Albert Wynn

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill with very good intentions, but this is a terrible rule. As a Member, I am offended that we cannot have a true debate. The procedure that has been described as a partial birth abortion is abhorrent, it is repugnant, it is gruesome. But that is not the only issue. It seems to me that we have to logically and in all fairness consider the life of the mother. This rule does not allow us to do it. They say, well, we have an affirmative defense. That means that the doctor has to be arrested, he is in the process of prosecution, he has been humiliated he has the expenses, and then, yes, he gets to defend himself and say I made a decision on the mother's behalf. That is not the way this bill ought to operate. We ought to have the opportunity to debate not whether we ought to have the procedure, because I do not want the procedure. What we ought to debate is whether we ought to consider the life and the reproductive future of the mother as we make this decision. The gentlewoman from Utah said that this is an important issue. It is an important issue. It is not a fiscal issue. It is a moral and an ethical issue. It is an issue on which we ought to have a full debate and not a closed rule.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, good morning. Balancing the budget may be a good idea. Tax breaks for the wealthy is not. I want to talk about Medicaid. In this so-called reconciliation bill the Republicans cut $182 billion out of Medicaid. Now some people are saying, ``There you go, talking about the poor again.'' No, I am talking about the elderly, the disabled, and the blind. They had not one public hearing. They cut $182 billion. They tell us, well, it is to make things better for future generations. Mr. Speaker, the future is now. The future is my parents, my colleagues' parents. It is my colleagues' parents, my colleagues' grandparents, my colleagues' aunts, and my colleagues' uncles who are in these nursing homes. In the year 2002, when they tell us they will have a great balanced budget, they will also be spending 30 percent less on Medicaid. They also are eliminating the standards that protect seniors from oversedation, protect their nutrition, protect their health standards in nursing homes. The other night I met with the Alzheimer's support group. They are worried. They are concerned that they may have to spend their children's college education to support their parents in nursing homes. They are concerned that the elderly are sometimes eating cat food because they cannot afford it. This is not a fair budget, and they worsen the pain by adding tax breaks for the rich. We need to protect our seniors. Reject the Republican budget approach.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, this week we will have on the floor of the House so-called Medicare reform. All the American people are basically asking for is straight talk, true numbers, and the real deal. The real deal is this: According to the Medicare trustees, we do need to make some adjustments in Medicare. How much? We need to make about $90 billion in adjustments so that we can ensure the solvency of the trust fund for about 10 years, for the next 10 years. The Democrats say well, that will only cost $90 billion. So why do the Republicans say that costs $270 billion? Why are they taking $270 billion out of the Medicare program? They do not get any greater solvency. According to the CBO, they will only assure solvency for [[Page H 10213]] another 10 years, just as we do. So what happens to the rest of that money? It does not go into the Medicare trust fund. Instead, it goes to pay for tax breaks for the very wealthy. Mr. Speaker, those are the fact. We need to make an adjustment. An adjustment costs about $90 billion. The Democrats are willing to make that $90 billion adjustment. Why do we need to rest of the money? It does not go to the Medicare trust fund; it goes to the very wealthy.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any further speakers. I would just indicate, therefore, in closing that I believe this is a constructive amendment. It will enable us to move quickly at such time as we see a transition government in Cuba and I believe that will help us move Cuba more quickly to democracy. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for his support with respect to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the subcommittee chairman for his leadership on this issue. We have not always agreed on the appropriate approach but I certainly appreciate the courtesies he has extended to me during the course of this debate. The modified amendment that I am offering today will simply give the President the flexibility to support Cuba's membership in international financial institutions after a transition government is in power in Cuba. I believe that the most effective time for international assistance is during the transition period. If a pro-democracy transition in Cuba is going to be peaceful and if it is going to succeed, it will need the support of international financial institutions. The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and others can make an enormous difference in Cuba during the transition period because of their strict requirements for economic reforms. The IFI's could help Cuba privatize its industry, develop commercial banking