Albert Wynn

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, good morning. I rise today to talk about the issue of education and the debate that is evolving here in the House about how we can best serve American students. The best seems to be two areas of thought. The Republicans today and tomorrow will talk about another program to aid private school education. The Democrats again are saying we need to support public education. This is really ironic when we think of the fact that 90 percent of American students attend public school. It would seem only logical that we would put our money where the students are. However, that is not the case on the Republican side. They are advocating so-called savings accounts for education that would allow tax-free contributions into private schools. That is not the way we can help American education. The Democrats have a very simple and straightforward approach. We suggest that what we need to do is improve public schools. We need to reduce class size by providing Federal assistance so that we can hire more teachers. Sixty percent of Americans surveyed say the Federal Government needs to spend more money on public education. We can hire 100,000 new teachers, we can reduce class size, we can modernize our schools. We need to put our money where the students are, and that is in public education.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend a group of students in my district for their support of the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act, which passed the House earlier this week. One hundred and eighteen students of the Law and Public Policy Program of Largo High School in Prince George's County, Maryland, fifty three students of the Law and Public Policy Program and African American History Classes at Potomac High School in Prince George's County, Maryland, and one hundred and twenty-six students of the Saturday Academy of the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self-Development signed onto petitions to show their support for S. 887, which is the Senate version of the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act. All three of these petitions advocate an affirmative vote for this legislation and express the following sentiment in support of this legislation: This legislation would establish the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom, a way to preserve and link Underground Railroad sites nationwide for the first time, under the auspices of the National Park Service. It will also allow the Park Service to enter into innovative public- private partnership's with local and privately held sites and interpretive centers. The purpose of the underground railroad is twofold: Our challenge is to first, educate all people concerning this important episode in American History; and second, to bring our country together by facing the lingering vestiges of our nation's dehumanizing past, so that we can find common ground and move forward as one people. More than ever these two endeavors are inseparable.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the budget. Well, actually two budgets. There is on the one hand the Republican extreme budget, a budget that is irresponsible, a budget that contains a $24 billion black hole of unspecified cuts, a budget that is weighted once again toward the wealthy. On the other hand, you have the Democratic budget. It is a balanced budget, but it focuses on people. Why do I object to the Republican budget? First, it fails to protect Social Security. It talks about a better way of life, but the administration and the Democrats have said the first thing we ought to do is put every penny of the surplus toward protecting Social Security. That is the people's budget. That is the Democratic perspective. Second, the Republican budget fails to invest in education. The thing that is most important for our Nation's future is to invest in education, smaller classes, schools that are in proper repair, schools that are ready to access the Internet. We need to invest there. The Republicans do not see it that way. They have a narrow view that makes draconian cuts in important programs. They do not protect our important investments. I believe we ought to reject the extreme Republican perspective.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding time to me. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose this amendment. I recognize that in opposing this amendment, that there are good intentions on both sides. I am the grandson of the chairman of the deacon board, and I strongly believe in prayer. This is the graduation season. I have spoken to a lot of students about the importance of spirituality and faith in their lives. But the fact remains that despite its good intentions, this amendment will not work, and will in fact lead to an infringement on the rights of others. I had the opportunity to discuss this amendment with the sponsor, who is very sincere and well-intentioned. But when we got to the fine points of how this would be implemented, when we got away from the general language we all agree on, we came down to some fundamental questions, questions such as who decides on what day who gets to pray for how long, and who gets a turn? What about the satanists? Do they get a turn? Personally, I do not think I should be subjected to that, nor should my child be subjected to that. This is not philosophy. This is not a question of exposing people to other philosophies. This is religion. Religion is a very personal, perhaps the most personal of all rights and all beliefs. People have the right to protect that and not be exposed. They have the right not to hear or be forced to hear beliefs with which they disagree. This is not an academic exercise. This is religion, this is faith. We have in our current system the ability to pray in schools, not just because of math exams. We have the right to pray before school, during lunchtimes, after school. The Department of Education has issued regulations making it clear that students can say grace, students can meet in religious groups, students can use all school facilities to exercise their religious rights, like any other club or group. There are over 10,000 religious clubs in America, and I think that is a good thing. I think they ought to exercise their rights on school property. But as we used to say when I was in law school, the exercise of your right stops at my doorstep. I do not believe we should have a system that infringes on my rights so you can exercise your rights. I urge us to reject this amendment. It is well-intentioned, but it is wrong and it is unworkable.