Albert Wynn

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to retiring member, Representative Elizabeth Furse. I have known Representative Furse since we both successfully campaigned to become members of the House of Representatives in 1992--amazingly only twenty years after she became a naturalized United States citizen. Born in Nairobi, Kenya, Congressman Furse has spent her entire life fighting the tough fight. As a young white adolescent, she spent her childhood on the outside of South African society. Living in a segregated nation, ``fitting in'' was an unattainable goal due to the fact that her mother was one of the founding members of the Black Sash, a woman's anti-apartheid organization. However, because popularity was not her goal, she has been able to achieve amazing things. For example, at the age of fifteen, she joined in the organization's very first demonstration, which resulted in the brutal beating of the protestors. While Ms. Furse may have been scared often, more importantly she is inspired always. Even though the politics and culture of South Africa have changed over the years, the dedication and spirit of Congresswoman Furse have not. At the age of 17, Representative Furse left South Africa as a part of her own personal boycott, and now she has the opportunity to return to help this same nation re-enter the global community. Furthermore, the gentlelady from Oregon spearheaded a push to name Cape Town as the site of the 2004 Summer Olympic Games, which would have had innumerable benefits to South Africa's economy. This kind of vision is not surprising considering that in 1996, Ms. Furse led a twenty-six member trade delegation to South Africa. As she begins to bring her life's work full circle back to South Africa with her bid to become that country's new Ambassador of South Africa, it is clear that she will be missed here inside the beltway as well as in her congressional district. As Congresswoman Furse's colleague and her friend, I would like to say that it has been an honor and a privilege to have served with her in this body.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call World Population Awareness Week 1998 to the attention of my colleagues. October 24-31 marks the annual celebration of World Population Awareness Week. More than 300 family planning, environmental, educational, community and service organizations in 61 countries are co-sponsoring the week in an effort to raise awareness of the need for universal voluntary family planning. I call the Governor of Maryland's, the Honorable Paris Glendening, proclamation to the attention of my colleagues. World Population Awareness Week Proclamation--1998 Whereas world population stands today at more than 5.9 billion and increase by more than 80 million per year, with virtually all of this growth in the least developed countries; Whereas the consequences of rapid population growth are not limited to the developing world but extend to all nations and to all people, including every citizen of the State of Maryland concerned for human dignity, freedom and democracy, as well as for the impact on the global economy; Whereas 1.3 billion people--more than the combined population of Europe and North Africa--live in absolute poverty on the equivalent of one U.S. dollar or less a day; Whereas 1.5 billion people--nearly one-quarter of the world population--lack an adequate supply of clean drinking water and sanitation; Whereas more than 840 million people--one-fifth of the entire population of the developing world--are hungry or malnourished; Whereas demographic studies and surveys indicate that at least 120 million married women in the developing world--and a large but undefined number of unmarried women--want more control over their fertility but lack access to family planning; Whereas this unmet demand for family planning is projected to result in 1.2 billion unintended births; Whereas the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development determined that political commitment and appropriate programs aimed at providing universal access to voluntary family planning information, education and services can ensure world population stabilization at 8 billion or less rather than 12 billion or more. Now, therefore, I Paris Glendening, Governor of the State of Maryland, do hereby proclaim the week of October 25-31, 1998 as World Population Awareness Week, and urge citizens of the State to take cognizance of this event and to participate appropriately in this observance.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, good morning. I would like to talk about Congress' unfinished business. My colleagues on the other side rankle when we say it has been a do- nothing Congress, but it has been. We really have not addressed the big issues, the concerns that people in America want to see resolved by Congress. They have failed to achieve anything on tobacco reform. Thousands of our young people will die as a result. They have failed to do anything about HMO reform. Patient after patient, seniors across the spectrum, have said we need to reform HMOs to give patients a bill of rights. The Republicans have not delivered they fail to achieve. We know the biggest problem facing our country is Social Security. What are we going to do about it? Again, this do-nothing Congress, these under-achievers, have failed to address the real problem. We need to save the surplus and put it into saving Social Security. They want to give an election year tax break. It is a gimmick. But most importantly, Mr. Speaker, I think they fail to address the problem of our future in terms of education and school construction. We need modern classrooms, we need to invest in education, we need to solve the overcrowding problem, and they have not done it.