systems, and develop a tax system that will support a market-based economy. Nobody knows what a transition in Cuba will look like but we must be prepared to react and act quickly. Let me be very clear, however, that the transition period that we are talking about and a transition government is specifically delineated within the context of the existing language of the bill. It is specified that a transition government is one in which there is freedom of political activity, freedom of association, freedom of the press, respect for internationally recognized human rights, and is in the process of organizing free elections. It also specifically states that a transition government may not include Fidel or Raoul Castro. I believe we are talking about a very strictly defined set of circumstances under which international financial assistance could be of great importance. Quick involvement has shown, in the case of Eastern Europe, that we can lend a strong effort toward the movement to democracy. We were successful in Eastern Europe. I believe the same model will apply in the case of Cuba. Mr. Chairman, what we saw in Eastern Europe was that the transition led to democracy, not toward some sort of non-Communist dictatorship. We would like to see the same model in Cuba. That is where the international financial institutions come into play. At some point in time, Mr. Chairman, in the not-so-distant future, the Castro dictatorship is going to come to an end. I do not know how that will be but we do know that is fact it will be. During that period of time, once the transition government has met the criteria specified in this bill, I believe that we ought to assist them with participation in international financial institutions. That is what this amendment would do. I would certainly ask the membership to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Jacobs].

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

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge support for this resolution. Sri Lanka has been wracked by a bloody civil war that has claimed the lives of at least 30,000, and perhaps as many as 50,000 people. Sri Lanka is a country of only 18 million people. If the United States lost a comparable number of people, 730,000 Americans would have been killed. Last winter the democratically elected President of Sri Lanka, President Kumaratunga opened a dialog with the insurgent Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, known as the LTTE. Unfortunately, after four rounds of talks, the LTTE withdrew from the negotiations this past April and resumed military operations against the government--without provocation and in violation of the cease-fire. Since the breakdown of the talks in April, the fighting has been heavy, producing many casualties, not only among the combatants but also among the civilian population. Last month, the Sri Lankan Government, in an effort to reach out to the minority Tamil community, unveiled a plan that provides for a significant devolution of power to the provinces. It is not for us to pass judgment on the merits of this or any other plan, but I think we can all applaud this effort to settle Sri Lanka's problems politically rather than militarily. House Resolution 181 calls on the LTTE to return to the negotiating table, and urges all parties to negotiate in good faith with a view to finding a just and lasting political resolution to Sri Lanka's ethnic conflict. It does not take sides in the conflict, but it does call for a political settlement that provides adequate protection for minority rights. It does not commit the United States to any specific course of action, but it does indicate our willingness, in principle, to see the United States lend its good offices to help resolve the conflict, if this is desired by all parties. This resolution has bipartisan support. It has the support of the administration as well. I want to commend the chairman of the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee, Mr. Bereuter, and the ranking member, Mr. Berman, who have worked closely with me as cosponsors of this resolution. I urge my colleagues to put the House on record in support of a peaceful resolution of this ongoing tragedy in Sri Lanka. I urge a ``yea'' vote on House Resolution 181.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support House Resolution 158, as amended. After nearly 70 years of one-party Communist rule, the Mongolian people held their first multiparty democratic elections 5 years ago, on July 29, 1990. Since then, the Mongolian people have made important progress toward establishing a democratic, multiparty state and a free market economy. The United States has sought to assist Mongolia in this transition to democracy and a market-oriented economy. Only last week the First Lady visited Mongolia to reiterate our support for the Mongolian people and their achievements. It is proper and fitting that the Congress also take note of Mongolia's accomplishments. By adopting this resolution now, the House will be voicing its own support for the remarkable transition that Mongolia has undergone in recent years. I commend Chairman Bereuter for this resolution and urge its swift adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, in this town it seems it is always good to have a catch phrase. The latest catch phrase is ``Mediscare,'' Mediscare, as