Albert Wynn

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, last night the President of the United States gave an excellent speech. He said the state of the Union is good, but it could be better. We have to defend America, but most importantly we have to build America. Our enemy, as he correctly pointed out, is inaction. He set forth a clear priority in terms of education, that our goal ought to be to assure that everyone in America has a good education. He talked a lot about the new millennium. We are talking about an information age, a high-technology age. In that age, we need to assure that American citizens have the best education. That means supporting the President's request for $5 billion in school construction funds so that we can build new schools and maintain the ones we have. It means supporting the President's request for tax credits and tax exemptions so that people can afford to send their children to college, to universities. We have the best in the world, we need to make sure our people can take advantage of it. Critics say, well, this is small government and small ideas. I say that there is no greater goal for the new millennium than to say every American can have a good education.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues from the great State of Maryland, and of this House, to join me in saluting a constituent of the fourth Congressional District of Maryland and a great American. Mr. Kenneth Samuel McCall has made outstanding contributions to the Edison Electric Institute during his 41 years of dedicated service. I congratulate him on the occasion of his retirement, and offer my best wishes to him and his family as he enters a new chapter in his life.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, we are about to reach the end of the fiscal year. As they like to say, why do we not have a year in review, or rather, how about the 104th Congress in review? Let us see. In the spring of 1995, the Republican majority brought us cuts in the school lunch program. I do not understand that, why we would take funds away from a vital program that helps young people get decent nutrition so they can learn. At any rate, the Democrats fought back. Then in the summer of 1995, they brought us $270 billion in cuts in Medicare, and also cuts in Medicaid, to finance big tax breaks for the wealthy, people like your local Congressman, your doctor, your local lawyer, your accountant. They do not need big tax breaks. We certainly need to protect the integrity of Medicare. Then in the winter of 1995 and 1996, they gave us two Government shutdowns because they could not get their way. Even when President Clinton submitted a balanced budget approved by CBO they were not satisfied. Those Government shutdowns cost the taxpayers a whopping $1.4 billion and caused tremendous hardship. Then we had the spring of 1996 stop-and-go government because they wanted to cut education. I do not think the grade is going to be very good.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 3535, legislation to redesignate Federal office building No. 3, located in Suitland Federal Center, 4700 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, MD as the William Edwards Deming Federal Building. By way of background, Dr. Deming received his B.S. degree from the University of Wyoming, his M.S. degree from the University of Colorado and his Ph.D. from Yale University. In 1927, he became a faithful civil servant joining the Department of Agriculture as a physicist and then moved on to the Bureau of the Census to become the mathematical adviser to the chief of the population division. In that position he developed and designed statistical sampling techniques for use in the census. His interest in quality management led him to introduce sampling as a quality measurement technique for punch card verification and other processing activities in the 1940 census. After leaving the Census Bureau in 1945 he began a second distinguished career as a consultant on statistics and management to several foreign governments, including those of Austria, France, Germany, India, Turkey, and most famously Japan. Dr. Deming's theories were based on the premise that most product defects resulted from management shortcomings rather than careless workers, and that inspection after the fact was inferior to designing processes that would produce better quality. He argued that enlisting the efforts of willing workers to do things properly the first time and giving them the right tools were the real secrets of improving quality--not teams of inspectors. His successes with industrial leaders in Japan, with Ford Motor Co. and Xerox Corp. are unmatched. As a civil servant he dedicated his life to designing innovative methods of statistical gathering. I urge the Members of the House to support this legislation to rename the Federal office building in Suitland, MD after this renowned expert on business management, Dr. W. Edwards Deming. I would also like to ask unanimous consent to include in the Record additional material detailing the life of Dr. Deming. W. Edwards Deming--1900-1993 William Edwards Deming, who was born in Sioux City, Iowa, on the 14th of October 1900, has been honored throughout the world as a ``quality-management guru.'' Yet, until the end of his life he insisted upon being known as a ``Consultant in Statistical Studies,'' the title that appeared on his letterhead. His path to the eminence that he attained as a statistician was circuitous and full of serendipity. After Ed Deming's graduation from the University of Wyoming in 1921 as an engineer, he remained there another year to study mathematics. If was during that time that, as he once told me, he received a letter from the Colorado School of Mines informing him that he was known to be a good flute player and that the professor of physics wanted to have a band and therefore would like him to come to teach. He accepted the invitation and, after a year, decided to get a master's degree in mathematics and physics from the University of Colorado. Just before he completed his degree, one of his professors who had studied at Yale with Willard Gibbs, a famous mathematician and physicist recommended him to his alma mater. Yale subsequently offered him free tuition and a job as a part-time instructor, both of which were eagerly accepted. Upon finishing the requirements for his Ph.D. at Yale in 1928, Ed Deming began his career in government as a mathematical physicist in the Fixed Nitrogen Research Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and he remained in that position until 1939. His 38 publications during the period had to do principally with the physical properties of matter, but there were several that reflected his interest in statistical methodology. I once asked him why he, a mathematical physicist, became a statistician. His answer was quite involved. ``Courses in engineering and surveying led me to the theory of errors, and in studying physics and mathematics, I learned