product. So there are things we can do to help small business. On the other hand, however, when we look at this Republican proposal, we find it is not small businesses, not the mom and pop neighborhood restaurants and groceries; it is the real fat cats who get the lion's share of the benefits. Let me talk about first what the Democrats want to do to help small business. First of all, we want to give 100 percent deductibility for health insurance. That is something small businesses want. We also want to increase small business deductions for investments in plants and equipment. We want to extend the work opportunity tax credit and the welfare-to-work tax credit. These are tax benefits that actually benefit small businesses and help them hire workers. We also want to address the estate tax issue, and we want to raise up to $4 million, the exemption, for estate taxes. So we are concerned about that issue. We want to give an increase in the meals deduction for small neighborhood restaurants, so they can benefit from that. There is a package of things that we want to do, that I actually believe some Republicans want to do, that we ought to do. That package is reasonable, about $36 billion, and we can pay for it with the offsets in the Democratic proposal. Unfortunately, the Republicans would not allows us to bring this proposal to the floor. Now, let us look at the Republican plan. It is bloated: $120 billion. And when we ask ourselves if small businesses are not benefiting from this, the question then becomes, who is? I can tell my colleagues who is: 73 percent of the benefit in the Republican plan goes to the richest 1 percent of Americans. These people are already doing very well in our current economy. They have stocks, they have bonds, they do not need this massive tax relief package. On the other hand, our approach says let us help small business; let us save Social Security and Medicare by being fiscally prudent. I ask my colleagues to consider the Democratic alternative and reject the Republican approach.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to bring to the attention of my colleagues an exemplary couple from the Fourth Congressional District of Maryland, Thomas and Audrey Johnson. They are celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary today Thursday, February 10th, and a role model of family strength and solidity, which has made America great. Their commitment to each other, their family, especially Tommie, T.J., and Darius, and their church family Johnson Memorial Baptist Church is impressive and deserving of special recognition and honor. I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating Thomas and Audrey Johnson on their many years of love and commitment. May their life together continue to be full of joy and offer them many pleasant memories.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the most important thing that the public needs to know about this so-called marriage tax penalty is that it undermines our serious efforts to pay down the national debt, to save Social Security and to provide for Medicare. This bill will explode in 10 years. It costs $182 billion and will consume over one-fourth of the non-Social Security surplus. We are trying to save Medicare. This is a pre-Valentines Day stunt. The institution being threatened is not the institution of marriage, it is the institution of Social Security. Let me assure you lovers are not sitting around saying ``Honey, we better not get married because of the marriage tax penalty.'' But I assure you people on Social Security and people soon to be on Social Security are worried that we do not take some serious action to save Social Security. Now, I agree, we ought to address concerns about the marriage tax penalty for those folks who do pay that tax. But this bill does not do that. Let me tell you what is wrong with the Republican so-called marriage tax penalty bill. First of all, it is another gimmick to give tax relief for the very rich. Two-thirds of the benefit go to the top one- fourth of taxpayers, those people already well off and, moreover, they are doing very well in today's economy. They do not need a tax break. Second, half of the relief goes to people who are not even paying the marriage tax. What is that all about? Third, many of families with children who need a marriage tax break will not get it under this plan. Clearly they are not addressing the target. On the other hand, you have the targeted Democratic approach. We double the standard deduction and adjust the earned income tax credit, and, as a result, we can provide targeted tax relief from the marriage penalty for those families who genuinely need it. There are 70,000 people in my district, as you will hear, who will benefit if we give targeted tax relief. I want to do that. I do not want to give a bloated Valentine's gift to the very rich who do not need it. Mr. Speaker, it should be well recognized by now, this is part of a big tax cut for the rich that the Republicans and George Bush are pushing. It is not a good idea. We should reject it, save Medicare, save Social Security, and pay down the debt.