Albert Wynn

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for yielding me this time. Let me then proceed to thank our ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for his strong leadership on this matter, and also our chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton), for his leadership. They have done a Herculean job in bringing us this energy bill that will give us a comprehensive and bipartisan energy policy for the future, a very forward-looking bill. Let me begin by applauding what is not in this bill. First of all, I think it is very significant that in this bill there will be no drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. Our Arctic and sub- Arctic ecosystems will continue to flourish. This bill also does not shield manufacturers of the fuel additive MTBE from lawsuits. This means that States and localities and municipalities will be able to hold these manufacturers liable when they pollute underground water supplies. These are two major environmental victories of which we should be very proud. But let us look at the positive things that are, in fact, in the bill, because here we see an energy policy emerging that will help America attain security and independence. First of all, we put in this bill mandatory reliability standards. Now, there are some folks in the Northeast that sat in the dark and suffered through scorching heat in a power outage some years ago, so this is very important. These mandatory standards will help us avoid the problems that we encountered when whole States began to go dark and air conditioners went off. This is very meaningful. We have never had mandatory electricity reliability standards for performance, for training of personnel, and for maintenance of the system. Let me look at another area, the area of hydrogen. We have almost $3 billion in incentives for hydrogen fuel development. Now, why is that important? Because it looks to the future. We have a past which reflects a dependence on fossil fuels, oil, gas, and cars that emit huge amounts of pollution. We are looking at a future when cars and buildings will run electricity generated by hydrogen fuel cells, hydrogen energy generated through solar, through wind, and through nuclear energy. This is very important. We will see cars that only emit water. We think this is a good thing. Now, will that solve the problem of the $2.50 gas we have today? No. But this energy policy is looking toward the future, and I think it is important to understand that we are undertaking a task much like putting a man on the Moon in which we are saying, down the road, we will accomplish great things, innovative things because we are making those investments today, and those investments are, in fact, in this energy bill. We should also be pleased that other sources of energy are being enhanced in this bill. Solar energy, wind energy, biomass, all receive incentives for development of critical alternatives. We are looking at a situation in which we can tell our children and our grandchildren that we did something today to make their energy security greater and their energy independence greater. Please adopt the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 525, the Small Business Health Fairness Act, designed to allow small businesses to create large insurance pools in order to give them market power which will allow them to purchase quality health insurance at affordable prices through association health plans. In truth, our biggest bipartisan failure in this Congress has been our inability to help 45 million, now pushing 50 million, Americans who do not have health insurance. Sixty percent of these people work in small businesses or are self-employed. Unfortunately, small business employers either cannot afford to offer health insurance or offer it at premium costs that employees cannot afford. Small businesses and their employees need our help. AHPs are not a panacea, but they are a step in the right direction. AHPs, association health plans, will be subject to Federal consumer protections, unlike what you may have heard, such as continuation of coverage; Federal claims procedures for benefit denials and appeals; guaranteed portability and renewability of health coverage for those with preexisting conditions; as well as the Mental Health Parity Act, the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act, and the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act. We have also heard that AHPs will allow for cherry-picking, that only the healthiest will be signed up. That is not true due to the antidiscrimination language in the bill. Really and centrally, opponents claim that AHPs are bad because they do not provide mandated State benefits. This misanalysis reflects some of the backward thinking in our health care system, that people would put mandated benefits ahead of prevention. That does not make sense. Consider a State's mandated coverage for diabetes supplies. But what good is mandated benefits for diabetes supplies if you cannot afford to go to the doctor, and therefore do not know you have diabetes? Under AHPs you have an affordable, basic policy which covers doctors' visits. Therefore, you can get checkups and learn about your risk of diabetes or other health problems. The doctor can give you advice, prescribe life-style changes, and help you overcome, control, or avoid health problems. In fact, the American Diabetes Association cited a recently completed study on diabetes prevention that conclusively showed that people with prediabetes can prevent the development of Type 2, or full- blown, diabetes by making changes