Albert Wynn

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. But it is not the bill I wanted. I think we should begin an immediate troop withdrawal, but this is a good compromise bill that has the virtue of setting a date certain. Now, I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talking about ``micromanagement.'' Well, I will tell you, we have great United States troops who perform admirably in spite of the incompetence and lack of planning by this administration. And I will tell you what our troops deserve. Number one, they deserve that we meet the readiness standards that our military has established, and this bill says it. We will meet our readiness standards, and we will make sure our troops are adequately trained and adequately prepared before we deploy them. The second thing they deserve, and this is very important, they deserve accountability by the Iraqi people. The Iraqis need to disarm their militias. The Iraqis need to come up with a political solution. The Iraqis need to divide the oil revenues. That is not something the military can do. Third, our troops deserve a date certain not because we are ``losing the war,'' but because we are going to take a new direction that relies on negotiation and diplomacy, rather than warfare and bloodshed.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to bring to your attention the launch of the Campaign for a Violence Free, Stress-Free America, and the unveiling of the Universal Declaration of Human Values on March 28, 2007 at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, in Washington, D.C. The evening will include comments and peace meditation by the Art of Living founder, His Holiness Sri Ravi Shankar, cultural musical performances, and a keynote and statement by distinguished leaders. As you may know, the effect of stress and violence can cause serious problems for one's health and life. The Mayo Clinic says stress can cause headaches, chest pain, heart problems, high blood pressure, as well as anxiety and depression. The effects of violence are equally serious. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, children who are victims of violence show behavioral problems such as aggression towards others, depression, sleeplessness, lowered self-esteem, poor school performance and even suicidal tendencies. The Art of Living Foundation works with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, participating in a variety of committees and activities relating to health and conflict resolution. The organization also conducts a number of educational programs, and with the International Association for Human Values, carries out various humanitarian service projects. I would like to encourage all members to support this worthwhile event.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 63, a bipartisan resolution supporting our troops in Iraq, while opposing the President's troop escalation strategy. This marks the fourth year of this war. It is time to bring our troops home now. We have not quelled the violence. We have not thwarted al Qaeda. We have not stabilized the region. We have not deterred terrorist radicals. In fact, because of our presence, there are more jihadists in Iraq than there were before. Thus, I find it inconceivable that the President's response to this situation, 3 years of military failure in Iraq, is to suggest that we add more troops, 20,000 additional troops. Since the start of the war in 2003, over 3,000 U.S. troops have died, more than 50 from my State of Maryland alone. In addition, 23,000 American soldiers have suffered serious injury and will have post- traumatic consequences. The President's approach will only result in the loss of more U.S. lives. Iraq is in the midst of what has become a civil war between Shia and Sunni. There also is internal tribal and gang violence. Our troops can play no constructive role in this environment, except as targets for all sides. This is not a partisan Democratic issue. Let me be clear. The President's proposed troop escalation runs contrary to the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and military experts such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff. According to a December Washington Post article, the Joint Chiefs have long opposed the increase in troops. Generals Colin Powell, George Casey, John Abizaid and Barry McCaffrey have all expressed skepticism about the President's surge strategy. Even some of my Republican colleagues will oppose this surge strategy, and for good reason. Troop buildups in Iraq haven't worked. U.S. troop levels increased by 18,000 from November 2004 to January 2005 in advance of the Iraqi elections, yet insurgent attacks increased. In 2005, the administration increased troop levels by over 20,000 to secure Iraq ahead of its constitutional referendum. The strategy not only failed to quell the violence, but insurgent attacks increased by 29 percent. Some of my Republican colleagues make an argument that if you support the troops, you must support the mission. They say if we don't defeat radical Islam in Iraq, then where will we do it? Unfortunately, both of these theories are flawed. Our troops have performed admirably, sacrificing life and limb, often without sound strategy or adequate equipment. And, yes, the goal of peace and stability in the Middle East is admirable, but this mission is misguided. The fact is that despite previous congressional support, this mission was inadequately planned and our troops inadequate equipped. In addition, the administration has cast a blind eye at massive fraud, waste and abuse that has undermined the reconstruction efforts and cheated the American taxpayer. We are now in the midst of a civil war that we neither understand nor can we resolve. I support the troops, but I cannot support this ill- conceived mission. As hard as it is for some, we must understand that this is not a World War II type conflict. This is not our great army defeating their great army. We cannot defeat a radical Islamic insurgency militarily. This does not mean we cannot defeat a radical Islamic insurgency. It does not mean that if we oppose a troop escalation or begin withdrawing our troops that we have failed. Rather, it is a recognition of what the American people already know: We need a new strategy. This administration operates under the arrogant assumption that only America wants peace in Iraq. In fact, other Arab nations in the region have an even greater desire for peace and stability. They don't want to see their brethren killed. They don't want to see