a lot of probability. Kinetic theory of gases is a theory of probability. So are thermodynamics and astronomy. And so is geodesy, involving measurement of the earth's surface for the purpose of figuring the curvature or other characteristics of the earth. It makes use of `least squares,' And I had very good teachers in least squares. ``When people had problems with experimental data. I just worked on them and found myself able to make a contribution, of thought anyway. And I suppose that's the way I got eased into it.'' Analysis of results of experimental work in bacteriology and chemistry gave him a chance to learn more about the statistical adjustment of data. There were three papers on ``The Application of Least Squares,'' published in the ``Philosophical Magazine.'' In his book ``Statistical Adjustment of Data,'' published in 1943, he brought together, in readily usable form, the substance of these papers and of the earlier literature and his own studies on the subject. This text is still frequently consulted for guidance on the application of the method of least squares in various different situations. From 1930 through 1946, Ed Deming was a special lecturer on mathematics and statistics in the Graduate School of the National Bureau of Standards. His courses, given from 8 to 9 a.m. at the Bureau, later inspired many lectures and articles by his students. These paved the way for the establishment in 1947 of the Statistical Engineering Laboratory within the Bureau of Standards. During an overlapping period that extended from 1933 through 1953, he was head of the Department of Mathematics and Statistics of the Graduate School of the USDA and made major contributions to the mathematical and statistical education of a whole generation. In 1936, he went to London to study the theory of statistics with Ronald Fisher at University College, the University of London. While at University College, Ed Deming met and attended lectures by Jerzy Neyman, who had been Head of the Biometrics Laboratory of the Necki Institute in Warsaw, Poland. Neyman read, at a meeting of the Royal Statistical Society, a revolutionary paper: ``On the Two Different Aspects of the Representative Method: The Method of Stratified Sampling and the Method of Purposive Selection.'' As a result of the lectures and particularly this paper, which marked the beginning of a new era in sampling, arrangements were made for Neyman to visit the USDA Graduate School in 1937 and lecture there. Ed Deming took pains to ensure that Neyman's lectures in Washington were well attended by U.S. Government statisticians, and he worked an entire year to produce the book, Lectures and Conferences on Mathematical Statistics. The lectures and the book together had a tremendous impact on sampling theory. The staff of the Bureau of the Census was already planning in the late 1930s for the 1940 Population Census. Users of census data have always wanted more information than can possibly be provided with a normal budget. Many of them were willing to accept sample results, but some of the old timers at the Bureau were opposed to the idea of sampling. ``Sampling was abhorred,'' Ed Deming told me, ``because the census had always been complete. It couldn't be anything other than complete. But sampling was in the air.'' The final decision rested with Secretary of Commerce Harry Hopkins. After listening to the arguments pro and con, Hopkins decided in favor of sampling procedure that would be used in the 1940 population census. ``Well,'' Ed told me, ``one day in 1939 the telephone rang, and it was Dr. Philip Hauser, the Assistant Director of the Census Bureau, wanting to talk with me about a job. I said `Right Away!' and joined the Bureau of the Census as Head Mathematician and Advisor in Sampling.'' After leaving the Census Bureau in 1946, Ed Deming began his practice as a Consultant in Statistical Studies from an office in the basement of his home in Washington, DC. For the remainder of his life, he conducted his consulting from this office, aided for many years before her death in 1986 by his wife Lola, a distinguished mathematician in her own right. During the final nearly four decades of his life he was assisted by his extraordinary secretary, consultant and confidant, Cecelia Kilian, known to hundreds of people throughout the world as ``Ceil.'' At the same time that he began his consulting practice Ed Deming joined the Graduate School of Business Administration at New York University as a full professor. Before he ``retired'' from NYU in 1975 to become Professor Emeritus, he regularly taught two courses in survey sampling and one in quality control; and, moreover, he served as advisor to about 100 students who earned their master's and doctoral degrees. I asked him on one occasion if NYU didn't have some sort of policy concerning retirement of academic and other personnel at age 65 or 70. His response was, ``Well, if they did have, they didn't tell me about it.'' The fact is that until a few months before his death, Ed Deming continued to teach at NYU every Monday afternoon during the academic year and to direct studies of graduate students. He also taught Monday mornings during the last few years of his life as a ``Distinguished Lecturer' at Columbia University, where a Deming Center has recently been established. Ed Deming's entrance into the world of quality improvement was inspired by the 1931 book Economic Control on Quality of Manufactured Product, written by his friend and mentor Walter Shewhart, the father of statistical process control. In 1938, he arranged for Shewhart to deliver a series of four lectures entitled ``Statistical Method from the View point of Quality Control'' at the USDA Graduate School. These lecturers were published by the Graduate School in 1939 ``with the editorial assistance of W. Edwards Deming.'' The crusade that Ed Deming subsequently undertook for the improvement of quality resulted, as we know, in the economic Renaissance of Japan and eventually in his own world-wide prominence as a ``prophet of quality'' and philosopher of management. This aspect of Ed Demings' life was highlighted by the media in the hundreds of commentaries upon his death. The present tribute to his memory therefore, has emphasized only what is pertinent to statisticians and was not mentioned in those commentaries. Ed Deming's extensive contributions to statistical thinking are too voluminous to suit the present purpose. It suffices to say, that throughout his life, he championed the belief that statistical theory shows how mathematics, judgment, and substantive knowledge work together to the best advantage. Thus he, himself, was a master as logician and architect of statistical studies. This was more than evident at the Deming Seminar for Statisticians held annually at NYU beginning in 1987. Ed Deming died quickly in his sleep on December 20, 1993 at is home. His daughters, Diana and Linda, their husbands, and Diana's five children, along with their own spouses and children (16 in total), were to assemble at his home for what they feared might be his last Christmas. Most of them had arrived in Washington by the time of his passing