in their diet and increasing their level of physical activity. Our approach provides affordable access to this kind of preventive care, allowing people to lead healthier lives and not go to the emergency room, which is driving up costs for all of us. Some of our elitist opponents will call these policies worthless because they do not offer 30 or more State mandates. For a single mother who is a waitress who is able to take her son to the doctor, that is not a worthless policy. That is called progress. If the plans are so inadequate, don't worry, the people won't buy them. Most professional men and women have health insurance. Members of Congress have a great health insurance plan. Members of labor unions have health insurance. Why do they not want the mechanics and the barbers and the waitresses and the realtors to have health insurance? The attitude of our opponents seems to be, ``I drive a Cadillac. If you can't afford to drive a Cadillac, you don't get to drive at all.'' That does not make sense. Today 45 million Americans cannot afford a Cadillac health insurance policy with all the mandated benefits. However, they might be able to afford a more modest vehicle that would get them to their doctor's office where they could at least get a diagnosis, advice and recommendations in order to improve their quality of life. A broad and diverse coalition of more than 180 groups support this bill, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, the American Farm Bureau, the Associated Builders and Contractors, the Latino Coalition, and the National Black Chamber of Commerce. People want health insurance. Opponents of AHPs say, ``If you can't do everything for everyone, do nothing.'' We say this bill will help some people get health insurance, and we think that is a good thing. Please, support AHPs. Let us quit talking about health insurance and actually deliver it to the American people who work in small businesses and who are self-employed, because they really need it.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague from Texas, Mr. Hall is to be commended for authoring a resolution to get a sense of the Congress on the issue of extending the CMS quality of cancer care demonstration project. I share his concern to preserve this country's cancer care treatment system and expressed this, in a bipartisan letter sent to the President, along with Mr. Hall and 95 of my House colleagues. For the record, I note that Mr. Hall's resolution makes no mention of extending the demonstration project at the current funding level of $300 million. Additionally, as mentioned in our letter to the President, the resolution does not mention the real problems with the new Medicare payment system for cancer care, but only addresses the short-term fix of extending the demonstration project. Among other problems, the new Medicare system pays closer to market rates for cancer drugs. This is a step in the right direction. However, it now does not pay for the pharmacy costs related to those drugs. As another example, Medicare does not pay community oncologists for the treatment planning that provides for each new cancer case. I implore my colleagues to support the extension of the cancer care demonstration project at the level of $300 million. I also ask my colleagues to direct CMS to work with community cancer care on permanent solutions. American's access to quality, affordable, and accessible cancer treatment needs to be preserved.

Mr. WYNN

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

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In this House, we frequently proclaim the importance of helping small businesses. Consider, in fact, that the Small Business Act states, in part, it is the policy of the United States that small business concerns shall have the maximum practical opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts let by any Federal agency, including subcontracts. Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses two issues that are, in fact, already part of the Small Business Act but continue to be problems for the small business community. First, under current law, proclaimed by the Small Business Act, it is required that the successful bidder shall have a subcontracting plan included in the contract, and that prior compliance of the bidder with other subcontracting plans shall be considered by the Federal agency to determine if the bidder is responsible in the award of the contract. However, the fact is that, in far too many cases, the subcontractors that are listed on the subcontracting plan of the bidder that wins the contract are never used to perform the contract work. As a result, small businesses, women-owned businesses, African American businesses, other ethnic minority businesses who, we are told, are being included in Federal contracting are, in fact, often excluded. They are not allowed to perform the work. This practice constitutes fraud and undermines small businesses, and we need to put a stop to it. My amendment penalizes Federal contractors that fail to subcontract with small businesses as submitted in their subcontracting plan. Should the contractor not use the subcontractor laid out in their plan, the amendment requires that the contractor provide written justification or lose the award. Small business contractors deserve adequate protection from dishonest contractors. The second issue raised in this amendment is a problem that, in many cases, after a subcontractor successfully performs the work they are not being paid in a timely manner to allow them to meet their obligations. Again, the Small Business