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for yielding me this time, and for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1872, and also in strong support of the Tauzin and the Morella amendments which are to come. This legislation, should it pass without these amendments, will set back 3 decades of American leadership in international satellite communications and reverse the trend toward increasing competition in the satellite industry. The legislation before us today establishes unrealistic timetables and conditions for the privatization of INTELSAT and Inmarsat, prohibits any organization from being used to provide critical noncore satellite services to customers in the United States if the bill's rigid privatization deadlines are not met, and that is just not right. Now, this legislation has laudable goals, and I appreciate its intent. Unfortunately, its approach is somewhat bludgeon-like, and the sponsors have taken a somewhat misguided and punitive approach, an approach that is so unfair that it has been denounced in publications as ideologically diverse as the Washington Times and the Boston Globe. They would have us believe that COMSAT is a monopoly. They would have us believe that COMSAT is in fact the Microsoft of the satellite industry. COMSAT is a United States company that is going to be punished by this bill. It is a publicly traded, U.S. company. It is not true that it is a monopoly. In fact, there are currently more than 20 competitors for COMSAT with more than $14 billion in investments and $40 billion in stock. If this is not competition, I do not know what is. If we look a little further, in 1988 COMSAT controlled 70 percent of the market. That is not true today; they only control 21 percent. In fact, on April 28 of this year, the FCC declared that COMSAT is nondominant in most of its market. This effectively eliminates arguments that we will hear that we are trying to get rid of some terrible monopoly. The monopoly does not exist. What we have is a United States company that is going to be severely punished as a result of this legislation. COMSAT has represented the United States' interests in international satellite communications for 30 years. The company has played a leading role in moving toward privatization. The plans that are adopted currently by INTELSAT reflect the involvement of COMSAT. Since its inception, COMSAT has never wavered from its mandate to provide satellite communications to some of the most remote parts of the world. It has done outstanding work. But now, they are faced with an unprecedented legislative attack that will put this U.S. company out of business, this company that hires over 1,000 American citizens. What does this bill do? It imposes some very un-American things on an American company. It imposes service restrictions on the new satellite communications service that COMSAT could offer to its customers. This would include high-speed data services, Internet access services, and land mobile communication; basically, taking the heart out of COMSAT's business. But even worse, it would abrogate contracts; that is, existing contracts could be set aside under the terms of this legislation to the detriment of COMSAT, all supposedly to promote privatization. In fact, this approach would undercut active efforts that are going on today to move toward privatization by imposing these unrealistic timetables. Mr. Chairman, I think we do need to take a stand for privatization, but we need to be careful where we stand. We should not punish U.S. companies, we should not punish U.S. employees for actions by international organizations that they cannot control. We need to take a look at amendments that could help this bill, amendments we will hear about from the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and from my colleague, the gentlewoman from Montgomery County, Maryland (Mrs. Morella). I think if we add these amendments, we can improve this bill. But as it stands, this bill is an unconstitutional taking from a U.S. company. It is punitive, it is unfair, and I hope this House will reject it.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Montgomery County, Maryland, (Mrs. Morella) for her leadership on this issue. It is a very important issue to one of our own companies, COMSAT. The question that is posed by this amendment is simply this: deregulation or plain old theft? This the question was posed by Nancie Marzulla, president of the Defenders of Property Rights, in an op-ed piece in the April 27, 1998, edition of the Washington Times. In her piece they state clearly that the sponsors in the quest for deregulation have proposed Federal legislation that could end up costing American citizens hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars to cover COMSAT's takings claims. That is right, takings claims. As reported by the Committee on Commerce, this legislation contains restrictions that will limit the services that COMSAT can offer using its satellite assets. The restrictions take effect if rigid milestones are not met for privatization. The critical point, however, is that these milestones are not milestones within the control of COMSAT; they are milestones beyond their control, in fact, in the control of international organizations. COMSAT is urging and helping move toward privatization, but they cannot control the pace of privatization. Nonetheless, they would be subject to unfair restrictions if our imposed milestones are not met. And I do not believe that this is fair. I know we have constitutional scholars in this body, and I call upon them today. This is an unconstitutional taking. COMSAT is a private, investor-owned company. COMSAT's contract rights are property; and under the fifth amendment of the Constitution, the government simply cannot take this property, which is what this legislation does, without paying for it; and I fully expect that COMSAT will be filing claims on this issue. Should this occur, the money the U.S. taxpayers will have to pay as a result of litigation will far exceed anything we are contemplating now in the context of our tobacco concerns. The amendment being offered by my colleague today will significantly reduce our liability and that of our constituents by eliminating the takings provisions for the bill's restrictions on COMSAT. The amendment does the right thing by allowing COMSAT to continue to use its property, and I urge our Members to support this amendment. Now, I applaud the purpose of the chairman with this legislation, and I think the intent is laudable and he has worked very hard. However, the underlying theory of this legislation is quite flawed. The sponsors of this bill would have us believe that COMSAT is a huge, untenable monopoly. This is simply not true. In fact, there are more than 20 current competitors to COMSAT, with more than $14 billion in investments and $40 billion in stock value. If this is not competition, I do not know what is. I do not think we can ask for much more. But let us consider further. In 1998, COMSAT controlled 70 percent of the international voice traffic. Today they have only a 21 percent share. Significantly, COMSAT's market share has declined. In 