though the cuts in Medicare were not really serious or not really painful. I think they are. First, if you consider a premium increase of $32 a month on a senior, I think that is pretty serious and pretty scary. If you consider that seniors will be forced to choose a doctor they can afford as opposed to the doctor they trust, I think that is pretty scary, when a senior is contemplating major surgery. Third, if you contemplate the likely possibility that some hospitals will have to shut down, reduce services, or pass costs on to private patients, insured with private insurance, I think that is pretty scary. When you hear the term ``Mediscare,'' it should not be taken lightly. People say we have to do this to save the system. The trustees and the President suggest what we need is a modification, maybe $90 to $120 billion. But the Republicans are proposing $270 billion. Why? So they can give a tax break to their rich friends. If you make $300,000, under this plan you are going to get back $20,000 in tax breaks. This $270 billion is not going back to save the trust fund. Not a penny will go back to the trust fund. They mumble about the general fund. Translation: it is siphoned off for a tax break for the wealthy. No, ladies and gentleman, the term should not be ``Mediscare.'' It should be, ``Mediscam,'' because that is what the American people are being subjected to in the latest Republican proposal on Medicare.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his outstanding remarks. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I many consume. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to commend my colleagues, Representative Engel and Chairman Gilman for their work and leadership in bringing this constructive resolution before the House. I would also point out that this resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority of both parties when it was considered in the Committee on International Relations in July. As an original cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 42, I would urge my colleagues to support this timely and important resolution. I believe--as is amply set forth in the resolution--that the status quo on Cyprus is unacceptable. I welcome and encourage the continuing efforts by the United States and the United Nations to help resolve the Cyprus problem in a just and viable manner. I believe that the gradual demilitarization of the Republic of Cyprus would enhance prospects for a peaceful resolution of the long-standing dispute, and as a result would benefit all the people of that island nation. For this important reason I strongly recommend that the House adopt House Concurrent Resolution 42. It is a helpful effort to move the peace process in Cyprus forward. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise because I think Americans are concerned that they need some straight talk on Medicare. The Medicare system is not bankrupt; do not be fooled. Yes, the Medicare system does need adjustment; that is what the trustees said in a Los Angeles Times article last week, and I think we on the Democratic side are willing to make adjustments. Mr. Speaker, the point is we can make adjustments, we can even make reasonable cuts, without affecting benefits, but on the Republican side, however, they want to cut benefits, and the fact is that seniors will be harmed when we cut benefits, and they will be harmed not to save Medicare or not to reduce the deficit, but specifically to give a tax break to the wealthy. Let us look at the figures. I say to my colleagues, ``If you are wealthy and make $300,000, you'll get a tax break of $20,000. If you make $200,000, you'll get a tax break of $11,000. But if you're an average American and make about $35,000 to $50,000, you'll only get $500. That's a tax break for the wealthy.'' I will make a deal. Cut the tax break for the wealthy, and we can work out a reasonable Medicare Program.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that media is a major force in our society. Some people even blame our crime problems, our moral decay on the media. Now, I am not willing to go that far, but I am concerned about putting the control of our ideas and messages in the hands of fewer and fewer people in this country. Right now the national audience capture is 25 percent. That seems appropriate to me in light of the fact that there is no network that reaches 25 percent, but certainly 35 percent is a reasonable compromise. There is no reason to double the concentration to 50 percent. I think 35 percent is certainly appropriate. We talk about small business. Mr. Chairman, this bill goes in the exact opposite direction. Even big businesses may not be able to get into the market if we pass this legislation. It is clearly a barrier to market interests. In fact, 10 years ago if this bill had been in place Fox television probably could not have gotten started. It represents a threat to local broadcast decisions. Please vote with the Markey amendment.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I take strong exception to the unconscionable cuts in this bill for the Safe and Drug Free School zones.