Act currently addresses this issue. It says that the policy of the United States is that prime contractors establish procedures to ensure the timely payment of amounts due pursuant to the terms of their contracts with small businesses. Unfortunately, all too often this does not happen. It is hard enough to survive in business without the added burden of late payments affecting cash flow and growth potential. Small businesses cannot afford to wait long periods of time to be paid after completing a job, especially a small business contracting on a government contract. A growing number of small businesses have complained to me about the threat to their survival as a result of having late payments or having to pursue claims through litigation or administrative procedures in order to get paid. This problem has caused me to introduce prompt payment legislation in the last few Congresses. This amendment addresses the problem by providing that when a prime contractor has been found to be out of compliance with prompt payment provisions, or are the subject of administrative claims or litigation, they should be denied the ability to be awarded Federal contracts. My amendment addresses the problem of subcontractors not receiving payment for services to a prime contract in a timely manner. We need to stop paying lip service to the small business community and roll up our sleeves and address the specific problems they confront. They confront the problem of being listed in Federal contracts but never used, and they confront the problem of not being paid on time and having to pursue litigation remedies. This amendment will address both of these issues. I believe it is, in fact, germane to the bill that no money shall be used to pay contractors who violate these two provisions, accurate subcontracting and prompt payment. I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I would just add that this bill does not change existing law. If you will note, I actually read into the Record the status of existing law regarding the requirement to list your subcontractors and the requirement for prompt payment. This bill merely adds the provision to enforce existing law.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize William ``Bill'' Brooks on his retirement as a member of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU). A native of Maryland, Mr. Brooks has served on the Board of Directors of NAFCU since 1996, and with 28 years of experience in the credit union industry I know that his presence will be sorely missed by NAFCU. Mr. Brooks began his credit union career in 1976, working as an Examiner with the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA). He later moved on to the Government Printing Office Federal Credit Union, where he served as the President/CEO. After a short period working as a CPA, Mr. Brooks took a position as President/CEO of Lafayette Federal Credit Union. Today, he serves as the President/CEO of First Combined Community Federal Credit Union, located in Kensington, Maryland. Mr. Brooks is also heavily involved in the Credit Union Cherry Blossom Run, which benefits the Children's Miracle Network. Several years ago, after the race lost its sponsor and needed a new one, Mr. Brooks was the driving force behind getting credit union sponsorship of the race and establishing a partnership with the Children's Miracle Network. He is Chairman Emeritus of the Credit Union Miracle Day, Inc. Board of Directors. This year, the event raised $400,000 in donations, and to date, the run has raised over $1 million in donations for the Children's Miracle Network. I congratulate Mr. Brooks on his longtime service to NAFCU, and to the entire credit union community. While this marks the end of his time at NAFCU, I am certain it also marks a beginning for some new activity to which he will no doubt tirelessly devote himself. Congratulations on your retirement from the NAFCU Board, Mr. Brooks.

Mr. WYNN

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

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think it is very laudable that we are taking up the issue of gun violence and gang violence. This is a problem that affects just about every community; and I think this bill, while I do not agree with all of its approaches, certainly has merit. It relies in significant part on mandatory minimum sentences. Some people will say we have gone too far. The point is with mandatory minimums, you have two aspects: one, the punitive aspect. We will get bad actors off the street. The second aspect is deterrence. People being aware of mandatory minimums will not, in fact, do the crime. In the instance of a 30-year mandatory minimum sentence for murder, for sexual assault, for maiming, this is designed to discourage people from engaging in this conduct. My amendment would simply authorize the Attorney General to engage in a media campaign to let people know about these new mandatory minimums so that we can, in fact, have a deterrent effect. The deterrence requires a certain knowledge of the consequences of one's acts. By having a media campaign, we are in a position to let young people who may be either in a gang or contemplating joining a gang understand that, if they engage in a maiming, cutting off someone's arm, if they engage in an aggravated sexual assault, that they are facing a potential 30-year mandatory minimum sentence, the idea being that this mandatory minimum sentence would discourage the conduct. I think the media campaign contained and authorized under this amendment would further that goal. So I would ask for favorable consideration.