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, the battle lines have been drawn in the war for education. On the Democratic side we have a simple proposition. We need more teachers to create smaller classrooms. We need school modernization so that we can have computers in the classroom, Internet access, and have the most modern teaching facilities that money can buy. We can do this within the context of a balanced budget. That is what the Democrats want to do: More teachers, modern classrooms. Now, the Republicans have another notion. They want to give students vouchers to take money out of public schools and send it to private schools, even though nine out of ten Americans go to public schools. Second, they say, well, there is too much administrative waste, so we have to block grant all of this. The fact is, only 2 percent of all the Federal education funds are for administration. The rest go into programs. But when they block grant the money and say we are going to block grant and put it all together, what happens is we cut education funds. I did some research, and my State would lose $10 million. The battle lines are drawn. Vote for education.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, by the calendar it says Sunday but in fact it is spin day, the day the Republicans come before the American public and try to spin their way out of this do-nothing Congress. Well, they get offended when you say do-nothing, so let us say underachieving Congress. The fact of the matter is we on the Democratic side want to stay here and deal with the issue of education. We need to invest more money in public education. The Republicans will try to tell you that they want to send money back to the States because money is going into bureaucracy. That is not true. Less than 2 percent of the Department of Education's budget is spent on administration. Ninety-eight percent goes directly to the States and localities. That is our position. The States and counties and local communities need more money to hire teachers, to train teachers, to put computers in classrooms. If we want a world-class education system, we have to make a world-class investment. That is why we are fighting. That is why we are here. The White House and the congressional Democrats say we must invest more in education. The Republicans simply want to go home and do nothing.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, time and time again, Americans have said that they want Congress to deal with the real issues, the issues that affect their daily lives and that affect the future of their young people. Education is such an issue. We are here this weekend debating, and some say fighting, over the question of education and America's future. We on the Democratic side have a clear proposition. We believe that we need to invest more money in public education. As my colleagues know, recently we got a wake-up call of sorts. In a battery of international tests, American students lagged behind their foreign counterparts. Moreover, as we talk about the global economy and the 21st century, what we realize is that we need more technical training for our students in order to compete in the global economy. That is why education has become the issue of the day. That is why the debate rages. What I would like to do is talk about the two perspectives and two approaches to solving the problem of education in this country. On the Republican side they have advocated basically two things: One, a voucher program. They want to use the District of Columbia as a laboratory in which to take money out of public schools, put it in private schools and say this new competition from the private school sector will create better schools. That is clearly erroneous because they do not put enough money into a voucher program to make it work. Private schools do not have to take all types of students; public schools do. We do not need to put money into a voucher program for private schools because 9 out of 10 American students will always end up in the public school system, and we need to make an investment in the public school system. Next, they come up with the notion that they like to call dollars to the schools, to the classroom. What I call it is dollars from the classroom because what their proposal does by creating a block grant is to cut over $2 billion from public education and then tell us we are actually putting more dollars in the classroom. Now we have to understand their premise is that too much money is being spent on bureaucracy. That is simply not true. The fact of the matter is only 2 percent of the entire Federal budget in education for the Department of Education goes to Federal administration. The rest goes to your State, your county and your city to administer education programs. So do not let them come up and suggest, well, there is too much bureaucracy. It is certainly not Federal bureaucracy. We do have that 2 percent, though, and that is used to monitor Federal programs to make sure the money is not wasted at the local level. So they want to take this money out of the Federal sector and take, basically cut it out, of the budget. That is what their dollars from the classroom does. Let me tell my colleagues some of the things that they cut. They cut educational technology challenge funds. They cut the Eisenhower Teacher Training Program. They cut school to work. Why would you cut a school to work program that is helping students make the transition? They cut the After School Learning Program. Why would you cut a program that helps students after school hours when they are most likely to get in trouble? It does not seem to make a lot of sense. Now they talk about their Dollars to the Classroom. I did a little research, and from my State of Maryland we will lose $10 million as a result of the Republican approach. So I do not call it Dollars to the Classroom; it is clearly for the State of Maryland and, for most other States, dollars from the classroom. Now let us turn to the Democratic approach. We believe we need to do a couple of fundamental things to improve education in America. First, we need to hire a hundred thousand new teachers for the elementary school, grades 1 to 3, to reduce class size. That is what we are fighting about over the weekend, whether we need to make that investment, because more teachers mean smaller classes, and smaller classes mean a better learning environment. Second, we want to invest in modernizing our schools. Over a third of our schools need major repairs. That is to say that they need heating systems, air-conditioning systems, that their boiler systems do not work very well. Over half of our schools have major environmental problems that we need to confront and are not prepared to adapt to the Internet. They cannot be wired to the Internet. So what we have is a situation in which outmoded, crumbling schools cannot deliver a quality education, and again we on the Democratic side believe we need to make an investment in public education to modernize our school system. We also have a problem of overcrowded schools. The President came to my school district, we visited a school. The school was only 5 years old, but yet it had 6 trailers outside to teach kids. The trailers do not have air-conditioning, the trailers do not have restrooms. You do not have a proper educational environment. So here we are. We are confronting the 21st century. We know that we lag behind our international counterparts, and we know we need to modernize our schools. I think the Democratic approach best solves the problem of education in America.