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I just do not understand the reasoning of the Republicans. They say they want to fight welfare and put people to work. But they cut job training programs. They say they want to fight crime, they want to straighten out our young people, but then they cut summer jobs programs and school-to-work programs. I just do not understand. They are cutting the vocational education program by $300 million or 27 percent. People ask me at town meetings, why do we not have apprenticeship programs like they have in Germany to give our kids technical skills? They say, Congressman, our jobs are going overseas. What are we doing to improve the skill level of our young people? Sad to say, I will have to tell them, the Republicans want to cut vocational training by 27 percent. We talk about our young people. We say we ought to get our young people on the proper career tracks. But they cut the school-to-work program by 22 percent. I do not understand. This puts seniors into a job environment that actually creates jobs. Then they talk about fighting crime, but they are cutting summer jobs. They are cutting almost 600,000 possible summer jobs, 7,000 jobs in my State of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I just do not understand their reasoning.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bosnian Self-Defense Act. We ought to pass this resolution. You know, Mr. Chairman, we are not just in the often referred to global marketplace. We are also part of a global community, and in such a community, as with the old playground, leaders have to step up to resist aggression and resist bullies. It is time that we confront the realities. It is time that we confront the realities. It is not enough to play ``what if.'' ``What if'' is an excuse for inaction. It is not enough to try to figure out the end game. We do not know the end game. We never will. What we have to do is confront the realities. The realities are these: People are being slaughtered on one side, the Moslem side; women are being raped on one side, the Moslem side; our so-called safe-havens are being overrun on a daily basis. They have become a cruel joke. It is time for us to respond. The Moslems deserve an opportunity. They have the right in fact to defend themselves. Through the exercise of this right, we can create consequences for aggression. The reason this war has gone on so long and gone so badly is because there have been no consequences. The Bosnians have become emboldened. If the Moslems have weaponry to defend themselves, they can create consequences and create pain that will give the Bosnians pause in their aggression. The great concern seems to be whether we will Americanize this war. I do not think so. The U.N. forces will ultimately have to come out. Our allies are not going to stay indefinitely and watch their people be used as human shields. So, as the President has indicated, we will have a responsibility as leaders in the global community to help extricate these U.N. forces. But that need not mean that we will have a complete expansion of the war and a complete Americanization. On the contrary, it will signal Americans to stand up for the victims, to take its true and appropriate place as a world leader and respond to this crisis by enabling people who are the victims of rape and murder to defend themselves.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to H.R. 2099. It represents a political meat ax, rather than a responsible [[Page H 7827]] carving knife, as we approach the budget process. Mr. Chairman, there is a 23-percent cut in housing programs, representing more than $5 billion; representing the elimination of personal programs such as section 8, which helps disadvantaged people get housing, and HOPE homeownership grants that allow people to pursue the American dream. This bill represents a 46-percent cut in housing for the elderly. How some Members could say we are helping the elderly is beyond me. The elderly will pay between an average of 400 and 600 additional dollars per year for senior housing. Mr. Chairman, this bill represents a 54-percent cut for low-income assisted housing programs, the working poor of our country, and a 49- percent cut in homeless programs, which means that more Americans will be living in cardboard boxes and laying out along the street side. Critically, it represents a 48-percent cut in construction and improvement in veterans' facilities, which means our Nation's veterans will continue to see inadequate treatment and work in inadequate facilities.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman's amendment. We see Members every day run down to the well and say, I believe in a color-blind society. If there is discrimination, take it to EEOC. EEOC cannot do that job unless we pass this amendment. The bulk of EEOC's work involves investigation, processing and resolution of complaints. This requires interviewing, reviewing files, not computer work. This requires old-fashioned legwork. In order to do legwork, you need personnel. But over the past 14 years, EEOC has experienced a reduction of 500 full-time employees. This comes despite a significant increase in responsibility. In terms of private-sector complaints, they increase by 47 percent, up 29,000 additional charges. The Federal sector: Again, up over 7,000 additional charges. More complaints, less personnel, it cannot work. As a result, each investigator now has 135 cases. Four years ago they only had 55. They say, Mr. Chairman, justice delayed is justice denied. Pass this amendment. Eliminate the backlog. Help EEOC do its job.