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, people often wonder: Is there a difference between Democrats and Republicans? There absolutely is. That difference is being played out in the closing weeks of this year's session. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are trying to get more money for education, about $3.1 billion for education and job training. No, it will not unbalance the budget. The budget will be fine. But it will enable us to provide funds for basic math and reading skills. Head Start, summer jobs for kids, dislocated worker assistance, school-to- work initiatives, and Pell grants for college students. Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot of rhetoric about our children's future. The Democrats care about our children's future. That is why we are fighting for education. The American people want more Federal support for education. Strapped local and State governments want more money for education. We have an opportunity in the closing weeks of this session to provide that assistance without affecting the budget. We ought to do it. Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between the Democrats and Republicans: Democrats favor aid to education.

Mr. WYNN. I am delighted to yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, a constituent of mine, Mr. John F. Flood, brought to my attention a copy of Msgr. E. Carl Lyon's homily in celebration of his 50th anniversary as a Catholic priest. The homily entitled, ``The Power of Love,'' is fitting and I would ask that the Members of this body take the opportunity to read Monsignor Lyon's message: The Power of Love (Monsignor Lyon's Homily) The discovery of fire thousands of years ago, is said to have saved the human race from extinction. Today, it is not the absence of fire, but the absence of love, that could bring about the extinction of the human race. This prediction is made despite what men and women have said about love. Love has been referred to as ``The religion of humanity!'' I once listened to a priest talk for two hours on this one quotation: ``Love cannot endure indifference. It needs to be wanted.'' And of course there's the beautiful quotation of St. John of the Cross: ``When the evening of life comes, we shall be judged on love.'' Environmental problems, nuclear capability, human inability, and the willingness to love one another are threatening the survival of our planet. Unless we rediscover love and harness its energies to God's plan, we may not make it through another century. It is feared that the human race will destroy the human race through hatred. But this need not be. In the place of hatred, there stands always love. Love is the most universal, the most tremendous, the most mysterious, the most persuasive force in the world. Because of these attributes, Jesus invites us to nothing more and nothing less, than a fundamental orientation of our life, of our love toward God. Jesus expects our total surrender to Him. Love is so divine that we can say not only that God is love, but that love is God. As followers of Christ, we believe that love is action. We believe that love is the strongest force in the world--stronger than hate, stronger than evil, stronger than death. We believe that as great as faith and hope are, love is still greater. We believe that faith without love is cold; hope without love is grim. As imitators of Christ, we forget what we have done for other people and remember what others have done for us; we ignore what the world owes us and think of what we owe the world. We put our rights in the background and our duties in the foreground; we see that every human being, regardless of creed, race or nationality, is just as real as we are, just as prone to mistakes as we are, just as nice as we are. To love we are willing: to consider the needs and desires of children; to remember the weaknesses and loneliness of people growing old; to stop asking how much our friends love us and ask ourselves whether we love them as Christ would have us love. We believe that love knows no limitations and stops at no boundaries; that it is the only cure for racism, the only solution to poverty, the only means to peace. Love knows not anger, nor revenge, nor wrath, nor jealousy. We believe that love accepts everyone, embraces everyone, and that it is the only bond that can attach people to people and people to God. Love is the companion of compassion, reconciliation, forgiveness and contrition. What is real Christian love? It is more than a feeling of affection for others, more than benevolence. It has substance, strength, action and sacrifice. Christian love is action--something we do. I would not want this day to go by without mentioning the wonderful people who are not of our faith--who have done so much for the good of our parish. There are too many to name, but I am grateful to each of them. The priesthood has been a joy for me and the joy has been made possible because of you wonderful people. As a matter of fact your friendship has given me a glimpse of the eternal. We have gathered to celebrate the divine fact that God is in love with us. As we resume our journey-- Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow. Don't walk behind me, I may not lead. Walk beside me and be my friend.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, August 2, 1996 marks a special day for my constituent, Private Michael A. Childress, Jr. of Capitol Heights, MD, as he inaugurates his life defending his country. Private Childress has made the most honorable decision an American can make to defend his country. Private Childress graduated from Coolidge High School in 1993 and began a promising future as a student at St. Augustine College in Raleigh, NC; however he received the call to defend his country and as a result made the decision to pursue a military career. Private Childress is an outstanding soldier and has shown exemplary service. He began his career in basic training as platoon leader and continued in a leadership position throughout Advance Individual Training as a class leader. Private Childress will graduate from Advanced Individual Training with the Leadership Award. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues here in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in extending congratulations and very best wishes to Private Childress on this momentous occasion.