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

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his support. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. This is very interesting, this is a resolution, sense of the Congress. It is all the good things one can imagine. They have also just recently called it a blueprint. What it is not is action. It is not concrete action to solve the problems of the small business community, and that is what Democrats are trying to say today. If we look at it, and this is the irony, some of the things they are trying to advocate have already been passed. They talk about tort reform, and they passed some tort reform. This House has passed association health plans. I am for them; the gentlewoman is for them. My point is they are talking about things that have passed or things that they have no intention of passing. They have had every opportunity to do something about bundling, the consolidation of Federal contracts. They have not done a thing. Democrats have been talking about this for years. There are a lot of things in this bill that on its face are not necessarily objectionable, they are not so bad, but they do not mean anything. At the end of the day, they are empty platitudes. I do not take great offense at these platitudes, but Congress has to be candid with the American people and the American small business community and say these are platitudes that do not do anything. It is time we do something. Let me mention one other item, and that is what is not in this bill of platitudes, and that is it does not address the concerns of the minority community. The minority community in America is about 32 percent of our population, 13 percent of our companies. The Democrats said, look, let us not just do platitudes, let us do some things to improve the condition of minority businesses, let us improve those government programs that are targeted at the minority communities, such as the 8(a) program. Let us streamline it and let us modernize it. They were not interested in that. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) just pointed out we need to beef up the 7(a) program. The administration is trying to zero out that program so we do not have loans for small businesses. What we have here is a bill of platitudes that sound nice that ignores the minority community and does not really do anything except rehash some of the ideological positions of the Republican side of the aisle, without really offering the business community any real meat. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to reject this bill of platitudes, and let us do something for small businesses.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of Ms. Marvelle S. Wilson who will be 75 years young on April 9, 2005. Marvelle was born on April 9, 1930, in Cleveland Ohio. She is the youngest of three girls, born to Charles and Ruth Seaton. As a neighbor of Carl and Louis Stokes, Marvelle and her sisters worked tirelessly to achieve Carl Stoke's victory as the first black mayor of Cleveland. Marvelle received her degree in Library Science. She worked at the Cleveland Public School as a librarian for over 20 years until retiring to a part-time position as a Librarian with Cuyahoga Community College, a position she currently holds. Marvelle has two sons, Marvin and Leslie Holmes. Her oldest son was elected to the Maryland State Legislature in 2002 and presently serves on the Environmental Matters Committee as well as other leadership roles within the Maryland House of Delegates. Marvelle is recognized by her church, friends, and relatives as someone who continues to donate her time and talents to improving the community. I would like to add my wishes to the many friends and admirers. I wish you a happy 75th birthday Ms. Marvelle S. Wilson, and many more.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, most Americans have the comfort of knowing that in the event of an emergency, police, fire, and emergency services are just a phone call away. Unfortunately, in too much of the world today, there is no emergency telephone number to call in the event of a humanitarian crisis Today, Congressman Leach and I are introducing a resolution to encourage the creation of an international emergency service for the world community--The United Nations Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS). The service would consist of 15,000 expertly trained and equipped professionals, ready to respond immediately in the early stages of a crisis, be it caused by violent conflict or natural disaster. The Emergency Peace Service ranks would be made up of military peacekeepers, civilian police, military, humanitarian and judicial professionals, and other emergency response and relief personnel. The U.N. Emergency Peace Service would be a first in, first out, capability designed to supplement and fill the gaps of the current system whereby the United Nations and its member states respond to deadly emergencies. Too often, the U.N. does not have the capacity, personnel, or resources to act quickly in an emergency. If, for example, the U.N. Security Council made the decision today to send peacekeepers to a hot- spot, it would take three to six months for troops to arrive and begin their work. That delay is a proverbial three-to-six month busy signal for people in need of immediate assistance. In a humanitarian emergency such as genocide, delay can be a death sentence for hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. During the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, for example, over 800,000 people were massacred in six weeks. The United Nations did not have the capability to respond quickly enough and stop the killings. At a time when Congress is paying serious attention to United Nations reform, we must not only look at the accountability and transparency of the U.N. but also to the international body's capacity to complete its mission. The U.N. Emergency Peace Service would have a rapid-response corps of professionals on constant alert. They could respond to crises within days or weeks, rather than months, thereby saving lives around the globe. Emergency Peace Service personnel would have standardized training and doctrine, designed specifically for rapid response. They would be schooled in how best to coordinate civilian and military responses to complex emergencies. This unit will help bring calm to an area of mayhem, confusion and tragedy. The service would have civilian police that could help reestablish the rule of law in post-conflict war zones. Such a