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support his amendment. I think it makes good sense. What we do here in Washington is basically try to strike a balance between Federal planning and priorities and local planning. Not all local planning is good, not all Federal planning is bad. The gentleman's amendment simply says, let's give 90 percent of the money to the locals and let them make the decisions, but let 10 percent reflect certain national priorities. The specific national priority he is talking about is crime prevention. When I talk to local law enforcement officials, they say crime prevention is essential. We cannot arrest ourselves out of the crime problem. We have to have prevention. What is important about the prevention programs provided in this amendment? I would like to refer specifically to two: The first is substance abuse treatment in Federal and local prisons. Why? Because substance abuse leads to recidivism which means prisoners come out of prison, commit more crimes because they have substance abuse problems, and then they go back in the prison system and we the taxpayers pay $25,000 a year to keep them in prison. We need substance abuse treatment. Second, I refer Members to the Gang Resistance Program, called GRATE. We have it in my district and it works. One of the biggest threats in our society today is the emergence of organized gangs. To the extent that at a national level we say that it is important to thwart the emergence of these gangs, we are making good Federal decisionmaking. I would urge my colleagues not to say that all Federal decisionmaking is bad and all local decisionmaking is good, but to strike a reasonable balance that enables us to impart certain Federal priorities for fighting gangs and for substance abuse treatment as well as other programs that have been proven to work. Prevention works. Please vote for prevention.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman I rise today in opposition to this bill, H.R. 2076. The American people have cried out for a real war on crime. Recently, in 1994, we listened to their concerns and we passed a 1994 Crime Act, which promised 100,000 additional officers and funding for real law enforcement. Already over 20,000 additional police officers have been put on our streets as a result of the 1994 crime bill. Yet, today, H.R. 2076 does not guarantee one additional police officer to help our communities combat crime. Instead, this bill appropriates funding for a program that is not even authorized. The bill does eliminate the COPS program. I consider that a real mistake. COPS, Community Oriented Policing Services, works. It provides local communities with funds for law enforcement. Instead, this bill would waste $2 billion of taxpayer money with no specific goals. Proponents try to tell you it is a block grant approach. In my opinion, it is a block headed approach. Police departments will have to compete with every other agency that has any far-reaching relationship to public safety. Street lighting would be considered for funds. Street lights are nice, walkie-talkies are nice, roads leading to prisons are nice. But the COPS program establishes a clear priority, neighborhood police. County programs provide neighborhood police for apartment complexes in high crime neighborhoods, small towns would get additional police, where one or two police officers makes all the difference in the world. The program is working. My Congressional district alone has received 76 additional police officers to help fight crime in my district. Why should we defund a program that works? The COPS program provides neighborhood police to local communities. It sets a clear priority. Mr. Chairman, we do not need to talk about roads and lights and walkie-talkies and orange jackets. We need to talk about neighborhoods police. Congress should keep its promise to the American people. The 1994 Crime Act is a superior bill. Community policing works. Let us let local communities have local law enforcement personnel.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to concur with and support the Gilchrest amendment to Duncan. I think it makes good sense. Here is what we know. No. 1, leasing space is expensive. This proposal by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] could cost us almost $2 billion more than the proposal that we have before us. By obtaining space, we actually save money. Second, FDA does a lot of important functions. Now, I have heard the term ``bureaucrat'' thrown around with derision. I take exception to that, because these are scientists that perform vital functions. And while apparently some of my colleagues have a real problem with Dr. Kessler, I would submit that the consumers are very interested in maintaining a high quality FDA. This consolidation makes sense. There have been revisions to reduce the cost. There is now a new option in Montgomery County to consider the White Oak facility previously owned by the Navy. That would further reduce costs. We have reduced the acreage in this proposal. We have reduced the square footage in this proposal. We have reduced the total dollar cost. We can do this efficiently and save the taxpayers money.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, as a result of my attendance at a funeral today, I missed two rollcall votes. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 529 and ``no'' on rollcall No. 530.