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, good morning. Despite my GOP friends' spin, I have to tell you the Democratic agenda is alive and well in America and American citizens are better for it, because it is the Democrats who have pushed for health care reform and for the minimum wage. On health care reform, the Kennedy-Kassebaum health insurance reform bill will be on the floor today, and we will be able to provide Americans with health insurance when they change jobs. We will be able to ensure that Americans will not be prohibited from getting health insurance because of preexisting conditions, such as the fact that your child may have asthma or someone has a longstanding hip injury who is an older member of your family. That is important and that was a Democratic initiative. We are also going to take up tomorrow the minimum wage. Republicans have said they would fight it with every fiber of their being. The fact is the Democrats stood for decent wages and decent working conditions. Forty percent of the people who earn the minimum wage are bread winners for their family. Fifty-eight percent of the people who earn the minimum wage are women. We need decent wages in America. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic agenda is alive and well.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, let us be straight about this, ladies and gentlemen. Comp time is not flex time. If employers want to give employees all these benefits and all these opportunities to care for children and loved ones, they can do it now. It is called flex time. Come in early, leave early, come in late, leave late. That is possible. This is comp time and this denies people basic income. I do not want to hear that oh, well, they can go to court and we lowered the legal standard. The fact of the matter is minimum wage workers are not going into anybody's court. They are not going down the street to see Robert Reich to talk about a labor violation. Those remedies are not practicable. Let us talk about the real world. In the real world, wages have stagnated over the last 20 years. People need overtime to make ends meet. In 1995, the average full-time worker in manufacturing worked about 4.4 hours of overtime to make an additional $3,800 a year. They need that money. Now, they are going to tell employees well, this is optional, it is up to the employee if they want to take it. Let us talk about this so-called option. The reality of the workplace is that most employees want to keep their jobs and therefore go along with their employer. That means that when the employer suggests comp time, they are going to take it. This so-called option does not really work. The employee does not have a choice because the employer has to approve the comp time. He has to approve when they can take it. They can spend their overtime anytime they want to. They cannot spend their comp time anytime they want to, only when the employer allows it. Preferential allocation of overtime already occurs. There are complaints about that now. My colleagues better believe that if we have this comp time option, those who will take comp time will get comp time. Those who want overtime will be out of luck. That is what is wrong with this bill. There is a lot of rhetoric here about how we want to help people, but the fact of the matter is in the private sector, there is a fundamental profit motive, and that is to reduce the amount of overtime pay. That being the case, there is a strong incentive to discourage overtime and encourage comp time at the expense of the American worker. That is what we want to discourage. We believe the current system provides true flexibility but not the false rhetoric of the Republican proposal.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. It supports a very bad welfare reform bill. That is unfortunate, because in point of fact we ought to put people to work. The welfare system should be reformed, and we ought to set time limits for people receiving welfare. The problem is the Republican bill hurts children and does not do a lot about putting people to work. It hurts innocent children because there are no vouchers in the program. What happens at the end of the period for benefits? The children are hurt because there are no provisions made after the benefits are exhausted. Three hundred thousand legal immigrant children will be harmed because they will be ineligible for food stamps. Why is that? Why are we hurting children? Let us just put people to work; 1.2 million women and children will lose Medicaid benefits. They will not have health care. Why are we doing that? That does not have anything to do with putting people to work. The bill is weak on work. Fortunately, we have an alternative. The Castle-Tanner bill makes provisions. It provides vouchers for when benefits are exhausted. It provides continued Medicaid coverage so children can get health care. It provides food stamps for legal immigrant children so that they will not starve. The Republican proposal is weak on work. According to the CBO, the bill is $12 billion short of what is needed to meet the work requirements. It is an unfunded mandate on the States. The CBO, one of their favorite authorities, also says they do not provide adequate child care. They are $800 million short in terms of adequate child care benefits. On the other hand, the bipartisan Castle-Tanner alternative provides additional funds for work. They provide an additional $2 billion to provide child care so that people can go to work. We are not debating whether we ought to reform the welfare system; we are debating what makes sense and whether we ought to punish children as the price of welfare reform. Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the Republican proposal.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the time. I agree, the current welfare system does not work. It should be changed. As a result of the current welfare system, its recipients have lost self-respect. We have a created a system of dependency and put welfare recipients outside the mainstream of American society. If all we were talking about was putting able-bodies people to work and solving food stamp fraud, we would not have much of a debate. The fact is today that the Republican bill is seriously flawed. It lacks compassion. It hurts children. And it reflects a continued pattern of extremism. Let us talk about the children. Children are going to be harmed by this bill because it makes no provision for the reality that, when benefits run out or their parents are put out of the program, these children still have to eat. There are no vouchers. I am here today to support the Tanner-Castle alternative because I believe it does contain compassion in that it provides for these circumstances by requiring States to offer vouchers when benefits run out so that children are not harmed. Let me be blunt. I do not believe we should target legal immigrants, but I am pressed with the Tanner-Castle bill, Tanner-Castle amendment, excuse me, because it addresses the concerns of immigrant children. Under the Republican plan, 300,000 immigrant children will be hurt. They will starve because they will be denied food assistance. This problem is corrected under the Tanner-Castle alternative. Those children will be able to get food assistance under that program. Disabled immigrant children will also be able to get assistance under the Tanner-Castle substitute. Also under the Republican