system was unavailable in Kosovo. In fact, by the time enough international civilian police were recruited by the U.N. for the Kosovo mission, shadowy organized crime elements had already filled the void, causing further terror and lawlessness in an already ravaged community. Mr. Speaker, despite this administration's current focus on Iraq and terrorism, the U.S. cannot solve our security problems alone. Increasingly, being safe at home means making others feel secure in their homes. Failing states quickly become failed states. They provide breeding grounds for terrorism and international crime. It is, therefore, in the United States' security interests to prevent destabilizing events from causing the collapse of states. The creation of an Emergency Peace Service is also in our financial interest. The fact is: It is much cheaper to prevent an emergency by intervening early in its development than it is to respond after an emergency has reached its tipping point. According to the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, the international community could have saved nearly $130 billion of the $200 billion it spent on managing conflicts in the 1990's by focusing on prevention rather than reconstruction. The United Nations Emergency Peace Service would be cost-effective `burden-sharing'. It would reduce the amount the U.N., and by extension the U.S., spends on post-conflict reconstruction. This would not solve all our global problems, and it will not put a stop to genocide and other atrocities worldwide. Rather, the Emergency Peace Service would supplement the U.N.'s capacity to provide stability, peace, and relief in deadly emergencies. Rwanda, Haiti, Sierra Leone, Bosnia and Kossovo, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and now Darfur; these are just a few of the places where the U.N. and its member states should have responded more rapidly and robustly. As a result, more people died, and more people suffer. The world can do better. The United Nations Emergency Peace Service has the potential to save millions of lives and billions of dollars. This principle has been endorsed by organizations such as Citizens for Global Solutions and Human Rights Watch. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with Congressman Leach and me to support this important resolution.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and thank Michael Sardone for his 21 years of dedicated public service to this Congress and the Federal Government. His career epitomizes professionalism and commitment to public service. Mr. Sardone has served as an indexer and editor for the Congressional Record Index office, under the auspices of the Joint Committee on Printing and now a part of the GPO, since his appointment by former Senator Mathias of Maryland in 1984. His detailed knowledge of congressional history and process has earned him the respect of both his colleagues and Hill staffers. As an editor for the Congressional Record Index, he has also served as editor and project manager for the Congressional Directory and has spearheaded the production of indexes for both the House and Senate Journals. Mr. Sardone is a Maryland native. He grew up in the Wheaton area of Montgomery County and graduated from Frostburg State University with a degree in political science. He met his wife, Ginny, at the Index office. She now works for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. They have one son, Matthew. As he embarks on new endeavors, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending gratitude for his hard work and dedication to the Congress and the Nation.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate several of our great high school sports teams in the 4th Congressional District of Maryland for their outstanding seasons. Congratulations to Suitland and Potomac High Schools who both recently won state football championships. Potomac High School located in Oxon Hill, Maryland rose to victory beating Hereford High School 19 to 12 to win the 2A title championship. Led by Coach Eric Knight, Potomac was finally able to achieve the title that had slipped through their fingers the previous season. In winning the state championship Potomac also became the first team in Maryland history to end the season with a 14-0 record. Suitland High School located in Suitland, Maryland, led by Coach Nick Lynch and standout junior linebacker Navorro Bowman, beat Damascus High School 14 to 7 to win the 4A title championship. Although Bowman had been pinpointed as the obvious star of the team, the humble young player still managed to praise his fellow teammates including his aggressive offensive line, which did an excellent job to help seal the victory. Navorro Bowman who has already been offered a scholarship at the University of Maryland appears to be a young man on the move who has a bright and promising future ahead of him. Congratulations are also in order for DeMatha High School in Hyattsville, Maryland, which ended the season as the number one boys soccer team in the region. Sherwood High School in Sandy Spring, Maryland should also be recognized for ending a great soccer season with their boys' team ranked number three and their girls' team number seven in the area. In addition Seneca Valley High School in Germantown Maryland ranked number four in the top ten for volleyball, while Magruder High School in Rockville ranked number six. I am extremely proud of the achievements of these young people from my Congressional District. I am sure that all the citizens of Maryland's 4th Congressional District share my enthusiastic admiration for their hard work, sportsmanship and teamwork. Athletics plays an important role in the development of our youth, and teaches valuable life lessons in cooperation, camaraderie, and valor. The famed football coach Vince Lombardi once said that individual commitment to a group effort--is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, and a civilization work.