waves of refugees flood their region. Our new strategy should be a diplomatic initiative to bring countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran and Syria to the table to engage in finding solutions. Now, I know the war hawks will say diplomatic approaches cannot work. But think about it. It wasn't too long ago that this administration and these war hawks were saying that North Korea was an intractable enemy. Yet today, through diplomatic efforts, we are making appreciable progress. I believe this diplomatic approach can work in Iraq. We need a dramatic change in strategy. We should begin with the withdrawal of U.S. troops and place more responsibility on the Iraqis to foster their own democracy. Most people, including General John Abizaid, understand that we cannot impose democracy on the Iraqis if they don't want it for themselves. That is why I support the End the War in Iraq Act, which would use the congressional power of the purse to bring this war to an end if the administration cannot or will not do so. But in addition to beginning a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, we must pursue an aggressive diplomatic initiative to involve willing Muslim countries in creating a ceasefire first, a peace process second, and the rebuilding of Iraq in the third instance. These countries have a vested interest in promoting peace and stability in the region. It was said many years ago war is not the answer, and today more war in the form of troop escalation is the absolutely wrong answer. I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, today, the House will take up, H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiations Act of 2007. H.R. 4 will require the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies in order to obtain reduced drug prices for seniors enrolled in the Medicare Prescription Drug Program. The bill prohibits, that in conducting these negotiations, the government may not restrict access to certain drugs by requiring a particular list of covered drugs, otherwise known as a formulary. Under the Republican majority, the government was prohibited from engaging in any negotiations to utilize its buying power to reduce costs to consumers. I have been assured by my colleagues that H.R. 4 will not involve or allow restrictions on patients' access to medicines during the negotiation process. Specifically, I have been assured that H.R. 4's prohibition against government mandated formularies is intended to protect against all forms of government imposed restrictions on patients' access to needed medicines, and that no such restrictions will be allowed under the Medicare Modernization Act as amended by H.R. 4. In casting my vote for H.R. 4, I am relying on these assurances because I firmly believe that all patients must have unrestricted access to doctor prescribed medications. Overall, I am optimistic about this bill. While the government should have the ability to negotiate on behalf of the 43 million seniors on Medicare, we must be careful that negotiations do not result in reduced access to prescriptions. We must strike a delicate balance to ensure that lower prices do not cause drug companies to withdraw vital drugs from the Medicare Prescription Drug Program. As H.R. 4 moves forward to conference, I ask that the conferees affirmatively strengthen and clarify the rules against government imposed restrictions. If implemented properly, this bill has the potential to cut the cost of health care and improve access to medicines for millions of seniors on Medicare. According to Families USA, while providing some relief, the current Medicare Prescription drug law has failed to slow the rapid growth in drug prices. As a cosponsor of H.R. 4 and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I will be exploring additional legislative measures designed to reduce costs for seniors, without reducing access to life saving drugs.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the Rules Committee for yielding. I rise in support of this rule. I am a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I watched 2 years ago as my Republican colleagues larded up the Energy Policy Act. While we were trying to talk about energy efficiency and we were trying to talk about energy conservation, they were giving over $8 billion in tax breaks to the oil and gas companies, the companies that are making huge profits right now. What this bill does is roll back that tax break as well as require the oil and gas companies to pay appropriate royalties to the government, appropriate royalties to the taxpayer. This bill is looking forward. I am afraid my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are looking backwards. They are still talking about oil and gas. We on the Democrat side, however, get it. We understand that, yes, we are using oil and gas today, but we are also running out of oil and gas in the world and in this country and that we must have alternative energy sources. So what do we do? We say, let's take this unnecessary tax break of $8 billion and let's collect our royalties and let's put that money in a trust fund to develop alternative energy, renewable energy that can last us well into the latter part of this century. Now, personally, I am very enthusiastic about hydrogen fuel cell development because hydrogen fuel cell development definitely leads us down the road to energy independence. Hydrogen fuel cells don't have any emissions; they don't leave any emissions. Hydrogen fuel cells aren't dependent on foreign countries. It is a technology we can develop here in this country that will really make us energy independent and will also address the problem of global warming. But we must invest in it. So let's not look backwards and give oil and gas companies more tax breaks. Let's look forward and invest in renewable energy, in hydrogen, in wind and solar, and the things we have in this country that can make us truly independent. I urge adoption of this bill.