plan, 1.2 million women and children will lose Medicaid coverage as they transition from welfare to work. This problem is also corrected by the Tanner-Castle proposal, which extends Medicaid benefits during this transition period. The Republican plan is flawed on a second count. It provides inadequate work programs. There is no support for work, only a lot of rhetoric. The CBO, their favorite source, says that the bill is $12 billion short of what is needed for work requirements. This creates a large unfunded mandate, something they also say they abhor because States will have to bear the burden. Tanner-Castle again responds to this concern by being the only bill that provides additional funds to States so that they can implement work requirements. That is why we say the Republicans are weak on work. The Republicans also are inadequate in child care. Again CBO says they are $800 million short of the child care assistance necessary to provide for real transition to work. The problem is they are not serious about putting people to work. The Tanner-Castle substitute on the alternative provides sufficient child care assistance, an additional $2 billion for child care assistance to ensure that people who want to go to work and have children can do so. CBO concludes that under the Republican bill, rather, States would fail to meet their work requirements. Reject false welfare reform. Adopt a realistic and sound alternative.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately today I think my Republican colleagues just do not get it. The fact is that education is the key to the American dream and the key to global competitiveness, but American students are falling behind their foreign counterparts. Enrollment is increasing by 7 percent over the next 6 years, but the Republicans are cutting the budget by 7 percent below 1995 levels. That will not enable us to meet the American Dream. Let us look at the cuts. They are cutting math and reading assistance for 150,000 disadvantaged students. They are cutting local education assistance by $350 million under the Goals 2000 Program. They cut 15,000 disadvantaged students out of the Head Start Program. They claim they want to fight drugs, but they cut $25 million out of the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. They say they want technological advances, but they cut $277 million out of technology programs for schools. They say they want advanced higher education, but they cut direct student loans. Let us give education the priority it deserves.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to oppose this bill. Education is the key to the American dream and the key to global competitiveness for jobs, and this bill is inadequate, woefully inadequate to meet our young people's educational needs. Overall in this budget education is cut 7 percent below 1995 levels, 7 percent below 1995 levels, while enrollment is projected to increase by 7 percent over the next 6 years. In my State of Maryland alone enrollment has increased 12 percent between 1990 and 1995. This bill in inadequate. It provides $7.8 billion less than the President requested. Now, I have to tell my colleagues I am amazed when I hear Republicans puff out their chest and say, well, we only pay 5 percent of the cost of education anyway coming from the Federal Treasury. That is not something to be proud of. I dare say most taxpayers would like to see more Federal aid for education. Now, do not be fooled. Less Federal aid means only one thing: Higher State and local taxes, higher property taxes at the local level. Less Federal aid means larger classes, less equipment and materials, and poorer classes. And I assure my colleagues that the taxpayers in poorer States and counties would like to see more Federal aid for education. Now my colleagues have heard several of our colleagues stand up here piously and say, but we have to balance the budget. Let me give my colleagues the truth about this. They are providing $7.8 billion less than the President asked for for education, but they are providing $11 billion more than the Defense Department asked for for defense. Mr. Chairman, I would just add that they have cut the Goals 2000 Program, which provides local assistance. They have cut safe and drug- free schools, but they say they want to fight drugs. They cut $25 million out of safe and drug-free schools, and they cut Healthy Start, which is designed to save kids. In Baltimore and my State, infant mortality under Healthy Start was reduced by 31 percent. This is an important program. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a bad bill.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, as they say in sports, ``It ain't over till it's over.'' ``It ain't over till the fat lady sings.'' Bipartisan majorities in both Houses have passed the minimum wage increase which would help 11.8 million Americans, 40 percent of whom are sole breadwinners and 58 percent of whom are women. But it ain't over. Because special interests and Newt Gingrich and the Republican leadership are already in the back room working out delays. They do not want to appoint a conference committee to move this bill to the President's desk despite the fact that 80 percent of the American public, American taxpayers, want an increase in the minimum wage. They are saying if we do not get our special interest provision in the health care bill, you cannot have minimum wage. That is the way it goes around here now, and it is flat-out wrong. The people deserve better. The people deserve minimum wage increases and a clean health care bill. Would somebody give the fat lady a sheet of music? We need to pass this legislation. We do not need to knuckle under to special interests.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my compliments to the chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. He has done an outstanding job in bringing this bill to the floor and bringing together the various parties who are affected. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this important legislation concerning the Blue Plains wastewater treatment plant and the establishment of the District of Columbia water and sewer authority with full bonding authority. People do not often talk about sewage until it is backed up, but a regional water and sewer authority that represents the interests of all of the affected jurisdictions is critical so that the Blue Plains facility can make much needed capital improvements and repairs. Currently the facility does not have the ability to borrow money to meet its capital needs for repairs and maintenance as a result of the District's credit rating. It is imperative that the necessary repairs and expansion of Blue Plains begin. A few months ago the Environmental Protection Agency expressed its concern that a breakdown of old and inadequate equipment could release untreated sewage, contaminating the Potomac River. This would be detrimental to the health and environment of all of us who live in the Washington metropolitan region. I have been particularly concerned about these developments because Blue Plains currently handles 94 percent of the wastewater flows from Montgomery County and 54 percent of the wastewater flows from Prince Georges County, which are both in my congressional district. Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties contribute about $346 million in capital and operating costs, and we are certainly concerned about the advancement of this facility. I have been especially pleased with the cooperation between the District and the suburban jurisdictions in resolving many of the conflicts relating to the water and sewer authority, and I believe this is a great example of regional cooperation. It is extremely important that we resolve these difficult issues so we can benefit all of the residents of the metropolitan area. I would also like to conclude by complimenting the delegate from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] for her leadership in helping us resolve these issues. I am pleased to support this legislation.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I am often amused as I listen to my Republican colleagues talk about their budget. They come down and wave their arms and talk about their children's future and their children's children's future with great passion. Let us face it. What is important about our children's future is education. And let us talk about the education record. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that under the Republican proposals they actually cut student aid. They eliminate the direct student loan program, which means students are going to pay higher fees and higher costs for student loans. That is not helping their future. They cut money for safe and drug-free schools so that children can have a safe education. That is not helping their education or their futures. On the other hand, the Democrats' Families First agenda addresses education in significant ways: First, 2 years of community college free in the form of a $1,500 tax credit for community college education if the student maintains a B average. I think that is a fair deal for our children's future. We also provide a $10,000 deduction for college education; $10,000 deduction for college expenses. That is protecting our children's future.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Miss Christine E. Goodman, a national winner, from the fourth Congressional District of Maryland, in the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary's 1996 Voice of Democracy broadcast scriptwriting scholarship competition. The Voice of Democracy Scholarship Program was started 49 years ago with the endorsement of the U.S. Office of Education and the National Association of Broadcasters, Electronic Industries and State Association of Broadcasters. This year more than 116,000 secondary school students, from over 7,900 schools, participated in the competition for the 54 scholarships totaling more than $118,000. The contest theme this year was ``Answering America's Call.'' Christine is a resident of Silver Spring, MD, and is a 17-year-old honor roll senior attending Springbrook, High School, where she is the assistant editor of Musings, the school's literary magazine; and a member of the Chamber Singers, the Shakespearean Troupe, and the Thespian Society. As a national winner of this year's Voice of Democracy Program, she is the recipient of the $1,500 Department of Colorado and Auxiliary Scholarship Award. She has also distinguished herself by being awarded first place in acing and second place in poetic interpretation by the Montgomery County Forensics League; Springbrook High School's Renaissance Award for academic achievement; best actress in the Paint Branch High School Shakespeare Symposium; and excellence in acting at the Folger Theatre's Student Shakespeare Festival. Ms. Goodman has been an honor roll student throughout her high school career. James and Joni Goodman, Christine's parents; Mr. Donald Kress, her high school principal; and Ms. Hummel, her English teacher and coordinator of this program at her school, must be extremely proud of her achievements as she prepares for a career in acting and drama at New York University upon graduation. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating this fine young American's achievement. I would ask to include the text of her winning script into the Congressional Record. Answering America's Call (By Christine Goodman) ``I'll get the phone.'' ``Hello? (pause) Yes it is. Whom may I ask is calling? (pause) Oh. Can I help you? Wait. Don't answer that. I know that I can help you. I just don't know how. (pause) No. You don't need to call back later. It's best that I face this challenge now. I'm ready. Tell me what to do. (pause) What do you mean that it's up to me? It's hard at my age to find some way to make a difference. (pause) What do I have to offer? Well, I have so many ideas, but no idea of how to start. And I'm not the only one. Are you aware of the fact that there is a large, eager and intelligent generation stirring in the background of this society? We are merely waiting for a chance to contribute our ideas for positive change and growth in America. (Pause) No, I don't believe that being a patriot is pointless. This is the garden of Democracy and I feel that it is our job as a nation to water the sprouting plants. By encouraging youth to stand up and speak out, America will be encouraging those who will someday take their place in the forefront of society. (pause) No, I don't think that's a glittering generality. If it is, America will suffer for it. You know, as I talk to you, I am beginning to see what I can do. I can contribute my voice. I've never realized just how powerful it can be. There are so many issues that need our thoughts and voices. For example, does AIDS represent a moral breakdown in our society or is the moral breakdown our failure to deal with it? AIDS is not alone as an issue; how are we going to support our older population in the future? What more can we do as a people to stop the increasing rate of violence? Is our society such that homelessness is an unavoidable consequence or is there something more that can be done to help these people? And what about jobs? Is it possible to expand the job market to include all productive individuals and to make them feel that their contributions are productive? Should limits be set on modern technology or should it be allowed to flourish, creating limitless possibilities for the future? With all of these ideas for tomorrow, have we stopped to consider today? Our environment is slowly deteriorating and we need to find ways to protect these natural resources. In a modern democracy, is it necessary for the pursuit of value to overshadow the value of pursuit? As an informed member of the public, I can express my views and ideas as well as talk to those who are my age and encourage them to take an important role in our country, too. Without concerned people, there is no Democracy, no future, no America. (Pause) Thank you for calling me. I know that if I had not talked to you, I would not have contemplated what my role in this great democracy might be. (pause). Yes. (pause) Sure. Alright, take care. We'll keep in touch.