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, this year Congress can begin to address one of America's most pressing problems, reforming managed care. But HMO reform will be meaningless if we do not have a real Patients' Bill of Rights with teeth. Last year we got the process started. We passed the bipartisan Dingell-Norwood bill, which has real teeth in it. What do we need to do now? First, we need to get started. There has been too much delay. Let us convene the conference committee. Second, we need to insist on the part of the House that we include the tough standards that give patients the right to sue, that require utilization review, that require independent appeals processes and that enable constituents to have an explanation in writing of why they were denied care. When people are denied care by HMOs, they are harmed. When HMOs harm citizens, they have to be held accountable. The way to hold them accountable is to insist that our legislation includes the tough standards that the House passed last year. We can do it together. I certainly believe this ought to be one of our first orders of business as we begin the new year. I think if we do that we can make real progress for the American people.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, today we consider H.R. 3261, the Communications Satellite Competition and Privatization Act. I do not think that anyone in the House would disagree with this bill's purpose to create increased competition in the global communication satellite industry. This goal is commendable. However, I would like to express some concern about one of the provisions in this bill. First, let me say that, I am pleased that this bill would permit Lockheed Martin and COMSAT to complete their merger. This transaction, which has received approval from the Department of Justice, and has passed the first phase of FCC approval, has been in need of enabling legislation for over a year. Unfortunately, this bill puts unnecessary conditions on the lifting of COMSAT's ownership cap and therefore on the Lockheed Martin-COMSAT merger. Earlier this year, the Senate passed satellite reform legislation, which does not contain these restrictions. It is my view that the House should not impose new restrictions during this process of creating open competition. In conference, I would urge my colleagues to support the removal of the conditions on the Lockheed Martin-COMSAT merger. This merger is important for my constituents in Maryland, not withstanding American consumers who deserve more competition in the satellite services market.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, today the Republicans and the Republican leadership are moving toward the last days of the session. They are on their way out of town. Unfortunately, on their way out of town they are going to have to walk past the graveyard of good legislation. Therein lies prescription drug coverage for seniors, much-needed, much-worked on, but killed by the Republicans. In the graveyard of good legislation also lies HMO reform. Our desire on the Democratic side to pass a real Patients' Bill of Rights which would give citizens the right to sue, killed by the Republicans. They have to walk past the graveyard that contains common sense gun legislation which they failed to pass so that we could control the gun show loophole and bring sanity to the mass hysteria that is going on in terms of gun violence. Finally, they have to walk past the graveyard of good legislation wherein lies the minimum wage bill. Mr. Speaker, we simply wanted to give working Americans another dollar in earnings over 2 years, a dollar over 2 years, killed by the Republicans. So on their way out of town as they walk past the graveyard, they might remember that the ghosts may rise up to haunt them.

Mr. WYNN

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

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I am sure he was hard at work, our leader.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Fathers Count Act. For a long time, we have had our head in the sand with respect to the problem of children born out of wedlock. We have ignored the problem. We have assumed high-minded piety. We have condemned impoverished young people, but we have not really helped them. This bill is an enlightened form of welfare reform that addresses some of the real problems faced by unwed parents and specifically fathers. This bill is critical because it provides resources, not condemnation to unwed fathers. It provides counseling. It provides job support. It provides the resources that they will need to become effective and productive fathers. When we have productive and effective fathers, we have better children. This is a very good bill in that it also encourages States to take an aggressive role in enforcing child support payments, and that is very essential because it is at the State level where we have the issue of child support enforcement. By having States implement aggressive enforcement policies, we will collect more child support. Again, when we collect more child support, we are at a better position to help these children of unwed parents. For too long this Congress and this society has ignored this problem or, as I said, has taken a head-in-the-sand approach. It is high time that, as a society, we address the problem, we accept responsibility, and we, more importantly, enable these young fathers to accept responsibility. To the extent that these fathers become better fathers, become better husbands, they will contribute to our society by producing young people that are more stable, less prone to crime, and more able to be productive citizens. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation, the result of a lot of hard work. I think it is an excellent idea. I am very pleased to support it.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, on November 1, 1999, I missed rollcall votes 550 to 552, due to a minor illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 550 and 551 and ``no'' on rollcall vote 552.