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I first thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it is really quite simple. The Republicans want to go home. The Democrats want to go to work. This has been a do-nothing Congress. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, Americans want a couple of simple things. They want more teachers; Americans understand that we need more teachers in our early-year classrooms in order to reduce class size. Take it wherever you want, north, south, east or west, people will tell us they need smaller classes, more teachers, better trained teachers. The Democrats want to do that; the Republicans want to go home. Talk to Americans and they will also tell us we need school modernization. We have overcrowded classrooms, we have classrooms that are not wired to have Internet access. We need modernization. We need technological upgrades. We would like to do that. We would like to invest in education; the Republicans want to go home. Mr. Speaker, in the final analysis, actions speak louder than words. They want to talk about then, there, what not and what how. The fact of the matter is, they have failed. They have not delivered on education. We need to go to work; we do not need to go home.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me, and let me thank the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), for his cooperation and support in moving this matter forward to the body. Also, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) for her kind words on behalf of my former constituent. Her comments were most moving. Mr. Speaker, we are here today in an effort to memorialize the sacrifice of Officer J.J. Chestnut. This proposal is supported by the entire Maryland delegation on a bipartisan basis, and I think it reflects the bipartisan sentiments of this entire body in support of this outstanding Officer. The legislation redesignates the United States Postal Service Building located at 11550 Livingston Road in Oxon Hill, Maryland, presently known as the Fort Washington Post Office, as the Jacob Joseph Chestnut Post Office Building. United States Capitol Police Officer Jacob Joseph Chestnut, along with United States Capitol Police Special Agent John Gibson, gave their lives in the line of duty on Friday, July 24, 1998, while guarding the visitors and staff in the United States Capitol; some would say, in our home. Officer Jacob Joseph Chestnut, an 18-year-Capitol Police veteran and a retired United States Air Force Officer, was a gentle giant of a man who touched many lives with his friendly smile and his quiet competence in his short 58-year journey on this earth. A husband and father of five children, J.J. Chestnut was a pillar of his community, a respected leader, and a mentor to his fellow officers. Following this tragedy, his widow, Wen Ling, said, ``It is amazing to think that the death of a man so simple, so humble, so family-oriented, and yet so private, can rock the Nation and the world for simply doing his job.'' The tragedy of J.J. Chestnut's death teaches us that life is fleeting. It teaches us that it is not the quantity of what you do in life, but it is the quality of what you do. This small piece of legislation is a grateful community's attempt to memorialize the sacrifice this American has made. Although the bill does not request it, we are hopeful that in future years a bust and a picture and a plaque commemorating Officer Chestnut will also be placed in this post office, so that future generations will be able to see the man and understand the sacrifice he made. Mr. Speaker, this is the story of an American hero that gave his all for his country. It is a story of what makes our country great. J.J. Chestnut knew that freedom is not free. He understood that there is a price to be paid. We ask men and women like J.J. Chestnut to defend and protect our freedom every day. We ask them to confront those who would violently attack the safety of individuals and of our most cherished institutions. They ultimately risk their lives and they too often lose their lives. But for Officer Chestnut's selfless actions, we may have lost many other innocent lives on that unfortunate day. In Officer Jacob Joseph Chestnut we find an extraordinary individual who served his country and made the ultimate sacrifice in the performance of his duty to protect the lives of others in the Capitol. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I thank my colleagues from the State of Maryland for their support in recognition of a great American whose gentle smile and helpful spirit will truly be missed.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, we are about to engage in a momentous debate here in Congress, a debate about the future of America and about the really big issues, like saving Social Security. On the Democratic side, we have a very simple proposition. If we have a surplus, we should use all of that surplus to preserve and save Social Security, because the baby boomers are coming. When they do, we will be insolvent. We do not have a full solution, but we do know that if we get some money into the Treasury, we ought to set it all aside to save Social Security. Now, the Republicans have an election year gimmick. They say, let us run down here and propose a tax cut for the American people, and that way we can get elected because it is election year. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that they are perpetuating a myth. They say it is a drain on the economy. Taxes are a terrible drain. The fact of the matter is that the economy is doing very well. Poverty is at an all-time low. Unemployment is at an all-time low. Business starts are increasing. They say, well, taxes are a burden on the average taxpayer. Tax rates for the average American taxpayer are at the lowest point they have been since 1978. They say taxes are a disproportionate part of the gross domestic product. That is only because revenues increased because more people are working. The fact of the matter is we should save Social Security first.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time. If it is an election year, it must be time for a tax cut. At least that is what the Republicans think. And they do not really care how they finance it. We on the Democratic side like tax cuts, too. In fact, we voted for tax cuts last year because they were paid for within the budget. They were paid for in the context of a balanced budget. This year, though, the Republicans are not worried about that. They are going to raid the Social Security trust fund to pay for tax cuts. That is not right. The fact of the matter is we do not even have a surplus yet and if we get one, we do not know how much it is going to be. So we ought to at least let the ink dry on the surplus before we start giving it away. More importantly, if the surplus is not as great as we think it will be or if there is a downturn in the economy, we will not have those revenues but we will have shortchanged the Social Security trust fund. Americans believe that Congress ought to deal with the big issues. The big issue facing our society is how we will deal with Social Security when the baby boom generation moves into its senior years. We on the Democratic side have a simple proposition. Any revenue we get, any and all of that surplus ought to be set aside for that rainy day. The Republicans are saying, ``Well, let's shave a little bit off and give it away.'' The problem is, that will raid the Social Security trust fund and will not maximize the security we ought to provide for our seniors. Now, they will come down and tell you, ``We've got this terrible tax burden and that's what we're really fighting against.'' The fact of the matter is the economy is doing very well. Unemployment is down, employment is up, interest rates are down. They say, ``Well, there's a burden on the average family.'' Let me tell you this: The tax rates on the average American family are at its lowest point since 1978. We want to give tax breaks when we can pay for them, but if we cannot pay for them, we do not believe we ought to jeopardize the Social Security trust fund. We ought to put all the surplus back into the trust fund to protect long-term national interests.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. I am pleased to join with him tonight in talking about the issue of tax cuts, phony tax cuts, and the more important issue of saving Social Security. There is a difference in this evening's debate. The Republicans are here with an election-year gimmick, election-year candy which basically says to the American people, ``I know what you want and I'm going to give you a tax cut.'' We take a longer term view on the Democratic side. We believe that the most responsible thing we can do is not give an election-year gimmick but, rather, to protect and save Social Security first, to look forward 20 years when we really need to address the problem of an insolvent Social Security system and say, ``Let's plan now for that day.'' The way we plan now for that day is quite simply by saving all the money in this projected surplus and putting it toward Social Security and not toward some kind of election-year tax break gimmick. Let us talk about taxes for a minute because I think there is a certain mythology that has been perpetrated by the Republicans with respect to why we need these tax cuts. One of the first things we will hear will be a phrase that reads something like this: Taxes are a crushing drain on the American economy. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that that is not true. The economy is doing very well. There is no crushing drain. There is no overwhelming burden on our economy. Our economy is today the best it has been in 30 years. We have low unemployment. More people are working. We have low and stable interest rates. We have increased business starts. We have fewer bankruptcies. So where is this crushing burden that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to talk about? It does not exist. It is a myth. It is a part of their election-year rationale to suggest that they have got the solution for the American public. There is no crushing drain or overwhelming burden on the American taxpayer. They say, ``Oh, yes, there is.'' Item number 2, they will tell you that the tax rates are too high on the average American. That, too, is a myth. It is not true. The tax rates for the average American family with two children are the lowest they have been since 1978. Tax rates for even the folks in the highest brackets are lower than they have been since the 1960s and the 1970s. So when Republicans run down to the well and start talking about the tax rate on the American citizen is too great and somehow government's hand is in their pocket, they are not telling you the truth. What we have given you with the balanced budget and a healthy economy is tax rates that are in fact lower than they have been in many, many years. Third, they will say, well, what about as a percentage of gross domestic product? The Republicans will try to suggest to you that tax revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product is the highest that it has ever been. Well, yes, tax revenues are high. Why? Because more people are working and more people are paying taxes. So that is not a problem. That is a by-product of a healthy economy. People are working. They pay more taxes. It is not a drain. It is a positive by-product. There is a second by-product that is the result of this healthy economy that impacts on the tax revenue and, that is, millionaires. Yes, millionaires. Our economy has generated numerous millionaires as a result of the stock market. When they take their profits out, they pay