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, this morning I would like to talk about health care, because Americans want health care and they want health care reform. Interestingly enough, there is bipartisan support for health care reform, reforms which would provide portability, which is the right of a person to transfer their health insurance when they change jobs, and also a provision that would ban prohibitions against preexisting conditions, so if their child has asthma, they can still get health care. There is bipartisan support in both houses. We ought to pass it because the American people want it. But why do we not pass it? Because the Republican majority wants to overreach again. They want medical savings accounts. Mr. Speaker, the American people are not asking for medical savings accounts. Medical savings accounts sound good, but actually they only work for the wealthy and the healthy. Those people who are poor, those people who are middle class, those people who are sick will face rising premiums as the healthy and the wealthy get out of the health insurance pool. That is why medical savings accounts are not a good idea. Let us put that idea on hold. Let us pass what the American people want, which is health care reform. That is why Republicans are bad managers, because they cannot see the forest for the trees.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, we have just heard described a pie-in-the-sky budget that can do just about everything but leap tall buildings. The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that the budget they are presenting increases the deficit. The people who claim to be deficit hawks, the people who claim to want to reduce the deficit and balance the budget, are in fact presenting us with a budget today which will increase the deficit by $40 billion in the course of the next 2 years. What they have done is front-loaded this budget with tax breaks for the wealthy. Those front- loaded tax breaks will kick in, and that will cause us to increase the deficit, also causing us to make deep cuts in Medicare. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this budget contains cuts in Medicare far deeper than the President's budget and far deeper than the coalition budget, which 40 newspapers said is the only true budget. With these deep cuts in Medicare, seniors will experience a loss of choice of their doctors. Seniors will experience higher out-of-pocket costs. Seniors will experience a reduction in the quality of their medical care. They will also lose the benefits of Medicaid and the protection for nursing home care. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad budget, a pie-in-the-sky budget that increases the deficit.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I have some very serious concerns about the legislation before the House today, H.R. 3322, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1996. This bill cuts NASA's Mission to Planet Earth [MTPE] Program by $261 million from the fiscal year 1996 estimated funding level and $373,700,000 from the President's fiscal year 1997 request. Mission to Planet Earth is NASA's long-term, coordinated research effort to study the Earth as a global environmental system. This program will expand our knowledge of the Earth and its environment, the solar system, and the universe through observations from space. The end product of Mission to Planet Earth will be the ability to develop and implement environmental policies based on a better understanding of how our environment works. There are many reasons that global environmental change is important to our society. A single climate change event can cause global effects. For example, one major climate event, El Nino in the Pacific Ocean, has been occurring for hundreds of years on a fairly regular basis. When it does occur, it has a tremendous effect on weather patterns, causing floods and droughts in different parts of the world. Many researchers believe that the 1993 Mississippi and 1995 California floods were caused by El Nino. In the last decade, the pattern of El Nino occurrences has increased tremendously, though we have not yet learned why. The U.S. Government estimates that natural disasters cost the United States an average of about $1 billion each week. Improving our ability to understand, predict, and respond to these events could allow us to find ways of reducing these costs and the loss to human life. By using satellites and other tools to study the Earth, NASA hopes to expand our understanding of how natural processes affect us, and how we might be affecting them. Such studies will yield improved weather forecasts, tools for managing agriculture and forests, information for fishermen and coastal planners, and, eventually, an ability to predict how the climate will change in the future. I would also like to make it clear that Mission to Planet Earth has always enjoyed bipartisan support. The largest budget element for Mission to Planet Earth is the Earth observing system [EOS], which will make two dozen different measurements over at least 15 years to provide the first long-term, integrated observations of the global environment. The program is estimated to cost approximately $7.6 billion through the year 2000, and has already been reduced by 60 percent since its original approval by Congress in 1990. This project was originally designed during the Reagan administration to study the full range of issues associated with changes in the global environment. President Bush formally proposed the build EOS in 1990 and Congress approved a new start for the program later that year. Since 1990, EOS has undergone three restructuring efforts, designed to focus objectives and approaches and reduce the overall program budget. NASA has worked hard to reduce the costs of its programs, and I think those efforts should be commended. I support full funding for Mission to Planet Earth, and hope that my colleagues will join me in meeting the administration's funding request. In the long run, the knowledge we gain through this program may save a great deal of money and a great many lives. In my opinion, that is a fairly significant return on investment.