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, good morning. I rise to speak about how we treat those in the twilight of life, our seniors, our parents and our grandparents. Contrary to what my colleagues may have heard earlier this morning, Democrats have always supported Social Security. On the other hand, Republican leaders have not. They have, in fact, urged that it be abolished, phased out or, Mr. Speaker, let it wither on the vine. Specifically today, however, they are talking about not spending the Social Security Trust Fund, but unfortunately the CBO has documented that in fact they have spent it to the tune of $17 billion of Social Security Trust Fund money that is being spent by the Republican leadership in this year's budget. Do not be fooled by the gimmicks and the 13-month year. The fact of the matter is they are spending Social Security. Additionally, they do not extend the solvency of Social Security. President Clinton and the Democrats have a proposal to extend the solvency of the Social Security trust fund to the year 2050. Third, they do not do a thing about providing a prescription drug benefit for seniors. We have a proposal to provide prescription drug benefits in the Medicare Program. Let us treat our seniors better. Let us reject the Republican budget proposals.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my alarm over the Republicans' handling of the budget. First they gave us the Robin-Hood-in-reverse strategy, take from the poor and give to the rich. That was a big tax cut for the rich where most of the money went to the wealthiest Americans and regular, average citizens got very little. When that did not work they now come up with a grab bag of gimmicks. That is $46 billion in gimmicks to disguise the fact that they are in fact raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. They are trying to tell us now that the census is emergency funding. They are trying to tell us that routine military funding is emergency spending, a grab bag of gimmicks. But third, they now have the fiction of saving Social Security, when the Congressional Budget Office has clearly stated they are already raiding the Social Security Trust Fund to the tune of $13 billion and at the rate they are going they will reach $24 billion. So save us from their strategy, save us from their gimmicks, and save us from their fiction. What we need is real cooperation on addressing America's real needs and a sound budget that does not benefit the wealthy.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and express my support for the bipartisan Dingell-Norwood bill. Someone said in trying to defend this rule, well, it is not exactly dishonest. Well, maybe it is not dishonest; but it is clearly disingenuous, it is clearly cynical, and it is clearly raw partisanship. It is clearly an attempt to block bipartisan legislation that will provide real HMO reform for American citizens that would give them the right to sue when they are aggrieved. Now, this rule has two flaws. First of all, we wanted to pay for the Dingell-Norwood bill. We had the offsets. They ruled the offsets out of order, forcing us or attempting to force us to dip into the Social Security Trust Fund. Second, they attach the access bill. It has some merits. But why is it attached? It is not paid for. It has some undesirable aspects; and it is designed, once again, for one sole purpose, and that is to help kill the bipartisan Dingell-Norwood bill. This vote today may be the most important in our legislative session. I hope we can defeat this rule and push for real HMO reform.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dingell-Norwood bill. It is the truly bipartisan approach that we need to address the issue of HMO reform. Now, there are several alternatives, and I believe they are well intentioned. I believe, however, Norwood-Dingell is the better bill for several reasons. First, it is bipartisan. It is the only bipartisan alternative which reflects the thinking of both Democrats and Republicans who are serious about reforming our HMO system. Second, I want to go to the crux of this debate, which has to do with the right to sue. Again, I believe Dingell-Norwood is a superior piece of legislation. Now, if we listen to the opponents of Dingell-Norwood, we would believe that citizens who need health care really want to buy a lawsuit. That is not what people pay their premiums for. They pay their premiums to get quality health care. The issue of liability, the issue of suits only arises when benefits are denied, care is improper. Under those circumstances, the citizen, the taxpayer, the consumer, the patient gets the best protection under the Dingell-Norwood bill. Now, some people, opponents of this bill, would have my colleagues believe that this is really just a boon for trial lawyers, and, for some reason, we on the Democrat side in particular, as proponents of the bill, just want to provide welfare for trial lawyers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Understand this: the value of the right to sue is not in the lawsuit. It is in the deterrence. Because when HMOs understand that they can be sued, they have a strong deterrent to provide best quality, the best quality of health care. That is the ultimate point. The number of suits in relation to the number of patients is ultimately going to be very small. But the question is, are we motivated by profit or greed, or are we motivated by the fact that, if we do not provide good care, one's patient could possibly sue one. Now, my