capital gains tax. Those capital gains tax from the millionaires go toward the general fund and increase our tax revenues. So we have a healthy revenue picture but it is not because there is an overwhelming or disproportionate burden. It is because people are paying more taxes because they are earning more money, or in the case of the millionaires, they are making more profits. So we see that this mythology that has been developed around the notion of we need massive tax cuts to save this country simply is not true. Now let us look at the Democrats' proposal. We say that the most significant issue in American politics today is saving Social Security. We know there is a day coming when the baby boom generation will become eligible for Social Security and when that day comes if we do not make some adjustments, we will be facing an insolvent Social Security system in the year 2020. By the year 2030, we will not be able to make our payments on time. That is the problem that we as public officials ought to be dealing with, not some tax gimmick because it is election year but a serious consideration of how we can address the Social Security problem. Now, this administration, led by President Clinton, has said very simply this. What we ought to do is take any surplus that we get and put it aside to save Social Security, so that it will help us address this insolvency problem when it arrives. We will have to do other things: We will have to have a commission, we will have to come up with hard recommendations but certainly we need to start putting some of this money aside. But the thing we have to keep in mind is we do not even have the money yet. We do not have the surplus yet. It is a projected surplus. Some people say, ``Let's wait at least until the black ink dries before we start spending it.'' We should not start spending. We should not start giving it away. We should start saving it. That is what the Democrats are proposing. It is long-range thinking. It is thinking that will protect our community, our young people in years to come. I think that this is the way we ought to go. I think this is the sound public policy. That is why when we take up this debate over the weekend we are going to say, no, save Social Security first, then talk about tax cuts after we have a serious proposal to save Social Security. The gentleman from New Jersey has done a wonderful job leading this issue. I thank him for allowing me to have a few moments this evening.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding this time to me. I rise in opposition to this rule as the neighbor of the District of Columbia. I represent the 4th District of Maryland. We are indeed neighbors, and I believe good neighbors, and we realize that this is an atrocious rule. It continues a pattern of interference in the management of the District of Columbia that is reminiscent of colonial days. It continues a pattern of unwarranted interference, it continues a pattern of experimentation, if my colleagues will, into the affairs of the District of Columbia that is only being exercised not because it is right, but because those folks on the other side can do it arbitrarily and capriciously. Specifically I turn to the prohibition against the needle exchange program. We need to understand one reality. We are losing the War on Drugs. Some folks would even go as far as to say it is a joke. But let me just say this: We need to allow the District of Columbia to try innovative approaches. If the citizens of the District of Columbia believe that a needle exchange will reduce AIDS, they ought to be able to try that, and Congress ought not interfere. If they believe that clean needles in exchange for dirty needles will reduce the spread of a deadly disease, they ought to be able to try that, and I have yet to hear the rationale for denying the citizens of the District of Columbia the opportunity to do that. Second, once again the Republicans have trotted out their old voucher plan, and they claim this is the solution to education problems in our country. They are experimenting on the District of Columbia. They want to take money out of public schools and send it to private schools. They want to allow 2,000 students to go to private schools while 75,000 students languish in sub-par public schools. Yes, there are problems in the District of Columbia. There are infrastructure problems, there is a need for technological upgrades, and we ought to help the District of Columbia do that. But instead they want to implement a program that will basically benefit a few students, leaving the majority behind. What my colleagues have to realize about the voucher plan is private schools do not have to accept all students. They do not have to accept handicapped students, they do not have to accept unruly students, they do not have to accept students that bring baggage, social baggage, to school. Those students still have to be educated, and the District of Columbia will not be in as good a position to educate them because the Republicans want to conduct some sort of experiment. We need a serious approach to education. What we need to do for the District of Columbia and all schools in this country is provide more Federal assistance for the repair and maintenance of schools, for the technological upgrading of school systems to enable them to have access to the Internet. We need to pay teachers more money, we need to hire more teachers, we need to train teachers better so they can deal with our young people. We need to provide sophisticated curricula that can deal with the new global economy. There is a lot we can and should do for schools across this country. But certainly this so-called model of a voucher system is not the answer because it does not provide real assistance to the folks who need it. I strongly urge the rejection of this rule.