1993, COMSAT controlled 80 percent of the video market; today it controls 42 percent. Clearly, competition is emerging under our present structure. We do not need this piece of legislation to promote competition. But finally and most telling, on April 28 of this year, the FCC declared that COMSAT is nondominant in most of its market, thus authoritatively eliminating the argument that we have to get rid of COMSAT or punish COMSAT because it is an egregious monopoly. Despite these facts, however, the sponsors of the legislation, so intent on privatizing this industry, would subject our constituents to potentially billions of dollars in liability as a result of litigation. I think Ms. Marzulla put it best in her op-ed piece when she said, ``Deregulation must be pursued with vigor. At the same time, promises governments made to private companies and on which investors based their investment, must be kept. Deregulation cannot be an excuse for the uncompensated confiscation of private property.'' And that is what we are debating here today. I urge my colleagues to support and adopt the Morella amendment. I believe that this is a proper move and an appropriate step to making this bill something that we can support.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? The gentleman referred to me by name. Mr. Chairman. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for yielding me this time. I rise today in strong opposition to the Riggs amendment. It is an extreme measure designed to deny access to higher education to members of minority groups and women. The fact of the matter is that education is fundamental to social advancement in our society. The difference in income is tremendous. Those with higher education, men make $16,000 on average more than men without higher education. For women, it is almost double when we compare women with a college education to those without. Affirmative action has served over the last 20 years to create opportunity for large numbers of African Americans, Latinos, Asians and women, to gain access to higher education, and in turn, to gain access to economic prosperity. However, the proponents of this amendment would deny that opportunity to these folks in minority groups. Why? Because they want to propagate to the American public that somehow we have reached a level playing field and that discrimination does not exist. On its face, that is ridiculous, but tonight I would like to look at this so-called level playing field. I think what we find is that, in fact, it is not level. According to EEO, there have been 80,000 discrimination complaints filed over the last 2 years. According to crime statistics, over 10,000 hate crimes were committed, including 12 murders of members of minority groups. The report of the Glass Ceiling Commission says that women occupy only 3 to 5 percent of senior executive positions, and in Federal procurement, where hundreds of billions of dollars are spent, minorities and women get only about 5 to 7 percent. Clearly, the playing field is not level. That is why we need affirmative action; that is why it is worth it to address the problems of discrimination that exist today. Before I conclude, let me say this. I am tired of the patronizing by these folks who come up and say that this will allow unqualified people to gain admission to higher education. The fact of the matter is, even with affirmative action, the criteria for graduation remains unchanged. So anyone that comes in under a program such as this would not be unqualified or would not be compromising the quality of their education. I hope we address the reality of today's world, and that is that affirmative action is needed because discrimination continues to exist.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to very strongly oppose this rule and also this very misguided bill. My colleagues on the Republican side come up and they tell us this is a noble experiment. Folks, this is not an experiment. This is a plan masquerading as a policy. The gentleman who preceded me made a very cogent point. This bill only helps 2,000 students in the District of Columbia. That leaves 75,000 students in the District of Columbia who get no help whatsoever. This bill only appropriates money for one year, so at the end of this year it is very uncertain as to whether this noble experiment will even be able to continue. More importantly, this so-called noble experiment has been rejected already by 20 States. In fact, three States in public referenda rejected this idea twice. This is a very poorly thought out idea. Here is why: We did a study and looked at some of the private schools in the District of Columbia. What we found out was that approximately 90 percent of the private schools in the District of Columbia charged tuition far in excess of what is being provided. So this notion that there is going to be this great choice for families is really a mistake. It is really a fraud. They are not going to have the choice to go to the Sidwell Friends or the St. Albans and the great private schools. Let us be candid. Sure, if we gave someone the money to go to the best private school in America, would they get a good education? Yes. The fact of the matter is the Republicans cannot do that and are not planning to do it. It is not practical. The money does not exist. What they are basically doing is patronizing the citizens of the District of Columbia by saying we know what is best for them, and we are going to take money away from their school system and put it into this experiment. But no, no, it is not their money; it is new money. Look, here is the reality. The District of Columbia needs money for discipline programs, for reading tutors, for aftercare programs. If we want to fundamentally improve education in the District of Columbia or if we want to fundamentally improve education in America, what we need to do is invest in public schools. If there is new money, do not experiment, put it into the school system where it can really be used.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out about tobacco. It is time for the Congress to do the right thing. Unfortunately, the messages coming from the Speaker's Office are mixed. One day, we ought to do something; the next day, it is too big a burden. It is not too big a burden. We have to protect our young people. Each day, approximately 6,000 young people try a cigarette. Each day, 300 become long-term smokers. The average teen smoker starts at age 13. Among adults who smoke daily, 82 percent started as teenagers. We can address this problem if we put aside the rhetoric and get down to business. We are very serious about teen drinking, and we prohibit it. We need to be equally vigilant about teen smoking. We have the means; we have the wherewithal. The only question that remains is whether the Republican leadership has the will. Please, let us address the question of teen smoking in America.