colleagues will also hear, well, this will result in a proliferation of lawsuits, and this will overburden the system and increase costs. Not so. We have an empirical example in Texas which has implemented a program similar to Norwood-Dingell. They have not seen a significant increase in the number of lawsuits. Quite the contrary. Because, keep in mind, lawsuits are time consuming, cumbersome; and, remember, people do not pay premiums for lawsuits. They pay premiums to get quality care. Now, Dingell-Norwood says one cannot just rush right into court at any rate. First one has to exhaust an administrative process that allows for both internal review within the HMO and independent third- party review by an impartial arbitrator who can look at the situation. In most instances, that will resolve the case one way or the other. At least based on the Texas experience, that is the case. On the other hand, if one still believes one is aggrieved and the issue is not resolved, one has the opportunity to go into court to get redress for one's grievances. The bottom line is simply this, we have maximum deterrence to encourage best practices when we have the optimal right to sue. We do not have an experience that tells us that we are actually going to get an explosion of lawsuits. We have, in fact, a system that has very few lawsuits and protection for consumers. Is that not really what we are trying to accomplish? I believe Dingell-Norwood best accomplishes this goal and best protects the consumer-patient in the purchase of health care services. I urge adoption of Dingell-Norwood bill.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the bipartisan Dingell-Norwood Patients' Bill of Rights. We need protections for patients to ensure that they have access to specialists, to ensure that they get accurate information about all of their medical options and not just the cheapest options. We need to ensure that they can get reimbursed for emergency room care. That is what the Patients' Bill of Rights is about. I am not here to paint the HMOs as the ultimate villains, but I will say that the profit motive leads to greed and greed leads to some of the worst abuses of patients we have seen. Mr. Speaker, we need a Patients' Bill of Rights that is enforceable. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership wants to give an empty can. If we cannot enforce patients' rights, the rights are meaningless. Some would say that is a boon for trial attorneys. Not so. The importance of having the right to sue is so there is a deterrent against bad medical practices. Texas has shown that there is not a significant increase in lawsuits when there is an enforceable bill of rights. We will also hear that this will drive up costs. Not so. Minimum cost increases are a couple of dollars. What is important is that we have an enforceable bill of rights with teeth to protect all Americans.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk today about changing the subject. We are having a discussion here in Congress about the patients' bill of rights. It is a bipartisan discussion in which both Democrats and Republicans agree that we need to protect patients' rights: access to specialists, emergency room coverage, coverage for all kinds of illnesses when it is needed. We need to have the right to sue if the HMO causes harm to someone's health. That is what we are talking about, but now the Republican leadership wants to change the subject. All of a sudden, they want to talk about medical savings accounts and access to health care. They have several ideas. Some are good; some are bad. The point is, do not change the subject. The subject is HMO reform. The subject is guaranteeing a patients' bill of rights with real teeth in it. We have a bipartisan agreement. We have the Dingell-Norwood bill that makes sense. We are having a good discussion. Do not change the subject. Let us stick with the patients' bill of rights. Let us pass a clean bill. Their ideas are not paid for. They should not be brought up in the context of this issue. Let us protect patients first, and then we will deal with some of these other issues.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the President's veto of the Republican tax proposal because it is a disgrace. We hear the Republicans come up and say we want tax relief for Americans, but when we look at the facts and when we go behind the rhetoric, what we find is that this is more tax relief for the rich. Over 60 percent of the benefits in this tax package go not to the average American, not to the school teachers and the policemen, but they go to the very wealthy. They go to the people who are already doing very well in this society, the people who are making a killing on the stock market. The 20 percent of the wealthiest Americans in this country will get the lion's share of the benefits. That is not right. We will hear my Republican colleagues talk about the marriage penalty, and we should not penalize married couples. Mr. Speaker, I agree with that, but what about the tax relief for the rich and the estate tax? Only 2 percent of Americans pay estate taxes, the wealthiest 2 percent in America. They have to have an estate over a million dollars in order to get estate tax relief, and that is who they want to give a tax break to. Look further. What do we find? More special interest tax breaks throughout this $800 billion monstrosity. We can have reasonable tax relief, but we should pay down the debt, improve Medicare, provide prescription drugs, and invest in education not give more tax relief for the rich.