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank first the gentlewoman from California for yielding, and also for her consistent, aggressive and activist leadership on this issue. She has been very courageous throughout. She has always taken a principled position, and she is now leading our efforts to stand up and express our opposition to the President. I want to thank her for that. Sometimes one of the most difficult things for a politician or elected official to do is to say I was wrong; I made a mistake. I am here to say that tonight. After 9/11, after the Pentagon was attacked in addition to New York, my district, which is just outside of Washington, D.C., felt the effects very severely. A lot of my constituents worked in the Pentagon. I went to several funerals, and I was very sensitive to the fact that my constituents in suburban Washington, D.C., in Montgomery County and in Prince Georges County, as Federal workers, were very vulnerable to an attack in what is arguably the number one or the number two target of terrorists in the United States. I represent 72,000 Federal employees, most of whom work right here in the Nation's capital, in the immediate Capitol complex area. At that time, the President was presenting, as the gentlewoman mentioned, extensive evidence about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, about attempts to develop a nuclear arsenal, about chemical and biological warfare, and I was of the belief that the President, on issues of national security, would put politics aside and would consider only the best interests of the country. Boy, was I wrong. It has turned out and become evident to everyone that the President's intelligence was seriously flawed. It was inaccurate, it was distorted, and it was exaggerated to create a false impression of urgency that this country had an urgent threat and that weapons of mass destruction, in fact, existed and that they posed a threat to the citizens of the United States and, in my consideration, a threat to my constituents here in the Washington metropolitan area. We were shown classified information, documents, photographs and the like, all of which were designed to create the impression that we were facing an imminent threat. Assuming the President would not mislead the country, I supported the war. That was a mistake. But then it came to pass and became increasingly evident that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that we were not facing an imminent threat. So in May of 2004, in an appearance before the Muslim Council in my district, I said I think my vote was wrong; I think my vote was a mistake. Subsequent to that, I heard people say, well, what about the fact that we toppled Saddam Hussein? Well, that was a laudable goal, but it was not worth 3,000 troops. Well, what about the fact we created elections and they put their finger in purple ink and they had elections for the first time? I said I agree, that, too, is a laudable goal, but that was not worth 3,000 troops. If you had asked me then to make this decision based on what I know now, I would not have voted to support the use of troops. Because, you see, there are a lot of dictators in the world, some of whom we not only deal with, some of whom we actually arm. There are a lot of dictators that are cruel, that murder their own people, that violate human rights. There are a lot of countries that don't have democratic processes. And yet we do not make the decision that we ought to engage with them militarily. So to my way of thinking, the only justification, the only justification would have been the existence of weapons of mass destruction and an imminent threat to the United States that in fact did not exist. What we have in fact seen is that our military presence has worsened the situation. Areas that did not have terrorists now have terrorists. They are called breeding grounds for terrorism because our presence creates a cause for the terrorists, a motivation, if you will, a catalyst, an antagonism. That is not solving the problem of terrorism. That is not effectively fighting the war on terrorism. Our military role has not been productive and effective; in fact, it is been counterproductive and sadly ineffective. It is time to withdraw our troops. We need to begin now to withdraw our troops so that the Iraqis will take more responsibility for their own security. In fact, Mr. Maliki says that is what he wants us to do. He says, ``Give us the weapons, we will do it.'' He is not so excited about having us. Clearly, the American people don't want to be in Iraq. More importantly, the Iraqi people don't want us to be in Iraq. It is time for us to pull out. We are in the midst of a civil war, one that we cannot resolve, and therefore we are not playing a constructive role. We are now on the eve of another adventure in Iraq or, should I say, misadventure, in which the President is proposing not to withdraw but just the opposite, contrary to the recommendations of the joint chiefs, contrary to the recommendations of the Iraqi Study Group. The President is saying, Let's send more troops. He calls it a surge. Folks, it is a troop escalation and an escalation of this war, and I will oppose it. There is a saying that the old folks used to say: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Mr. President, you fooled me once. Shame on you. Fool me twice? I don't think so. I am opposed to any troop escalation. I am opposed to any surge. I am opposed to any expansion of this war by military means. Yes, we have to fight the war on terrorism, but it seems to me we need to use diplomatic means to create an environment in which we can promote peace. We need to involve the other countries in the region, be it Shia or be it Sunni, who have an interest in a stable region. It is their region. They don't want war as a way of life in their region. Let's involve those countries, the Egypts, the Jordans, the Saudi Arabias. Let them get engaged in helping resolve this war. Let us step back from this war. We need to implement diplomatic solutions. So this is not a question of withdrawing United States leadership. We need to leave, but we need to leave diplomatically. We need to understand that, in the modern world, the use of military force is extremely limited, limited in its utility, because we are operating in a different environment, a terrorist environment, an insurgent environment in which additional troops only work for a temporary period of time. The insurgency withdraws, melts away, and then reemerges, which is to say, the President's proposal can only lead to a permanent U.S. presence of even more troops, putting them in harm's way. We have lost over 3,000 troops. The Iraqi people have lost tens of thousands more, maybe even hundreds of thousands. It is time to withdraw our military presence. It is time to advance the cause of peace through diplomatic means and diplomatic leadership. I want to thank the gentlewoman again for giving me this opportunity to speak.