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for the 9/11 Commission bill. Let me begin by thanking the leadership on both sides of the aisle for their hard work. I want to thank the members of the 9/11 Commission for their work on a bipartisan basis, and of course I want to thank the families from the 9/11 incident for their work as the driving force behind this bill. On September 11, 30 of my constituents were killed in attacks; 4 died on American Airlines Flight Number 77, and 26 died in the Pentagon. The term ``national security'' is not an amorphous one for my constituents. In Prince George's County and Montgomery County, the Fourth Congressional District, we live and work in the Nation's Capital, a prime target for terrorists. This is why I have strongly urged my colleagues to pass the 9/11 Commission recommendations since their release in July. Let me be clear. This conference report is not a panacea, and, yes, additional work needs to be done. But the status quo in our intelligence infrastructure is unacceptable. I heard one of my colleagues say we should not vote for this bill because it would create groupthink. Groupthink is what we have had. This bill is designed to address that concern and change it. The report makes clear that had the United States intelligence agencies communicated with each other, they could have connected the dots and disrupted the 9/11 attacks. In response, this bill addresses the recommendations of the Commission to prevent another attack and rightly creates a National Intelligence Director. The position would have budget authority to end the power struggle between the 15 disparate Federal agencies that are now engaged. Currently, 80 percent of the intelligence budget falls under the Department of Defense, not the Central Intelligence Agency or the other 13 agencies. As a result, we do not have the level of coordination that we should. The National Intelligence Director with authority over budget will address this. Additionally, this bill bolsters transportation security by directing the Department of Homeland Security to develop a national strategy for transportation security. The bill adds 10,000 Border Patrol agents and 400 Customs agents over the next 5 years, as well as testing pilotless surveillance planes to safeguard our borders. The bill is not a panacea, but let me emphasize, we should not make the perfect the enemy of the good. This bill is a good start. I urge its passage. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and to express my appreciation to the Montgomery County, Maryland Task Force on Mentoring for the great work they are doing in helping to guide county children and youth to live useful and productive lives. The Task Force on Mentoring, TFM, works 365 days a year to bring mentoring services to all who ask and need such help. The services of the TFM are available to all county residents regardless of age, gender, race, color, religion or cultural background. The TFM also provides technical services to organizations, communities, and institutions that request assistance in designing, developing and implementing mentor programs. It hosts a major annual breakfast focusing on key issues involving mentoring. This year, on October 7, 2004, at the Rockville campus of Johns Hopkins University, the TFM is sponsoring its 13th annual breakfast highlighting the crisis of anti-social gangs in Montgomery County, and the attempt by some of these gangs to recruit children and youth into their organizations. The TFM is a community-based umbrella organization aimed at convincing troubled children and youth that they can make plans for a good life with the help of a caring, well trained, dedicated volunteer mentor. The TFM is the only organization of its kind in the county. It offers assistance, mentor training, volunteer mentor recruitment, organizational and technical support free of charge to more than 60 mentor programs. It helps to implement mentor programs in any public school in Montgomery County that requests such help. The TFM recently entered into a collaboration and agreement with the Alliance of Concerned Men of the District of Columbia to begin a mentor program for youthful offenders at the Clarksburg youth facility in Clarksburg, Maryland. The first meeting with the youthful offenders at the Clarksburg facility took place September 10, 2004. Additionally, the TFM is working with Montgomery County Councilman Phil Andrews and the Montgomery County Juvenile Court system to explore the establishment of a mentor program for children and youth in the correctional facility. The TFM has been repeatedly recognized and commended as a valuable resource and asset to the children, young adults, and the communities within Montgomery County, Maryland. Every year the TFM helps a significant number of children and youth turn their lives around and become positive, active, and socially contributing residents. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating the Montgomery County, Maryland Task Force on Mentoring for their commitment to improving the lives of all people in the County, and especially the lives of young people.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule; and more importantly, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill. When I looked at this bill, I was compelled to ask the question of the supporters of this legislation: What were they thinking? Number one, we need less guns in the District of Columbia, not more guns. Mr. Speaker, I represent the suburban districts in Prince George's County and Montgomery County, Maryland, just outside of Washington, D.C. The gun violence in D.C. bleeds over, excuse the expression, into our communities so I have a great concern that we not have more violence and more guns. Let me talk for a moment about the question of rights and the rights of D.C. citizens. My colleagues on the other side who are sponsoring this legislation are the same folks who are saying we have to have democracy in Iraq, we need to let the Iraqis decide. They would have the Iraqis decide their fate, but they will not let the citizens of the District of Columbia decide their fate. That does not make sense. The citizens of the District of Columbia have not asked for this bill. The mayor is opposed to it, the police chief is opposed to it, the elected Representative is opposed to it. That is the democratic position, that the citizens of the District of Columbia, under the concept of home rule, should be allowed to make this decision, not people from Indiana and Georgia. It is appalling to think that this measure would repeal the District of Columbia's ban on the sale and possession of handguns and semiautomatic weapons and eliminates criminal penalties for possessing unregistered handguns. Earlier a gentleman talked about the facts. Let us talk about the reality. The reality is that most if not all of these young people did not die as a result of burglaries in their home, they died on the streets. They died on the streets as a result of handgun violence, not as a result of handguns purchased in the District of Columbia, but from Virginia and Maryland and other places. That is the problem we have