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this amendment, because it is part of the annual rite of spring; that is, the Republicans wait until tax day and then they trot out this bill. And in a somewhat cynical fashion they suggest to us, you did not like paying your taxes, so here is our solution so you will not have to pay higher taxes. Let us try to go behind the rhetoric and look at the reality. The fact of the matter is, it is not likely that we are going to raise taxes. Number one, we are in a period of unprecedented economic prosperity. We have projected surpluses for the next 5 to 10 years. There is absolutely no enthusiasm or inclination to raise taxes. Second, as the gentleman from California pointed out, we are operating under House rules by the Republicans that say we have to have a supermajority to initiate a revenue increase. Unfortunately, they have waived it about three times, but the fact of the matter is, if we have the House rules that prevent raising taxes, if we have an economy that suggests there is no need to raise taxes, we have to wonder, why are they so determined to pass this measure? Let me suggest that this is just another in the continuing chapter of the Republican efforts to provide tax reform for the rich. Why? Because what this bill would do is prevent us from closing tax loopholes in two areas: first, the corporate tax loopholes. What this bill would say is, if we Democrats propose to close tax loopholes, oh, that is raising revenue, we cannot do it. There are also tax loopholes for the very wealthy. We could also be prohibited under this amendment from closing those tax loopholes. So the real beneficiaries of this amendment are not going to be average Americans, who are not likely to see a tax increase. The real beneficiaries are going to be the very wealthy and the corporations. One other group we heard about, the billionaire expatriates; that is, the people who earned their money in this country and then decided to leave and take up foreign citizenship so they could avoid paying taxes. They, too, would be protected under this amendment. Mr. Speaker, the point is this: We need to close some tax loopholes. We need to close corporate tax loopholes, we need to close corporate loopholes for the very wealthy, and we need to close the expatriate tax loophole. We need the ability to do it. This bill impedes that. We do not need to tinker with the Constitution. I found it very interesting that the gentleman from California suggested, well, the reason we cannot get this bill passed is because we require a supermajority to amend the Constitution. That is the whole point. That is why this is a bad idea. I do not think the gentleman can have it both ways. The Constitution is working. The economy is working. The only people who benefit from this April Fool's joke are the rich. It does not benefit the average taxpayer. I urge the rejection of this amendment.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in honoring two of my constituents, Joshua and Delores Crupi, of Temple Hills, Maryland, on the occasion of their Golden Wedding Anniversary. This couple proves that with love, compromise, patience, perseverance, and understanding, a relationship can stand the test of time and serve as an example for others. During World War II, a young woman left her native Kansas and came to Washington to work for the Navy Department. I suspect, she expected to return home after the War ended and stay there for the rest of her life. However, a young man, a native Washingtonian, had other ideas. Joshua Crupi and Delores Ellington were married on March 30, 1948, in Forestville, Maryland, and took the first step on a long, challenging, and successful life's journey together. This journey has seen many events: happy, exciting, sad and bittersweet. Mr. and Mrs. Crupi are the parents of four children: Patricia J. Slater of Alexandria, Virginia; C. Steven Crupi of Havelock, North Carolina; Pamela C. White of Mystic, Connecticut; and J. Gregory Crupi of Edgewater, Maryland. In addition, they have a daughter-in-law, Christine, and a son-in-law. The lights of their lives are their seven wonderful grandchildren: Randa and James Slater; Adam, Timothy and Kelly Crupi; and, Danielle and Alexander White. Mr. and Mrs. Crupi delight in spending time with their grandchildren and take great pleasure in the privilege of grandparents everywhere--spoiling their grandchildren. Mr. Crupi is retired from the Office of the Architect of the Capitol's Senate Carpenter Shop; Mrs. Crupi is employed by the National Star Route Mail Contractors Association here in Washington. Both Mr. and Mrs. Crupi are active members of Electra Chapter No. 2, O.E.S., of the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in extending our very best wishes to Mr. and Mrs. Joshua Crupi and our hope that they may share many more years of happiness and health. They are a wonderful example of the very best our country has to offer and a shining example to us all

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time. I rise today in strong support of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, a bill which I am pleased to be a cosponsor of. Now I realize this is not a perfect bill and that there are concerns, and I hope those concerns can be worked out, but let me emphasize today in dealing with the continent of Africa we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In the past we have had a very limited trade relationship with Africa, based primarily on Cold War objectives. I am pleased to say that with this bill we are moving forward into the new millennium to develop and cultivate new trade relationships. I think that is good for America. Currently, Europe has 30 percent of the African market. By comparison, we only have about 6 to 7 percent. It is in our national interests to support better trade relationships with Africa. It is in our interests to develop new markets. It is in our interests to avoid costly conflicts where trade replaces warfare. It is in our interests to address these global problems. Africa does have unique problems and progress is fragile, but progress has been made. Numerous countries have moved to democratic systems and those countries are now prepared to receive our assistance in cultivating trade relationships. It is important that we offer important reforms, such as eliminating trade barriers, such as encouraging improved fiscal policies, promoting private sector development, fostering good government and fighting corruption, debt forgiveness. All of these are objectives that can be accomplished if we pass this bill. Let me hasten to point out, however, that this bill will not benefit countries that continue to engage in human rights violations. They will not be eligible for those benefits. But for those countries that are truly moving toward democracy, those countries that are truly eliminating human rights violations, those countries will be able to benefit. But, more importantly, we in the United States will be able to benefit because a stronger Africa represents new markets for our goods, and to the extent that we can take advantage of these new markets, we can have a more prosperous economy here in the United States. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge support for this very excellent bill.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Pink Oyster Interest Group's service to Southern Prince George's County, Maryland. In January of 1996, five sorors, Patricia Oliver Bell, Annette Oliver Boxley, Irene Bullock-Overton, V'Nell De Costa and Gloria McCray Watson were gathered at Pat's Exclusives Boutique. In conversation, the subject of starting a local graduate chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. in the Ft. Washington area surfaced. Soror Gloria McCray Watson was charged with determining the procedure for starting a new chapter. As directed, later in the same month, Soror Gloria McCray Watson reported to the group advising them of the procedure for the formation of an interest group. A meeting was scheduled for March 29, 1996 at Pat's Exclusives Boutique. On March 29, 1996, the group's first meeting was held at Pat's Exclusives Boutique. Soror Carmilla Watkins of Nu Zeta Omega was invited to serve as an advisor to the group. The meeting was attended by Sorors: Patricia Oliver Bell, Annette Oliver Boxley, Yvonne Bundley, Irene Bullock-Overton, V'Nell De Costa, Brenda Jones and Gloria McCray Watson. On Sunday, April 21, 1996, the groups' next meeting was held at Pat's Exclusives Boutique. Soror Wilma Holmes Tootle, North Atlantic Regional Director, was our guest, where she most graciously sanctioned the formation of a formal Interest Group of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., in Ft. Washington, Maryland. The group met at Pat's Exclusives Boutique again in the month of May. However, it soon became necessary to move the meetings to another location because of the tremendous response from sorors in the area. Soror Gloria McCray Watson was charged with securing a location for the meeting. Officers were elected to conduct the business of the Interest Group. The Officers were: Irene Bullock-Overton--President, Gloria McCray Watson--1st Vice-President, Patricia Oliver Bell--2nd Vice-President, Pamela Mohammed--Recording Secretary, Andrise Payton-Watson--Assistant Recording Secretary, Brenda Jones--Financial Secretary, V'Nell De Costa--Treasurer, Annette Oliver Boxley--Historian, Angela Roberts-- Assistant Historian and LaKeisha Ratcliff--Philacter. Soror Watson recommended and later secured Harmony Hall Regional Center for the third Thursday of each month. In June of 1996, 36 members strong, the Interest Group moved the meetings to Harmony Hall Regional Center in Ft. Washington, Maryland. Also at this meeting, it was recommended by Soror Angela Roberts that the group be formally known as, ``The Pink Oyster Interest Group''. The name was enthusiastically accepted by the sorors in attendance. By August of 1997, the Group had initiated various programs and performed numerous community service projects. Some of the programs and activities included but are not limited to: an ongoing senior citizens project at Livingston HealthCare Center in Ft. Washington, Maryland; an Adopt-a-School partnership with Potomac Landing Elementary School in Ft. Washington, Maryland; a voter registration drive; an Adopt-a-Road partnership with Prince George's County; donated school supplies to the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., AKA-IFESH project; sponsored five Southern Prince George's County middle school students for the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. Putting emphasis on Math and Science (PIMS) Camp held at Bowie State University; donated career clothing to the Anacostia Center for Mental Health; made a financial contribution to the Maryland Stallions Basketball league; awarded scholarships to two Prince George's County senior high school students from Crossland High School; sponsored a Minority Business Symposium; established an AKAdemy; donated books for the library for Potomac Landing Elementary School in Ft. Washington; donated career clothing to the Maryland State Department of Rehabilitative Services and participated in the AIDS WALK '97 in Washington, DC. The commitment of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., is service to all mankind. The mission of this chartering shall be to extend Alpha Kappa Alpha's commitment to the citizens of southern Prince George's County.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a long-term vision, the vision of the Democratic Party to support education in America, to invest in our young people. The fact of the matter is that while a short-term tax cut may be nice, your children's future is tied to education. Education is the key to opportunity. Right now we like to talk about the new jobs, the global jobs, the high-tech jobs. But the fact of the matter is that without a good education, we cannot get those jobs. Right now American employers are looking overseas to hire people because our system does not provide enough qualified, well- educated young people. How can we address this problem? The Democrats advocate first improving our schools. Over a third of our schools need major repairs. Over 50 percent of our schools are not prepared or wired for the Internet. We have class sizes that are too large, and we lack discipline in the schools. The Democrats advocate a major investment in education to repair our schools. The Democrats advocate a major investment in hiring 100,000 new teachers so we can have smaller classrooms, better discipline and provide a better educated work force to take on the new jobs of the new millennium.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill before us today. I rise in opposition to the Solomon amendment. I rise in support of the bipartisan substitute. Mr. Chairman, the essence of the bill before us today is to allow the people of Puerto Rico to make the decisions about their own destiny, what we like to refer to as self-determination. For the last few decades we have talked long and often hard about the importance of self-determination in all parts of the world: in Russia, in Cuba, around the globe. It is now time to talk about self- determination for one of our nearest neighbors. This is not that complicated. That is the beauty of democratic elections. Members have heard here today that there are lots of points of view about this issue within Puerto Rico. Those differences can be resolved by democratic elections. That is what we are here today to do, not to impose any particular form of government, be it statehood, independence, or Commonwealth status, but rather, to let the people, the people themselves decide what form of government