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, September 23, I attended the funeral services for Army Second Lieutenant Emily J.T. Perez, an outstanding young officer who gave her life in service to her country while patrolling near Najaf, in southern Iraq, on September 12th of this year. Emily J.T. Perez was a 23-year-young woman of great determination and distinction from Prince George's County, Maryland, who rose to the top of her class at Oxon Hill High School. Seeing her tremendous potential, I had the honor of nominating her for an appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point. Emily rose to the top of her class to become the first minority female Command Sergeant in West Point's history. With sadness I acknowledge her for another distinction; she is the first female graduate of West Point to die in Iraq. Lt. Perez, a platoon leader assigned to the 20th Support Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, perished when an improvised roadside device exploded underneath her Humvee. Emily Perez was a young woman of many talents, with a passion to serve others. Born in Heidelberg, Germany to a military family, she decided early on that she wanted to be a soldier. Her family moved to Fort Washington, Maryland, and Emily enrolled at Oxon Hill High School and became Wing Commander of the Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps. At Peace Baptist Church in the District of Columbia, she started an HIV-AIDS ministry to educate young people on the dangers of the life-threatening disease. She also volunteered with the Red Cross at an HIV-AIDS peer education center where she shared stories of those living with depression and the stigma of AIDS. Emily was a sprinter. She ran the third leg for the Army's 400-meter relay team and ``She was the cream of the crop,'' according to her former high school track coach Nathaniel Laney. Emily had a wonderful voice and performed in the Military Academy's gospel choir, acting again as a shining example to her fellow women cadets. ``She was resilient. Her spirit was calm. She was resolute. She believed . . . the real tragedy is not to live while you are alive,'' said her godfather, Reverend Michael Bell, pastor of the Peace Baptist Church. Mr. Speaker, today I honor the spirit of an outstanding young American patriot taken from us much too soon, United States Army Second Lieutenant Emily J.T. Perez.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the commendable efforts of the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) in safeguarding the citizens of Prince George's and Montgomery counties in Maryland from flooding. On the weekend of June 24, 2006 anywhere from six inches to two feet of rain fell in the Washington, DC area, leaving some homes under water, bridges washed away, and residents displaced. The WSSC is among the ten largest water and wastewater utilities in the Nation, serving 1.6 million customers in Prince George's and Montgomery counties. The agency's response to the storms and subsequent flooding was executed with foresight and sound planning. Their staff remained in constant communication with city, state, and emergency officials, allowing residents to evacuate in a safe and timely manner. One noteworthy individual is WSSC Systems Control Group Leader, Karen Wright. Wright and her staff were responsible for monitoring the rainfall and opening the dam gates. Recently, she was recognized by The Baltimore Sun for her efforts. In crisis situations such as the June storms, it is comforting to know that the employees of the WSSC can rise to the occasion, make the difficult decisions, and safeguard our citizens. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in commending the WSSC and its employees on a job well done.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express the heartfelt condolences of a grateful nation and to honor the life of PFC Justin Ray Davis of Gaithersburg, MD. PFC Justin Davis was killed on June 25 near the village of Kandalay, located in the Kunar Province in Afghanistan, from wounds sustained during combat operations as part of Operation Mountain Thrust. PFC Justin Davis, 19, was assigned to A Company, 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division of the U.S. Army. A native of Gaithersburg, MD, Private First Class Davis entered the Army in June 2005 and trained at Fort Benning, GA, to be an infantryman. His strong patriotism and desire to defend our freedoms led him to join the military immediately after graduating from Magruder High School in May, 2005, where he was active in the Junior ROTC and a starter on the varsity football team. Private First Class Davis was a loving son and leaves behind his mother, Paula Davis, and father, Dennis Johnson. May God bless them and comfort them during this very difficult time. We owe this brave soldier and his family a tremendous debt of gratitude for his selfless service and sacrifice. Our country could not maintain its freedom and security without heroes like Private First Class Davis. He made the ultimate sacrifice. Americans, as well as Afghanis, owe their liberty to Private First Class Davis and his fallen comrades. Private First Class Davis was awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart for his actions in Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, for his heroism and service to his country, please join me in honoring the life of PFC Justin Ray Davis.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call on my Republican colleagues to bring up and pass the renewal of the Voting Rights Act. On March 7, 1965, our colleague, John Lewis, and 500 civil rights activists marched from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. They paved the way for the Voting Rights Act. My grandmother, Bella Russell, lives in Warren County, North Carolina. She is 98 years old. She knows all about the need for the Voting Rights Act. She experienced literacy tests and intimidation and other barriers to voting. We needed the Voting Rights Act then and we need it today. We need it today because in my State of Maryland, people are still being told you have to pay all of your late fees on your rent in order to vote; you have to pay your parking tickets to vote. Don't forget to vote on Wednesday. People are still being intimidated. We need the Voting Rights Act as an effective check on those who would deter other Americans from exercising their important right to vote. There are those who would challenge the preclearance provision, but I maintain if you are not doing anything wrong, if you are not impeding the right to vote, then preclearance is not a burden. In America, we need to encourage more people to vote, not less.