here. There are already too many handguns, too many semiautomatic weapons, too much street crime, and the sponsor of this measure would allow for more. It is very interesting, we are in a period in which there is a great deal of concern about terrorism. And of course here in the capital, we are greatly concerned for obvious reasons. Why would we want more handguns in the possession of individuals in the District of Columbia that might pose a terrorist threat, or semiautomatic weapons in the hands of the people of District of Columbia who might pose a terrorist threat? It just does not make any sense. What were they thinking? Under this bill, if a crime is committed and the weapon is found because they eliminate the registration process, detectives could not determine whose gun it was. It just does not make any sense. And then how could people in this body forget the fact that on July 24, 1998, a gunman came into this Capitol and fired a handgun, killing Jacob Chestnut, a United States Capitol Police Officer, and Special Agent John Gibson? How can we forget the effects of handgun use, not to mention the handgun that was used to shoot at President Ronald Reagan? The issue is not well, there is crime in the District of Columbia; yes, that is true. There is crime in every city. The issue is, do we want more crime and more violence as weapons are more readily available under this bill? Again, it just does not make any sense. Let me tell Members about the reality of what actually happens. Thieves not only break into homes for cash and jewelry, they also break into homes for weapons, weapons that can be fenced and transferred and sold through other means, and those same weapons that exist in the homes are also the weapons that are used to commit crimes. So while the gentleman presents one anecdote of somebody who protected their family with a handgun, there is a lot more information about people who were victimized on the streets by handguns and semiautomatic weapons. My colleague from the District of Columbia made an impassioned plea on behalf of young people, all under the age of 17, who were the victims of gun violence. I join her in that plea. Let us have some common sense, let us defeat this rule and then defeat the underlying bill.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I found it very interesting that one of my colleagues earlier from the Republican side said this is about election-year politics and that is why we are doing it. Okay. Let us talk about election-year politics. In an election year, the American people get to evaluate what the current administration, the Bush administration, has been doing and ask the fundamental question: Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago? For millions of Americans, the answer is clearly no. Under the Bush administration's leadership, our country has lost 1.7 million jobs. Wages have not kept pace with inflation. The new jobs that are being created, and there are only a few of those, do not pay as much as the jobs that are being lost to outsourcing, and the number of jobs being created does not even keep pace with the number of people who are entering the workforce. The Census Bureau reported that the median household income has dropped over $1,500 in real terms since President Bush took office, while the number of persons living in poverty and without health insurance increased for the third straight year to 45 million people. So, yes, this is an election year, and certainly this is a time to talk about the economy in terms of the lives of the American citizens. This administration, to add insult to injury, now brings before us a proposal which would cut 6 million people from earning overtime. I think that is offensive. They will say that it will add more people. That is fine, and Democrats are happy to support any addition to the people who are eligible to earn overtime, but the question before us today, the question that is at the heart of the Obey-Miller amendment, is whether or not we ought to keep in place language from this administration that would cut 6 million people off the overtime list, keep them from earning critical overtime. Let us see who we are talking about in this election year. Workers who are likely to see their pay cut by virtue of not being able to earn overtime include 2.3 million team leaders; almost 2 million low-level supervisors; hundreds of thousands of loan officers and other financial service employees; more than 1 million employees who lack college or graduate degrees or who may now be considered artistic professionals; 90,000 computer employees, film directors and embalmers; and more than 30,000 nursery school and Head Start teachers across the country. In other words, this administration and my Republican colleagues through this measure to cut overtime are basically striking at the heart of the American middle class, and that is simply not right. We are saying with the Obey-Miller amendment that, yes, we want to add people, and that part of your bill is fine, but, no, we do not want to take people off the overtime rolls; we want them still to be able to earn overtime and still be part of the middle class. In fact, a quarter of the income earned by people who earned overtime last year was from that very overtime. In other words, it is overtime that is keeping a lot of Americans in the middle class. So when you cut overtime, you are cutting people out of the middle class; you are cutting people out of the American dream. We can and should do better. I urge support for the Obey-Miller amendment to restore overtime eligibility to 6 million hard-working Americans in the American middle class.