they believe is most desirable. The point is that today Puerto Ricans can fight in our wars but cannot elect the Commander in Chief. They can contribute to Social Security, and they do, but they cannot receive Social Security benefits. We need to change this, and we need to use our time-honored democratic processes to do that. Mr. Chairman, let me talk for a moment about this notion embodied in the Solomon amendment of English only. We all recognize that English is the common language of our country. It is the dominant language of our country. But who was it that decided that to be an American you had to speak the language of the British Isles? I am not sure that makes sense. We were a country founded on tolerance, multiculturalism. It seems to me we can make room for those people who speak other languages. We left the Old World to create the New World for precisely this reason, to leave the conformities and traditions of the Old World behind. I think it is time we move forward to true multiculturalism and accept the fact that we do not have to have an ordered language in our society. I urge the adoption of the bill before us.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call for managed care reform, sometimes known as the Patient's Bill of Rights. The President is correct, we need to protect the consumers of health care services. Today, millions of Americans have moved into managed care. It is fundamentally a good system, but there are problems. A recent California study showed that 42 percent of the people who have managed care have encountered problems with their service. How can we correct this with a bill of rights? It would ensure that patients are informed of their health care options. It would ensure that they get the right doctor for the right type of care. It would ensure that they get access to emergency rooms when they need it. It would ensure that they are presented with all of their health care options, regardless of cost. It would ensure that doctors make decisions, not medical care bureaucrats. And it would keep patients' medical records confidential. Mr. Speaker, these are official rights for every health care consumer. We ought to pass this law. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership is attempting to block our Health Care Consumers Bill of Rights. That is not fair. We need to move toward an intelligent bill of rights for health care consumers.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, good morning. We can tell it is an election year because my Republican colleagues rush down to the well yelling ``Tax cut, tax cut.'' I think the President is correct. He says we need to be fiscally responsible. We need to save Social Security first. We need to look forward to future generations. There may be, however, something that we can agree on and that is a Health Care Consumer Bill of Rights. I believe consumers need protection. The President has issued an Executive order saying that Federal employees, Medicare recipients, Medicaid recipients will all have that assurance. But we need it for all Americans. A recent California study showed that 42 percent of the patients in HMOs have encountered problems with their health care delivery service. My State of Maryland took the first step and implemented a guarantee to emergency room care. We need to do that. We also need to guarantee the security and privacy of medical records. We also need to ensure that Americans can gain access to health care specialists when they need them. Madam Speaker, we need to take the ``medicrats'' out of the health care business. We need to make sure that all Americans have a Health Care Consumers Bill of Rights.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding. I came down to the well today to express my concern about this rule. I am concerned because this rule makes in order H.R. 1428, a bill that I think is probably one of the worst examples of legislation that I think I have seen since I have been here. I say that not as a matter of overstatement, but really just stating a fact. The fact is, number one, the bill is unnecessary. We have current laws regarding voter eligibility. When a voter registers or when a prospective voter registers, he signs at the bottom that he is a U.S. citizen. That system of self-certification has worked for decades. We have a system to create criminal penalties if, in fact, someone is lying. It is called voter fraud. It is punishable today. We do not need a new law. This bill is unnecessary. But second and probably most important, what I think repels me the most is that this bill is vindictive. It is an attempt by the Republicans to intimidate and discourage Hispanic, Asian, and other minority voters. Under this bill, it is not enough that we sign and say that we are American citizens. Now this bill would allow local boards of elections to, quote, ``verify us.'' How does this verification process work? Well, it works like this: The local board can decide who and whether they want to verify individuals. They do not have to verify everyone; that might make some sense. They can pick and choose who they want to verify. When do they verify us? That is not specified in the bill. Potentially, we could come up on election day seeking to vote and be told, ``Well, we have got to verify you first.'' That is why it intimidates, that is why it discourages voters. And it is mainly being done because they tried to oust one of our own Democrats, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), and they were unsuccessful in doing so. They tried to suggest that there was voter fraud and they were not able to prove it. So now they come back with this vindictive bill to say, ``Well, what we need to be able to do is verify people's eligibility.'' Well, they say what we could do is, we could get the INS and Department of Social Security to verify people. Well, I have had experience with these agencies, and I can tell you that, though they do good work, they are ill-equipped. My experience with INS and Social Security is that they are both well-intentioned agencies, but that they are ill-equipped to perform this verification process. They already have a backload performing the duties associated with their legitimate tasks. INS certainly has more work than it can handle, seeking to find illegal aliens. We do not need them to be voter patrols, and that is what they would become. Under this system, Americans would be intimidated, just as African Americans were intimidated years ago by attempts to thwart their voting rights. We do not need a bill like this. It is totally unnecessary. People can certify themselves as Americans under the threat of criminal penalties. That is sufficient. It has worked in the past. I believe it will continue to work. The only reason the Republicans are addressing this bill and advancing this bill is because they want to try to get back at a group of people that they could not defeat at the polls, and I think that is shameful. So I hope today that we will, if we accept this rule, certainly when this bill comes up, H.R. 142, send it back where it belongs, and that is back to the back room of politics.