Mr. WYNN

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

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that would fund a study to increase health and wellness for the Federal workforce, our employees. Specifically, the amendment would fund a study by the Office of Personnel Management to develop recommendations to create incentives to boost the level of physical fitness and in return the productivity of Federal employees and their families. Increasing the level of Federal employees' physical fitness would indeed boost the productivity of workers, reduce chronic illness, and decrease the Federal workforce's health care costs. Let me talk for a minute about the nature of the problem. Today, approximately 127 million adults in the United States are overweight. I know a little about that. Sixty million are obese and nine million are severely obese. Obesity has been linked to an increase in chronic diseases such as coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis, high blood pressure and certain types of cancer. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the medical care costs, and this is what is important, the medical care cost of people with chronic diseases accounts for more than 75 percent of the Nation's $1.4 trillion in medical costs. You know, on this floor, Mr. Chairman, we offer you the phrase, we need to run government like a business. I think that is a good idea. What you will find is businesses are increasingly turning to wellness programs to reduce rising health care costs and most believe that these programs will have a long-term impact according to a survey by the Deloitte Center For Health Solutions and the ERISA Industry Committee. For example, Lafarge North America, a Herndon, Virginia, building materials manufacturer with 650 employees reimburses its employees for half of their monthly gym fees up to $500 per year. Employees of Aetna can earn financial incentives of up to $345 a year for participating in weight management and fitness courses. Could this business approach apply to the Federal workforce? I think so. This amendment would provide funding to study best ways to improve employee health and fitness, thereby improving productivity. Some of the issues under study would include lunchtime walking and running clubs, creating accessible biking trails or bike routes, providing periodic incentive programs, promoting physical activities, health risk appraisals for all employees, contract with health plans to offer free and reduced cost memberships to health clubs allowing flexible work schedules so employees can exercise; discounting health insurance premiums and/or reduce copayments and deductibles in return for an employee's participation in specified health promotion or disease prevention program, constructing gyms in the workplace, such as we have here at the House; sponsoring exercise classes, providing employees with a stipend, full or partial, for gym membership. Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying this: this amendment is designed to call attention to the link between Federal employees' fitness and greater productivity and ultimately taxpayer savings on health insurance costs. I would like to work with the chairman and the ranking member in the future to increase the level of physical fitness in the Federal workforce. I believe it is a win/win for the taxpayer and Federal employees. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment in the hope of further discussion as we go forward.

Mr. WYNN

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

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee chairman for his leadership, the subcommittee chairman for his leadership, as well as Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee who worked with me on the Video Choice Act which was somewhat of a precursor to this bill. I want to say, first of all, that this bill is not about net neutrality. The Google crowd, the Internet crowd does not care about cable rates. But this bill is about cable rates. And what we know today is that cable rates are too high in America. We know that consumers are paying as much as 80 percent increases over the last years in cable rates, and so that is what this bill seeks to address. It addresses it by trying to create more competition. And there is no disagreement that if we had more competition in video services we would have lower cable bills. Now, there are new companies, telephone companies and other companies, that want to come into the market. But under current law, they have to negotiate hundreds of thousands of individual agreements with local governments. That is why we don't have more competition. This bill creates a national franchise and says we can bring in new entrants to provide competitive services and lower prices. What happens with this? Well, we do protect the local communities because they still receive franchise fees from new entrants. We protect their rights to control their rights-of-way. We also have antidiscrimination to protect against redlining. We have language that says that if you discriminate, you can and will be punished and penalized. So I think this is a very good bill that addresses the fundamental issue, which is cable rates. Let me turn for a moment to net neutrality. Understand, there is only finite space within the network. Everybody can't travel at top speed at the same time, so there has to be some differentiation. And ultimately, the issue is who will pay. Will the consumer pay, or will the content providers pay? That is the Google and the Internet and the innovators that they talk about. Those innovators, those people would rather have the consumer pay if there has to be a differentiation, if you want ultra-high speeds, if you want excessive amounts of the bandwidth. I believe net neutrality is not a relevant issue here. I believe that we have a solid bill that addresses the fundamental concern, which is reducing cable rates. We have an opportunity to do something very good for the American people, and I think we ought to do it and pass the COPE bill.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I wanted to compliment her on her amendment because it focuses on a very important area and that is the diversity of technology providers, focusing on women-owned business, minority businesses and small businesses that want to compete as providers of technology, and the thrust of this bill is providing more competition. She recognizes it is providing an opportunity to help these small businesses compete. There has been a lot of talk about build-out in neglected communities. One aspect of the bill that has not been considered is the fact that there are a lot of competitors who may go into other communities, underserved communities, who may be enthusiastic about the opportunities she is trying to provide. So I wanted to indicate that she is on the right track with her amendment.