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, this amendment is designed to restore $33 million to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission budget as originally requested by the President. Although we do not like to talk about it in this body, we do have a problem with race and ethnic diversity in America. Unfortunately, in addition, we found that we have a problem of racial discrimination in our own backyard, that being the Federal workplace. This amendment is designed to restore funds so that EEOC can more effectively and more efficiently process those complaints. My colleagues may ask, well, how bad is it? Consider the following fact: at EEOC from 1991 to 1997, the backlog from hearing requests from complainants increased 218 percent, from 3,100 to over 10,000. The backlog of appeals increased during this same period 581 percent, from 1,400 to over 9,000 appeal requests. In addition, requests for new hearings at EEOC increased 94 percent from 5,000 to over 11,000. My point is this: we have a problem in this country with discrimination. People who suffer discrimination attempt to have their complaints in the employment arena resolved through EEOC. But the underfunding, the chronic underfunding of EEOC has resulted in these horrendous backlogs. Now, whenever people talk about discrimination, the first thing we will hear is, well, we have sufficient laws already on the books to handle discrimination. The problem is, with this underfunding and these backlogs, justice delayed is justice denied. Who is hurt because we underfund EEOC? Well, clearly employees are hurt. Their careers are hurt. They are hurt by discrimination, the lack of promotion, the lack of advancement. Their health is sometimes injured as a result of the frustration, anger, and anxiety they have to suffer. Their finances are hurt as they give up on the EEOC process and go hire lawyers. The taxpayer loses. The employer loses the loss of good employees whose productivity declines, the loss of good employees who leave government as a result of discrimination, and finally the loss of productivity and lower moral as people become frustrated because they are discriminated against. We can resolve this problem. We should fully fund EEOC so we can address the concerns of African-Americans, Hispanics, gays, women, and other minorities who suffer discrimination here in America. For these reasons, I urge the passage of this amendment. 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 respond to the comments that were just made on several fronts. First, with respect to the funding that was provided last year, I would thank the gentleman. But my colleagues will note in his comments, the chairman said this funding will allow us to have a backlog of only 28,000 cases, only 28,000 cases. My point is this: those are the cases of American citizens who believe they have been denied fundamental opportunities and are trying to pursue their appropriate redress through the vehicle, the EEOC, which we provided to solve these problems. The fact that this backlog continues even with the funding which was provided last year suggests, as I indicated, that justice is being denied. We believe that additional funding will help alleviate this problem, not just in the private sector, but in the public sector where we have even more complaints of discrimination among our own Federal workers. So I think this is a question of priorities. Should we not take the time and should we not expend the funds to provide the true rights of all American citizens to those who are being discriminated against? I think we should. But I am not unmindful of the gentleman's comments, and I certainly respect his efforts in this regard. The State Department cut would be serious with respect to embassy security. I think that is certainly a consideration that we cannot overlook. In light of that fact and in consideration of conversations I have had with our own ranking member, it would be my desire and intention to withdraw the amendment at this time with the hope that, during the conference committee process, we can work to provide additional funds for EEOC. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It is both arrogant and misguided. It is arrogant because it attempts to impose the will of this Congress on citizens of the District of Columbia. The gentleman is from Kansas and I submit that we would never attempt to impose the will of this Congress on the citizens of Kansas and the citizens of Wichita, Kansas. We would let them spend their money the way they want to. This amendment would say that the citizens of the District of Columbia could not spend local money the way they want to. The District of Columbia has experience with this issue. In fact, through the Whitman-Walker Clinic and using local funds, they implemented a program and the program was successful. It reduced needle sharing by two- thirds. Mr. Chairman, that is the issue, needle sharing. Where we reduce needle sharing, we reduce the transmission of AIDS. Now, who says this approach works? Well, the National Institute of Health says this approach works. The Center for Disease Control says this approach works. The American Medical Association says needle sharing works. The National Academy of Sciences says needle sharing works. The body of scientific evidence in America suggests this is a proper approach. Let us not be arrogant and misguided. Let us oppose this amendment.