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, today the American people will get an opportunity to see the spectacle of the dreaded special interest groups. That is right. The National Association of Manufacturers have flown into town to oppose managed care reform. Congress has in the works the Patient Access to Responsible Care Act, a bipartisan bill, Democrats and Republicans working together to protect patients rights. The President refers to it as a patients' bill of rights. It would guarantee access to emergency rooms, access to specialists. It would make the decisions or put the decisions in the hands of doctors, not medical insurers or bureaucrats or medicrats. It would guarantee that the American people have the kind of access to health care that they deserve. But the special interests are in town, and they are here to try to scare Americans, to try to convince Americans that if you have a health care bill of rights, you will lose your health insurance, that employers will not be able to offer health insurance to their employees. My colleague says it is a scam. I think he is right. We need to stand up to the dreaded special interest groups.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, welcome back. I would like to talk today about education. Tonight in the State of the Union the President is poised to talk about investing in education for the 21st century. I think he is right. Today, almost 60 percent of American citizens believe that the Federal Government is not investing enough in public education. Some would have us believe that the Federal Government is trying to take over education. That is not true. The facts are these: About one-third of the Nation's schools need extensive repairs. According to the GAO, 46 percent of our schools lack electrical wiring necessary for computers and telecommunications technology. Fifty-five percent of our schools lack phone lines for modems necessary to connect to the Internet. If we are to truly move into the 21st century, we need to invest in education, and I think the President is on the right track. He is also calling for investment in 100,000 new teachers. I think that is correct also. Right now in this country we have over 69,000 provisional uncertified teachers working in our schools. We have crowded classrooms. Let us hire more teachers, improve our classrooms, let us improve in education.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the chairman and the ranking member of the committee for their hard work on this bill and also for addressing the potential conflict with respect to the 8(a) program and the HUBZone program. I am assured based on their comments that the 8(a) program remains intact and is not threatened by this new program. I am very pleased to support S. 1139 because I think it is critical to the advancement of small business. Small business, as is often stated, is the engine for growth in this country. It generates over 50 percent of the gross national product. It generates more than half of all new jobs. Small businesses also account for the employment of minorities and women and our young people. We need to promote the advancement of small business. I am particularly impressed with this bill because it contains language that restricts the practice of bundling. I had legislation on this issue because it arose out of the White House Conference on Small Business in which small businessmen said bundling, that is, the consolidation of Federal contracts, represents a threat to our survival. Right now eight major companies get more Federal Government business than all small businesses combined. The Federal Government does about $200 billion in contracting, so my colleagues can see this is a very important matter. This bill has language which would restrict the practice of bundling, require Government agencies to justify the use of this type of consolidation. The bill has also other attractive features. I think it is very important that this bill continues the microlending program. Now, $50,000 or $100,000 or $25,000 might not seem like a lot, but to a small businessman just starting out, to an entrepreneur, that is very important. We need to continue this program. The bill does that. It also increases the goal for small business contracting from 20 percent to 23 percent. That is not a tremendous amount, but it is a significant amount. That could result in additional $4 billion in Government contracts available to the small business community. This, too, is an important improvement in the bill. I believe the bill addresses our concerns about HUBZones, creates new programs and maintains important programs for our small business community. I urge its adoption.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise today in strong opposition to this misguided rule and even stronger opposition to this notion about a voucher bill. Traditionally in politics we try to do the most good for the most people. In America 90 percent of the students attend public schools. The Republicans today would like to do a little good for a few people, and that is why they are advocating a voucher plan that they say will give choice to the underprivileged classes. Let us be candid. Private schools, even if you had a voucher, do not have to take you, so the troubled students from inner cities and the troubled students from poor communities do not automatically get a choice even with their plan. But more importantly, we ought to be assisting public school education, where most students attend school. We need to work on providing repairs for dilapidated schools. We need to expand buildings and build new schools for overcrowded schools. We need to upgrade technology for schools that are behind in the technological age. We have opportunities for innovation and for choice, charter schools. I support that concept. We need to help our local communities in a real way, supporting public education, not through benign paternalism for a few. I urge rejection of the rule.