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, not because I oppose the District of Columbia. Quite to the contrary, I consider myself a friend of the District of Columbia, and more importantly, as a resident of the suburbs, I believe the citizens of the suburbs consider themselves friends of the District of Columbia. Earlier today I stood on this floor and I said that we ought to allow the District of Columbia to manage its affairs. I and all of us in the Washington metropolitan area have worked closely with the District of Columbia to support the District. We believe that they should manage their affairs. But when the District of Columbia contemplates erecting a wall and stretching outside of its jurisdiction to say to those people who live across the line, so to speak, no, you cannot come in, then I have a serious concern. That is why I am here to object to the Norton amendment. Mr. Chairman, I know it is tempting to establish a residency requirement. We in Prince Georges County contemplated it, and Montgomery County has contemplated it. It is always good to say, why do we not keep all these jobs here to ourselves. But that is not a sound policy, and thankfully, the jurisdictions that I have mentioned resisted that temptation and said, we will have an open door policy. People can live where they want to live, and bring their resources and talents into our jurisdiction and work. That is what we think the District of Columbia ought to do. The citizens who live outside of the District of Columbia and work in D.C. contribute a great deal. They spend a lot of money here. They support art, culture. They contribute to the District of Columbia. I often see my colleague, and say that I am in the District of Columbia and I am spending an hour, I am supporting the District's tax base. Those folks who work in the District of Columbia do that on a regular basis. One of the things I would have to mention in this debate is that the folks that live in the suburbs are not ``them'' and ``they.'' For the most part, they are people who used to live in the District of Columbia, who perhaps even go to church in the District of Columbia, have families in the District of Columbia, and travel out to the suburbs to find a place to live with more room or a different type of lifestyle, but still have a great affinity and love for the District of Columbia. So the notion that there is some sort of division between the people out there and the people in here I think is absolutely false. One of the interesting ironies is that, and it was pointed out earlier, that the ``big bosses,'' the top level appointees, already are subject to residency requirements. That is to say, if you make the big bucks, you can be required to live within the city. But for the average person, the fireman, schoolteacher, whatever, if they can find a better housing value in the suburbs they ought to be able to take advantage of that. They ought not to be considered to be somehow colonial in their thinking or abandoning the District of Columbia. The other thing I would add is that this policy could cut both ways. There are a lot of opportunities in the suburbs. Not only did we resist the temptation to apply residency requirements for government jobs, and our governments are much larger than that of the District of Columbia and offer more opportunities, but we also resisted it in the form of taxes on out-of-State employees. We have not done that. We have not started that practice. I daresay that this attempt or this concept by the District of Columbia would move us in the wrong direction. It would begin to make jurisdictions wary of each other. It would make jurisdictions start talking about residency requirements in Prince Georges, Fairfax, Arlington, Montgomery County. That is not good for the region. We want to do the right thing for the entire Washington metropolitan region. The right thing is to allow people to live where they want to live, where their lifestyle justifies their living, and allow them to work where they want to work. I think it is a sad fact that if Members have to have a residency requirement, it is almost a tacit admission that they can not attract people to live in their town, they have to compel them to live in their town. I do not believe that is what the District of Columbia is saying. I believe the District of Columbia is a viable and desirable place to live. I think people will want to come and live in the District of Columbia, and there is no need, no fundamental need, for a residency requirement that would impose this mandatory requirement. I would like to return to and maintain the notion of regional cooperation. That is why I am here to oppose the residency requirement for the District of Columbia.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, on July 31, 1998, I missed rollcall votes 367 through 376 on 10 amendments to the Shays-Meehan Substitute to H.R. 2183, the Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act, because I attended the funeral services of the slain Capitol Hill Police Officer Jacob J. Chestnut. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes 367, 368, 370, 373, 374, 375, 376 and ``aye'' on votes 369, 371, 372.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in expressing our sincerest condolences to the families of Officer Jacob J.J. Chestnut and to Detective William Gibson, and to the entire Capitol Hill Police Department. As is the case with many people who are employed here on the Hill, Officer Chestnut was actually a constituent of mine. He was a kind man, a gentle man, a man who is beloved by his fellow officers. He was a man within months of retirement. The tragedy, obviously, was compounded. Saturday, I had the occasion to visit with his family. I spoke with his son, and the pain he was experiencing was very obvious. I also had a great deal of admiration for the way the son stood tall in his father's spirit and greeted visitors and accepted their well wishes. Today we all speak with a great deal of eloquence and admiration for our fallen heroes, but I often think of how sometimes, in fact, in our own sense of self-importance we did not even take the time to speak or to say hello or we rushed past because we are too busy with our concerns. Sometimes when issues of compensation or work conditions arose, we were slow to respond. I am hopeful that as part of our gratitude and part of our expression of sentiments, we will recognize the role of the Capitol Police and acknowledge them in our actions as well as through our words. In that vein, I would like to compliment and thank the leadership of both parties for joining in according these fallen heroes the high honor of lying in honor, and also in according their families the practical honor of seeing that their expenses are taken care of. I think it speaks well of the sense of this House. Words are inadequate on occasions such as this. To the families, I commend the power of prayer. That is perhaps the greatest solace of all. These men met the challenge in preserving the safety and the accessibility of this House, the People's House. They stand as true American heroes. May we never forget their sacrifice and may they rest in peace.