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Marriage Protection Act. I took an oath when I came here to protect and defend the Constitution. This bill obliterates the Constitution. Let me first make an observation. I am married, and many of my colleagues are married. I do not think my marriage or my colleagues' marriages are threatened because two gay people in Massachusetts want to get married. Maybe it is threatened by meddling in-laws, but certainly not by some legislation that passed in Massachusetts. But I make that observation as an aside. This bill really is not about marriage, gay or otherwise. This bill is about the Constitution. This legislation sets a very dangerous precedent. It says that we are going to set aside our very cherished separation of powers that is provided in the Constitution that enables the courts to check us, to say, wait a minute, Congress, you have gone too far. My colleague says, well, we have the right to make laws. We do. If we do not like it, we can amend the Constitution; but my Republican colleagues are not trying to amend the Constitution. They are trying to change the Constitution by stripping the courts. We need the separation of powers. We need the courts to independently review the things that we do here in Congress. Think about it. If we can strip the court's jurisdiction, the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over this matter, what about civil rights laws? Could not some Congress come down here and say, well, we do not need the Federal courts or the Supreme Court ruling on civil rights laws? What does that mean? It means that a State court in Arkansas can say one has this right, while another State court in Nevada could say, oh, no, you do not. That is not what the Founders envisioned. This is a very dangerous vision of America in which the courts do not play a critical role. Let us retain the Constitution as we know it.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) for his leadership on this issue and allowing me to speak briefly this morning. Let me also note particularly the role of my Washington area colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) who just spoke, who has been an outstanding leader on the issue of human rights throughout his career but particularly on this issue of the crisis in Darfur. He recently visited, he came back and provided all of us with valuable information, along with Senator Brownback, who accompanied him. And what they said to us is that we have a grave humanitarian crisis in the Darfur. People are dying daily. 30,000 people have died. 350,000 will die. A million people have been displaced. This is an opportunity for the United States to play a pivotal role, which is why I strongly support the motion to instruct conferees to request the maximum amount of U.S. aid possible. It is sometimes said, but certainly accurately, that America is great because America is good. This is an opportunity for America to do a great deal of good. These people are being victimized in what is clearly a case of genocide. They are being displaced, and we have an opportunity to provide humanitarian aid and to provide a leadership role and a model for the world. Which brings me to a second point that I would like to make, which is to say that part of what we are trying to do in terms of foreign policy is to suggest to the world that we are not just militarily the most powerful country in the world but that we are morally the most powerful country in the world and a country that believes in leadership. And the way you demonstrate leadership is providing aid to those who need it. This situation in Darfur, clearly a case in which leadership is needed. We can provide that leadership. We can show the world that it is not just a matter of Iraq or our oil interests or other things. We care about humanity. This is the example that we need to set. I thank the gentleman. I believe that there is a large consensus of support for this approach for maximizing aid to Darfur, and I just hope we will move this matter as quickly as possible. Finally, I would add we do need to go aggressively to the U.N. and say this is genocide, call for a declaration of genocide, call for the application of peacekeeping troops so that we can address the security concerns that are here.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by recognizing the hard work of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). I know this is a difficult bill, and I know there is not a lot of money available. Let me more importantly, however, recognize the bipartisan spirit and hard work of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the Chair of the Committee on Small Business, and also the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member. This is an absolutely critical bill. This is not a bill for the banks. This is a bill for the small businesses in America that are struggling. This is a bill for the companies in this country that are trying to create jobs. We have a sluggish, sputtering economy. We have just raised interest rates on these same small businesses. We hear a lot of rhetoric on this floor about the engine of our democracy, creating jobs, we love Main Street, we want to support small businesses; but when it comes time to make a policy decision, which is where we are today, so many people have all kinds of reasons why we should not put creating jobs and helping small businesses at the front of the line. Yes, there is a need for democracy funds; and, yes, there is a need for 16 additional personnel to process visas. And we can get that money. We wasted more money on Halliburton than this bill involves. That money can be obtained. The fact of the matter is this is an absolutely critical bill. Now, it is amazing to me to hear people dismiss cavalierly the needs of the small business community. Why? Because unlike many big businesses and unlike the Halliburtons, these small businesses are creating jobs here in the United States. These are not jobs that are going to be exported or offshored. These are jobs here in our local communities. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) cited the example of minority businesses who go around shopping for loans and that cannot get those loans without this program. This program created 300,000 jobs in America last year. This program used $79 million and leveraged that into loans totaling over $12 billion. Those loans, those jobs are the things that make America work. So it seems to me that for the relatively modest sum of $79 million we ought to give small businesses and job creation in America a greater priority and fund other worthy causes that have been discussed on this floor through other means. We have given great tax cuts to very wealthy people. I mentioned Halliburton. We have given them loads of money; and they have misused it, overcharged the United States. The money can be found to address my colleagues' concerns, and they are worthy concerns; but today, we have to ask ourselves a very fundamental question. Are we serious about helping the small businesses in our community? If we are, we should support the Manzullo-Velazquez amendment and restore the funding for the 7(a) loan program.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would further like to engage the chairman and the ranking member in a brief colloquy. Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment which I believe the chairman is aware of.

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