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. One of the issues that came up as we began to develop this bill was consumer protection and the role of the local franchising authority in protecting the interests of local consumers. The bill says that we will have a national franchise, and it also provides that under the national franchise the FCC will promulgate specific standards for consumer protection, dealing with issues such as billing disputes, discontinuation of service, loss of service, service quality, changes in channel line-up, other service features, the availability of parental controls. The amendment that I have today basically says that, number one, an individual that has a complaint may file a complaint with the FCC or with the local franchising authority. It says that the FCC or the local franchising authority must render a decision in 90 days of the filing of a complaint. That is to address the concern that the complaint process, the consumer protection process, is too time consuming and imposes burdens on the franchisee. Second, the amendment provides that the local franchising authority, the cities, the counties, the States, may initiate on their own a complaint proceeding and file that complaint with the FCC regarding a violation of the rules promulgated by the FCC. They may issue an order requiring that the franchisee comply with the FCC's consumer protection rules. This order will stand and may be enforced by the FCC unless it is successfully appealed. This basically adds to the consumer protections already in the bill and enables both the individual and the local community to bring an action to enforce the rules that are set forth by the FCC to protect the consumer. In addition, the amendment provides for an annual report, because one of the things that we wanted to see was what was going on out there once we had this new field of competition and new providers of video services. So we will have a study that will come back to our committee and our companion committee in the Senate telling us about the number of complaints the FCC has received, the trend in these complaints, the timeliness of the response to these complaints. We believe this type of information will be very useful in determining whether we need stronger rules and regulations on consumer protection. In sum, this is a very simple and straightforward amendment that protects the consumers and involves the local communities, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. WYNN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my chairman. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me begin by thanking the gentleman for his kind words with respect to my amendment, and I also want to thank him for his leadership, along with that of our ranking member on other issues of great concern. I would only point out that he has acknowledged that having the FCC promulgate and allow local enforcement of this rule is a good idea. I thank you for that comment, and that is what this amendment attempts to do. Are there other things that might be desirable? I would certainly concur with him that there are, but I would certainly appreciate support for the amendment because, as he has pointed out, it addresses at least part of the issue that local communities have expressed concern about. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, the sun is shining a little brighter in the great Free State of Maryland. Today, I rise to join my colleague Steny Hoyer in offering exuberant congratulations to the University of Maryland women's basketball team on winning the NCAA national basketball championship. In winning the championship, they had to overcome a very fine and very tough team from Duke University. Hats off to Coach Brenda Frese, starters Crystal Langhorne, Laura Harper, Marissa Coleman, Shay Duron, Kristi Toliver and the rest of the team, the assistant coaches, managers and the tremendous fans of the University of Maryland. You have made us all proud in the State of Maryland. You are a particular inspiration to all the young women around the country, like my 11-year-old daughter Gabriel, who have become tremendous fans of women's basketball. Today, all of Maryland salutes the University of Maryland's women's basketball team. Go, Terps.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and thank my college fraternity, Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc., for the support and encouragement they are providing to the Eastern Province of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc., in recognizing its 50-year brothers and senior Kappas. I have been a member of this great fraternity for 36 years. Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc. was founded nearly 100 years ago, in 1911, at Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, by eleven young African American male students, and chartered by the State of Indiana on May 15, 1911. These undergraduate students were in their late teens and early twenties and were sophomores and juniors, at Indiana University. Their parents and/or grandparents had been either slaves or freed slaves. An excerpt, in pertinent part, from the articles of incorporation reads as follows: ``All the subscribers hereto, who are colored citizens of the United States and Students of Indiana University, do hereby associate themselves together . . . for the purpose of founding a National, Secret, Greek Letter Fraternity . . . to stimulate fellow students to the attainment of high, intellectual, moral and social worth.'' During the past nearly 100 years, the fraternity has grown to 370 alumni chapters and 375 undergraduate chapters. The fraternity is divided into 12 provinces (regions) throughout the United States, and in several countries abroad. My local chapter, the Hyattsville/Landover (MD) Alumni Chapter is situated in the Eastern Province. The province has 53 Chapters with approximately 1,800 brothers affiliated with chapters assigned to it. New membership in the fraternity is not limited or restricted to undergraduate students only. Unlike many other national college fraternities, our alumni chapters are most viable and play a significant ``training for leadership'' role to its undergraduate brothers. This role is accomplished while these alumni members are raising families and achieving in all fields of human endeavor, including rendering community services. We also provide scholarships and loans to high school students, as well as college students, even to those who are not members of Kappa Alpha Psi. It is noteworthy, that social outlets available to these alumni brothers during the last nearly 100 years made it most feasible and propitious to continue bonding together as they worked with the younger brothers and others in the community. The Eastern Province has been diligent in its recognition of its senior brothers and brothers who have been members of the fraternity for fifty or more years. Beginning in May 2006, they will initiate an annual recognition activity for these brothers, in conjunction with national initiatives and special amenities, honoring their length of life and service to the fraternity and community-at-large. Somewhere in heaven, the chapter invisible, I know our esteemed founders are smiling after noting that our senior and fifty year brothers are not being placed on the shelf and forgotten.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the Faith Missionary Baptist Church of Capitol Heights, Maryland and Reverend Dr. Michael C. Turner, Sr. for their outstanding commitment to the community over the last fifteen years. Their church home was purchased in May of 2000, and the dedication and cornerstone laying service was held on November 11, 2000. Since its inception the Church has baptized hundreds of new converts, provided structured Bible classes, established a strong and viable Youth Ministry, established mentoring and tutorial programs, and established a 10-week Summer Youth Enrichment Program. I submit for the record the celebration of the Church's 15th Anniversary with the theme of ``Remembering the Past, Celebrating the Present, and Stepping into the Future.''