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Mississippi for yielding me this time. I rise today in honor of two of America's heroes; Private First Class Jacob Joseph Chestnut and Detective John Gibson. These two men made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of this institution, not just for Members but, more importantly, the thousands of visitors who come here every day. We were all stunned when these two officers lost their lives last year on July 24. This tragedy demonstrates the tremendous sacrifices that members of the Capitol Police are asked to make on a daily basis to protect this institution, to protect the Capitol grounds, and to protect this aspect of the freedom that unfortunately we often take for granted. Putting aside the rhetoric that we often use, I also want to make a practical point; that as we honor these two men, we also ought to honor their memory with respect to the Capitol Police Force, and when the occasion arises to recognize our police officers with compensation and benefits, and we ought to be equally magnanimous in recognizing the sacrifices these officers make. I would also like to take this opportunity to mention the name of another officer who lost his life. Officer Christopher Eney lost his life in 1984 in a training accident while training as a member of the Capitol Police Force. He too should be recognized. The tragedy of this loss and all these losses indicates to us how fleeting life is and it is appropriate that we take a moment to try to memorialize these lives. I think in this way this will be a fitting memorial to the sacrifices these gentlemen made. I am very pleased that with the support of the Members of this body we were able to pass a resolution last year to rename the post office in the community where Officer Chestnut lives in his honor. Today's recognition is of similar importance. Again, I would like to say that we have fallen heroes that we recognize today, and I would like to close by thanking my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their support for what is truly a bipartisan effort to recognize American heroes.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, on July 14, 1999, I missed rollcall votes 284 to 296. On July 15, 1999, I missed rollcall vote No. 300. My absence was due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes 287, 289, 292 and ``aye'' on votes 284, 285, 286, 288, 290, 291, 293, 294, 295, 296, and 300.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). He has borne what I consider to be some unfair slings and arrows in the course of advocating this most important bill. I also want to compliment my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for working with us to promote the African Growth and Opportunity Act. I am supporting this bill for one simple reason. The countries in Africa want it. I think it would be the height of arrogance and extremely patronizing for those of us here to impose our will or to suggest that we know better for Africa than Africans do. If people are concerned about whether the trade will be fair, if people are concerned about whether the working conditions will be fair, I think it is reasonable to say, let the African countries and their leadership determine those issues, worker protection and the like. It seems to me that this is a good bill for Africa that gives us an opportunity to trade with an area that we have unfortunately neglected. Make no mistake, however. This is not charity. This is not altruism. This bill is good for America. It opens up the potential for tremendous new markets in Africa. But it is fundamentally good for Africa. It will enable African countries to build on the reforms that are already taking place. It encourages those reforms. It will enable Africa to be more competitive in the new era, in 2005 when the WTO opens up duty- free zones. It will enable them to be competitive and productive. Some will tell us that this is a threat to U.S. textile workers. That is not true. The fact of the matter is that the African component of textile manufacturing is extremely small, less than 1 percent of the U.S. market. We also have protections in this bill to ensure that import sensitive items are not brought in under the provisions of this legislation. For those who believe we will be hurting our textile markets, I think if we look at the bill, we find that that is not true. There are some who say, ``Well, this bill will hurt African workers.'' Again not true. We have provisions to protect African workers. Let us not raise a higher standard for those workers than we do with other countries. The bottom line is this bill is good for Africa. I urge its adoption.