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much. I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding and also take this opportunity to commend him for his outstanding work on this issue. It is not easy to carry the banner sometimes, and I have observed his diligence and his conscientiousness in working on this issue to champion the cause of justice. He has done an exemplary job and I commend him for it. I came down this evening to add my voice to those of us who were quite frankly outraged at what is going on in this chamber. We are outraged, first, at the waste of taxpayer money. This investigation has taken over one year. There has been lots of opportunities, plenty of opportunities, ample opportunities, for the Republicans and their allies to make their case. They have investigated individuals ad nauseam. They have subpoenaed individuals ad nauseam. They have allowed Mr. Dornan, a former Member of Congress, to seek subpoenas, to bring people in, to ask questions, to conduct a thorough investigation. At every step of the way, those of us on this side of the aisle have attempted to cooperate. Notwithstanding the fact there has been a consistent lack of communication from their side, a lack of cooperation, we recognized that Congress does have a role in looking into these matters. We believe that properly an investigation can proceed. But, there comes a point in time when reasonable men must conclude that the investigation has run its course, that those persons seeking to prove that there was some sort of fraud have had a fair and reasonable opportunity to make their case. There comes a time when we must say the business of Congress must move forward, the harassment of this new Member, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, must cease, and we must go on. But the Republican Party is not willing to do that. The opponents of Loretta Sanchez are not willing to do that. They have a clever strategy of trying to soften her up, of trying to wear her out with endless rounds of investigations, subpoenas, and inquiries, accusations and innuendo. Constantly going over the same turf, but never producing the evidence, producing the proof, that would be necessary to overturn this election. The American people need to know as they watch this witch hunt play out in the halls of Congress, the American people need to know that the Secretary of State for the State of California examined this question and has certified that Loretta Sanchez is the winner. The Republican opponents of Loretta Sanchez have had a year to marshal their evidence, and armed with all of the tools of the American legal justice system, have failed to do so. It is time to move on. Let me mention something that particularly offends me, the fact that this investigation was conducted primarily based on the use of Hispanic surnames. I find that very offensive. I also find it quite ironic. The party that is quick to say we ought not to have affirmative action, the party that is quick to say there should be no race or ethnic consciousness in our country, that we are colorblind and ethnically blind, when it becomes time to conduct an investigation, that is the party that wants to conduct the investigation based on Hispanic surnames. They want to call in all sorts of people based on their names. Mr. Speaker, the point is, there has been ample time to conduct this investigation. Those persons whose citizenship was in question, who happened to have Hispanic surnames, were reviewed. Those cases were reviewed. My question now becomes, where is the proof? But I do find it offensive that they would take this tactic. Having taken this tactic, however, having had the opportunity to pursue this distasteful course of action, again, we have no proof. What we have is a request on their part to continue this activity. I find that unacceptable. I find it a harassment of the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, I find it a harassment of Hispanic voters, and I think our Republican colleagues will suffer the consequences of this unwarranted harassment. This Congress has much important business to take care of. We do not have much time left. We cannot afford these endless rounds of investigation, this endless procrastination, this failure to communicate, and then attempts at the last minute to say, well, we need to work together. There have been plenty of opportunities to work together; there have been plenty of opportunities to investigate. On both counts, my colleagues on the other side have failed miserably to make a case. I think it is time we bring this matter to a close. We had a vote today. Unfortunately, we did not win. We said, look, produce your evidence by next week or let us close the door. They are not willing to do that. We are going to continue to press the case before the American people, to say that if they do not have the evidence, quit harassing the Hispanic community, quit harassing the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, and let us move forward with the people's business. Again, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] for his efforts in this cause.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted we are having this debate today because America needs to talk about education. Unfortunately, the Republican proposal is not the right direction. Now, I will admit, tax break savings accounts are not without their appeal. But the fact of the matter is this bill is being oversold. If Americans are in the so- called middle class and they make $55,000, they only save $7. Even if they made up to $93,000 as a family, they would only save $32 a year. So do not let them suggest that Americans are going to get great tax savings out of these educational savings accounts. They come up here and talk about computers and books and school supplies and savings accounts for private schools. We can have that now. The only thing they try to do is create some sort of tax incentive, and as I indicated the tax savings are really quite meager. On the other hand, the Democrats are introducing a sound approach embodied in the Rangel substitute. What we are saying is let us take this money and repair our schools. As I recall, the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick] suggested that we needed education reforms, we need to fix our schools. Mr. Speaker, we do need to fix our schools. We need to repair leaking roofs. We need to provide technological advancements and computers for our schools. We need to build new schools to accommodate overcrowding. The Republican approach does not do that. The fact of the matter is that in America we have a tradition of public education. Even with private school expansion, 9 out of 10 Americans will go to public schools. We need to have the money available to improve those public schools. That is what we want to do today. The Rangel substitute will allow us to look at some of our schools in our depressed communities and say we need to repair these schools. We need to improve the ventilation. We need to provide technological improvements to these schools. We need to make these schools schools that Americans can be proud of. Today in this debate we basically have a choice. We can give someone $7 a year and a tax break, or we can significantly improve America's schools in a real, significant way in terms of improving our educational infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is being oversold. I think the tax savings are very meager. The option that the Democrats provide is a much superior policy. I urge support for the Rangel substitute.