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong concern about the Bush administration's agreement to allow a United Arab Emirates company, Dubai Ports World, to manage operations at several U.S. seaports, including the Port of Baltimore in my home State of Maryland. Let me first emphasize that the Untied Arab Emirates is a valued ally in the war against terrorism, and I sincerely appreciate their contribution to the war effort. Unfortunately, some pundits and supporters of this deal suggest that bipartisan criticism of the port deal stems from racism or xenophobia or even political-year grandstanding. I reject these arguments. These are the same pundits who were quick to say that Congress was lax in its oversight and failed to connect the dots after a terrorist attack. The sole issue here is national security and connecting the dots before the facts. Let me be clear. I do not oppose foreign ownership or operation of U.S. ports, per se. However, I do think that in any case of foreign ownership or operation of sensitive U.S. assets, we need to scrutinize these deals that could threaten our national security. That should have happened in this case. In cases involving foreign ownership and national security, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States provides for a second-level 45-day security review. Despite concerns expressed by the Department of Homeland Security and the Coast Guard, that did not occur. Only now, after this controversy has erupted, has the administration agreed to review the deal. Why are both Democrats and Republicans raising objections? Here are the facts that give us pause: first, the United Arab Emirates honors an Arab boycott of Israel, thereby discriminating against a valued U.S. friend and ally. Second, al Qaeda used the bank system in the United Arab Emirates to execute the 9/11 and the 1998 African Embassy bombings. Third, the United Arab Emirates was one of three countries that recognized Afghan's brutal Taliban regime. Four, the 9/11 Commission reports indicated that Osama bin Laden regularly met with United Arab Emirates officials in the camps in Afghanistan. Reports suggest that bin Laden may have, in fact, been tipped off by friends in the United Arab Emirates. Simply put, the United Arab Emirates' record on terrorism is in fact mixed at best, and serious questions need to be asked about whether this company should be allowed port management. Let us talk about specific concerns. Last week Joseph King, a former Bush administration official at Customs, said in a Washington Post interview that people's national security fears about the deal are well grounded. He goes on to point out that under the deal, this company would have carte blanche-like authority to obtain hundreds of visas to relocate managers and other employees to the United States. Using appeals for solidarity or even threats of violence, al Qaeda operatives could force low-level managers to provide these visas to al Qaeda sympathizers. According to recent articles in a December 13, 2005, intelligence assessment of the company and its owners, the United Arab Emirates, by the Coast Guard warned: ``There are many intelligence gaps concerning the potential for Dubai Ports World or P&O assets to support terrorist operations that preclude'' the completion of a thorough threat assessment. ``The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities.'' That should give us pause. Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security initially objected to this deal. What are these intelligence gaps? How big are they? Have they been resolved? All questions we cannot answer right now. Let me say this. The administration's announcement of this deal is chillingly akin to the administration's prewar intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. There the administration selectively tailored intelligence to support the invasion that it desired from the very beginning. Here, the administration seems to be ignoring, deliberately ignoring, red flags and cherry-picking positive intelligence to support approval of a ports deal that it already wants. Let me conclude. Thankfully, Congress has put the brakes on this deal. We will be taking a long, serious and hard look at this arrangement. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has already made up its mind to support the deal even before a serious review has begun, and that is not in the best interest of the United States.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, humorist Frank McKinney Hubbard once said, ``Don't knock the weather. If it didn't change once in a while, nine out of ten people wouldn't start a conversation.'' Unfortunately, extreme weather is nothing to laugh about. Tonight, I would like to talk about the underfunding of the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP, and how we have failed to protect our Nation's citizens against harsh winter and blistering summer elements. Lyndon Johnson once talked about building a ``Great Society.'' But we cannot have a ``Great Society'' if we only provide tax breaks for the wealthy while ignoring the suffering of the poor in America. LIHEAP was enacted to assist low-income citizens who pay a high proportion of their household income to meet their immediate home energy needs. Low-income households spend 14 percent of their annual income on energy expenditures, compared to non-low-income households, that only spend 3.5 percent. In fact, two-thirds of the families that utilize LIHEAP assistance have annual incomes of $8,000, forcing them to choose between heating their homes and putting food on the table. From 1995 to 2004, the average number of cold-related deaths was 27 annually. Meanwhile, my colleagues from the south note that during the same time period, the average number of deaths from heat was 237 annually. The point is that LIHEAP should be available to offset high energy costs in both winter and summer. The hardships of high energy bills this winter can be visibly seen on the face of an elderly grandmother shivering in the cold of her living room or having to cut back on medicine to keep the heat on. Savings are used up, credits ratings are destroyed, and children are increasingly vulnerable to sickness and ill health. This is not the policy of a great society. The National Energy Assistance Directors' Association's most recent survey on the impact of rising energy costs on poor families illustrates this troubling reality: 32 percent sacrificed medical care; 24 percent failed to make a rental or mortgage payment; 20 percent went without food for at least a day; and 44 percent said they skipped paying or paid less than their full home energy bill in the past year. Since 2003, the price of heat to heat one's home has risen tremendously as the price of natural gas has risen by 45 percent and heating oil has risen by 50 percent. As a result, those who use natural gas to heat their home could see their average heating costs spike from $750 to $1,100 this year. For those who use home heating oil, like me, last year's expenditure of $1,200 could jump to as high as $1,600 this year. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle contend that Congress has increased funding for this critical program in recent years. They point to the $2 billion in the fiscal year 2005 and the $5 billion authorized this year in the energy bill. However, there are three problems with this argument, or as I like to call it ``the triple whammy.'' First, we have to understand the $5 authorized in the energy bill was cut to $3 billion in the House's pre-Thanksgiving budget reconciliation bill. Second, the $3 billion figure will be further cut to around $2 billion by the appropriators, because that is the figure they are pushing for to effectively flat line the funding for LIHEAP. Third, take a look at this graph. You can clearly see that even when appropriations increased for LIHEAP, the purchasing power, and that is what is critical for these funds, actually decreased for LIHEAP recipients. Inflation in heating oil and natural gas prices actually decreased purchasing power by 42 percent since the program's inception in 1982. Ironically, during this time of inadequate LIHEAP funding, oil companies are boasting record profits, some as large as 255 percent. This situation is so bad that some of our Senate colleagues recently wrote a letter to the nine big oil companies and asked them to donate a part of their profits to help low-income people cover these increased energy costs. Only one response was received, from Citgo, a state-owned Venezuelan company controlled by Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela. Chavez took this public relations opportunity to promote his socialist world view as counterpoint to the United States capitalist world view. Specifically, he is using profits from Venezuelan-based Citgo to make friends in the United States and attempting to illustrate the failures of American democracy. Citgo has provided discounted heating oil this winter to low-income residents in Massachusetts. Twelve million gallons of heavily discounted heating oil was donated to low-income communities across the State of Massachusetts, helping consumers save between 60 and 80 cents per gallon. This is a total savings of $10 million to $14 million which will occur this winter. While I am certainly appreciative of this gesture, by having to accept Venezuela's charity, we are playing into Chavez's hands. We cannot effectively promote democracy and free markets around the world if our policies here at home reflect a callous disregard for our poorer citizens. Close to home in my State of Maryland, we will need about $84 million in Federal fuel assistance, that is more than twice the amount originally anticipated to help low-income residents heat their homes this winter. The Maryland Energy Assistance Program says it will need $51 million more to cover rising energy costs. In conclusion, I call upon my Republican colleagues to forego or at least delay the additional tax cuts for the warm and the wealthy. Instead, I hope my colleagues on the right side of the aisle will fully fund the $5 billion promise in the energy bill for low income energy assistance.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, the so-called Gasoline For America's Security Act. Now, this is not a partisan rant. I am a Democrat, but I supported the last energy bill. It had considerable merit and a few flaws. This bill is very flawed and has very little merit. Let us talk about refineries. Over the past 20 years, U.S. demand has increased 20 percent. No new refineries have been built. In fact, refining capacity has declined by 10 percent. But contrary to what my colleagues just heard, there are no barriers stopping the refining industry from building new refineries and expanding capacity. In fact, the key thing people need to understand in this debate is that the profit margins for the refineries has gone up 255 percent. They are making more money than anybody else. So there is no reason why we should give them some big subsidy or big benefit to encourage them to build refinery capacity. This bill really is outrageous in terms of having the taxpayers pay the refineries to cover their unanticipated costs. It is in the bill and it is called stand-by support, stand-by support. What that means is if they encounter some sort of reasonable delay, government regulation, or something like that, and they suffer losses and they cannot open on time or they are delayed in their operations, we, the taxpayer, get to pay for that. That is not unusual. That is not a crisis situation. That is not the airlines after September 11. That is not an unusually high- risk situation. These are delays in the normal course of business; but, yet, this bill would have the taxpayer pay for those losses, and that does not make sense. Let me take a minute and talk about price gouging. Now, they came out of committee with a very limited bill that basically talked about gasoline, and now they say, well, we want to broaden it a little bit. Let me suggest that the broadest possible protection for the American people in terms of price gouging comes from the Democratic substitute. It gives the broadest jurisdiction over the most types of fuel, including propane, home heating oil, crude oil. That is where we need to be, not with the limited approach of the Republicans. They also do not deal with market manipulation, and market manipulation is where the consumer takes the hit. I urge rejection of the Republican bill and adoption of the Democratic alternative.