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, there are many people in Federal Government whose specific contributions to our society are unknown to the vast majority of the public. They do their jobs year in and year out, working behind the scenes, largely unrecognized for their efforts on the public's behalf. That is why I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to take this opportunity to recognize 42 years of dedicated Federal Government service by my constituent, Mr. Vandy L. Miller of Silver Spring, MD, on the occasion of his retirement. In a career of military and civilian service spanning over four decades, Mr. Miller has earned a tremendous amount of respect and a reputation as a committed and effective leader and manager. Integrity and humility have been hallmarks of his career. Mr. Miller, a native of Bluefield, WV, began his Federal service in the U.S. Army in 1954 as a second lieutenant and distinguished military graduate of West Virginia State College, Institute, WV, and rose to the rank of full colonel in the Medical Services Corps. During his 24 years as an Army officer and soldier, he held many positions of increased technical and leadership responsibility in military installations in Europe and the United States, culminating with his retirement from military service as the Radiological Hygiene Consultant, Officer of the Army Surgeon General in the Pentagon. Mr. Miller joined the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1978 as the Branch Chief, Material Licensing Branch. He was promoted to the Senior Executive Service, a military two-star general equivalency, in 1984 while serving in the Branch Chief position. In 1988, he was promoted to Assistant Director for Agreement States, Office of State Programs. In October 1993, Mr. Miller was appointed to the position of Director of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization and Civil Rights. Throughout his career, Mr. Miller has always advocated the concepts of professional growth and development, networking, and continuing education. A humble and dedicated man, he has constructed a career of service and accomplishments using his values and principles he brought with him to work each day. Under Mr. Miller's leadership as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Assistant Director for Agreement State Program, Office of State Programs, realistic policy guidelines were developed for the States to ensure the technical adequacy and compatibility of their programs for regulating nuclear materials. In his position as the Director, Office of Small Business and Civil Rights, he successfully lead the implementation and coordination of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Equal Employment Opportunity [EEO] Program, the Small Business Program, and the Affirmative Employment Program. Under his direction of the EEO program, the number of formal EEO complaints being filed remained relatively low. His dedication, competence, and professionalism are unsurpassed, and they have been recognized by a number of awards over the past decades. Mr. Miller has been recognize by the Federal Government for his outstanding public service. He was presented with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Meritorious Service Award in 1992 and the Presidential Meritorious Executive Rank Award earlier this month. He has been the recipient of the Outstanding Community Leader in Education Award from the Montgomery County Council and numerous other community awards and citations. In addition to his full time work for the Federal Government, Mr. Miller also understands the importance of community service to ensure the efficient running of our society. With this mind, he has held leadership positions in this Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, the Washington Metropolitan Organization of Black Scientists, the West Virginia State College ``W'' Club Association and the Woodside Civic Association, Silver Spring, MD. With his remaining spare time, Mr. Miller has served as a mentor for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Mentor Program and as an active member of the Deacon of the 12th Street Disciples of Christ Christian Church. Mr. Miller has not only served the public, but has encouraged others to follow his lead. Members of his own family, his wife, Sylvia, and three children, Kerwin, Karen, and Karmen are among the many people who have been drawn into community service, inspired by his example. I am sure he will continue to be active in his community in the future. We can point with pride to Federal professionals like Vandy Miller for exemplifying the real spirit of public service. He has served with undying dedication, unrelenting commitment, and fervent devotion. I urge my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this outstanding American, a man of God, a devoted public servant, and a family man. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House of Representatives and my constituents in the 4th Congressional District of Maryland, I want to personally thank Vandy Miller for his exceptional career of service to his country and community, congratulate him on this special occasion, and wish him all the best in retirement as he enters the next chapter of his life. In addition to wishing him and his supportive wife Sylvia good luck and Godspeed in his retirement, we also wish long and happy lives to his children and grandchildren, Markia, LaShawn, Kyle, and Vandy.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I rise in strong support of the minimum wage. Not a sham minimum wage, a real minimum wage. Some people say, ``Well, is this debate about politics?'' No, it is not about politics. This debate is about the American dream. This debate is about standards of living in America. This debate is about whether people can live in America making $8,000 a year after working 40 hours a week. It just does not add up. We need to raise the minimum wage so we can raise the standard of living so people can in fact enjoy the American dream. The leadership on the other side of the aisle does not believe in that and they do not care about whether we raise the standard of living. They want to say people are going to lose jobs. That is not true. One hundred two economists, including three Nobel prize winners, all support raising the minimum wage. But we do not have to go to the intellectuals. Eighty percent of the American public supports raising the minimum wage. I trust the common sense of the American public. But we can even go to the politicians because, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that there are bipartisan majorities in both houses of this Congress who want to support an increase in the minimum wage. But unfortunately there is a Republican leadership that wants to thwart the will of the American people and bipartisan majorities, because they want to undermine this bill with a poison pill. The poison pill will exempt two-thirds of all businesses from the requirements of the minimum wage. That means 10 million Americans will not be able to raise their standard of living and will not be able to enjoy the American dream. It means that we could see the return of sweatshops where people work long hours for low pay. That is not the American dream. In America we pride ourselves not just on democracy but on the ability to support families and to enjoy the benefits of democracy. The only way that that can happen is when people earn a livable wage. What they are perpetrating today is not a livable wage.