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join the debate on health care reform in America. On the one hand we have the Democrats' plan, which is patient protection. On the other hand we have the Republican plan, which is basically insurance industry protection. It really amounts to this: When HMOs make health care decisions instead of doctors, they ought to be liable. When a young man in my district had a bicycle accident, the HMO wanted to make the decision that he not receive the treatment that his doctor recommended. If that young man is disfigured, the HMO ought to pay the cost, and that essentially is the difference in today's debate. We guarantee patients' rights, because if we cannot enforce a right, it is not really a right, and the way we enforce it is the ability to go into one's State court and say look, the HMO made the decision, the HMO denied the doctor's recommendation, and the HMO ought to be held accountable. That is real HMO reform; that is not what the Republicans want to do. The reason we need accountability is so that the HMOs have an incentive to do the right thing, listen to the doctors. If we take away the incentive, we take away our ability to enforce our rights. I urge us today to pass real health care reform, not insurance industry protection.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for yielding me this time, and I also offer my congratulations and thanks to her for her strong, outstanding leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Most Favored Nation status, and rise in support of the resolution. People will say that we have made some progress in our dealings with China. I do not see that progress. I see a $64 billion trade deficit. I see jobs that should be in this country that are in China. I see the piracy of intellectual property by China going unabated. Mr. Speaker, the reality is basically this: If we do not take a strong stand, we will continue to be the loser. They have engaged in trade practices that do not benefit this country, but some people somehow say that that is progress despite the fact that we continue to lose jobs. Mr. Speaker, our best jobs, the so-called good-paying, high-tech jobs come out of our intellectual property. But they pirate our intellectual property and guarantee that we will not see the benefit of those good jobs. It is suggested we must stay engaged. We must stay engaged, but engaged based on toughness and strength, not on weakness. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the resolution.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. I move to strike the requisite number of words, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro amendment, and cite my objections to the bill as written. On its face, this bill is discriminatory, and worse, it is arbitrary, because it singles out Federal employees for the simple reason that the majority can do it. They can get away with it because they control the Federal employee benefit package. But it is in fact discriminatory against Federal employees. What the Republicans are trying to say or what the proponents of this bill have tried to say is essentially this, that this is some sort of Federal subsidy of abortion. I respect their opinions on abortion, I respect the fact that they oppose abortion, but this is in no form or fashion a Federal subsidy. What we are talking about here is the right of Federal employees to use their compensation as they see fit to address their own health care needs in a private way. If these Federal employees were not employed by the Federal Government, if they were in the private sector, they could get insurance, and if they so choose, use that health insurance for an abortion. But because they work in the Federal sector and because folks on the other side of the aisle have the ability to control their health benefits, they are denied this right. Make no mistake, benefits, health benefits, are part of compensation, just like your salary, your wages. It is compensation for the labor you provide for the United States of America. In that context, when you are compensated for your labor, that compensation belongs to you. It is no longer the taxpayers', any more than your paycheck is the taxpayers'. The paycheck belongs to the Federal employee, the health benefits belong to the Federal employee, and on that basis the Federal employee ought to be able to use them to purchase the health care plan that they so desire. There are 1.2 million women of reproductive age under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. They ought to have the right to purchase the health care that they want to. That was the case prior to 1995, when my colleagues on that side of the aisle chose to change the law. I am not here to debate the merits of abortion. That has been resolved by the courts. The courts have said it is a legal procedure. On that basis, 70 percent of private insurers offer this benefit. Because of that, I believe Federal employees ought to have the right to take advantage of that benefit as part of their compensation. We should not exercise the . . ., as my colleague referred to it, and arbitrary power to inhibit the choices of these women of childbearing age simply because we can. That is really all it amounts to. They cannot do it for the workers in the Fortune 500 companies who have private insurance. They cannot do it for the workers in any other company in this country that offer private insurance. They do it to Federal employees because they can do it to Federal employees. That is not a matter of a moral judgment on their part, that is a matter of discrimination . . . . It is being done because they can do it to Federal employees.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I believe I control the time, and I have not yielded.

Mr. WYNN. I control the time.

Mr. WYNN. I think the gentleman is making a very subjective argument.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, in the interests of time and in comity, I withdraw the statement regarding arrogance.

Mr. WYNN. Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying this. It may not be arrogant, but it is certainly capricious, and it is certainly arbitrary to single out Federal employees for different treatment than we could give to any segment of society that happens to receive health insurance. I hope we would correct this injustice by supporting the DeLauro amendment.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, now that Congress is back in session, the debate over HMO reform will really begin. It will really heat up. We will hear from the Republican side of the aisle a lot of gimmicks. They will talk about health marks, and they will talk about medical savings accounts. What we have to understand is that the key to HMO reform is simply this: timely access to needed medical services and the ability to enforce that right. That is what the Democratic plan would do, because it would give patients the right to sue HMOs when HMOs make decisions that deny their patients' rights and adversely affect their health care. The Republican plan does not offer that benefit because they are afraid to take on the HMOs and the insurance industry. Let me give my colleagues an example in my district. It is a typical example. A young man is in a bicycle accident. He faces facial disfigurement. His medical doctor says he ought to take a certain course of treatment, but the HMO says no, we are not going to pay for that treatment. Let me tell my colleagues, if the HMO could be sued for failing to allow necessary treatment, they would change their tune. That is what the debate for HMO reform is all about. I hope we will adopt the Democratic approach.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to the conference report. Today, we are being treated to yet another episode in the continuing Republican saga of tax relief for the rich. It is also known as Robin Hood in reverse; take from the poor to give to the rich. When we look behind all the rhetoric, what we find is that the people who benefit from this bill are not everyday citizens. They only get about $7 a year out of this bill. The people who benefit are, again, the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans. There is nothing wrong with private schools. There is nothing wrong with savings accounts. I think it is a great idea. What is wrong is when we take tax dollars away from public education, and that is what this bill does. Tax relief for the rich. We have some problems in education. If the Republicans were serious about dealing with education, they would look inside our public school systems. Ninety percent of the students in America go to public schools. Sixty percent of Americans think we here in Congress ought to be spending more money on public education. It would seem to me that what we ought to be doing is putting our money where the students are: in public education. How should we do this? There is a Democratic alternative that says, number one, we need smaller classes in grades 1 through 3. We need to reduce class size by hiring more teachers. I think that is a good idea. We need to build our infrastructure. We need to repair our schools. We have schools that have asbestos problems. We have schools with leaking roofs. About a third of all the schools in America have major repair problems that need to be addressed, not by some savings account gimmick but by a serious commitment of Federal funds for public education. We also need to invest in our public schools by enabling them to have access to the Internet. Fifty percent of our schools are not capable of being wired to the Internet because they cannot accommodate the new technology. We need to address that infrastructure concern. So when we talk about aid to education, there are two ways to go. We can go the way of tax relief for the rich or we can look at a serious commitment to repairing our education infrastructure. That is the approach the Democrats embody in their motion to recommit. I urge rejection of the conference report. I urge adoption of the motion to recommit.