Albert Wynn

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, my intention would be not to introduce it.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. Basically, it was an amendment dealing with the issue of drug courts, which, as the gentleman knows, is a very important diversionary program designed to provide drug users with a program of intense scrutiny, rehabilitation, drug testing, counseling and the like which has proven to be very successful in reducing drug crimes. It has an outstandingly low recidivism rate. Studies from the American University, the Columbia University, as well as the National Institute of Justice, have all indicated that where we have a criminal placed in a drug court program there is a very low rate of recidivism. For this reason, we believe this program ought to be funded robustly. The program was authorized at $60 million. The committee reported a funding level of $50 million, and I would like to ask the chairman if he would work with the ranking member and myself in conference to see if we could boost that funding level from $50 to the authorized $60 million.

Mr. WYNN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, well, I would like to first thank the chairman for his willingness to work with me on this issue, as well as the ranking member. I would like to thank him. I know this is a tough bill, and there is not a lot of money to work with. So I appreciate any cooperation and support my colleagues can give me. Amendment No. 15 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, the praise that we heap upon our brave first responders and firefighters is no substitute for adequate funding. That is why I am appalled that after more than 2 years this bill comes to the floor and cuts first responder formula-based grants by $440 million. It also cuts firefighter assistance by $146 million, a 20 percent cut. This is not about some Democratic wish list. The Council on Foreign Relations report indicates that local first responders need about $98 billion to meet our country's needs. It is my view that as the majority party, the Republicans control the purse strings and set the priorities, and they are responsible for making sure we have adequate funding. The Washington metropolitan area is a key target. My district in the suburbs has first responders that will have to come to the aid of our citizens in the event of an attack. But suburban communities such as Prince George's need millions for radio communications, training for first responders, $15 million for emergency response centers. In Montgomery County, we need funding for urban search and rescue teams, teams that responded on September 11. But this bill cuts $57 million out of urban grants for urban search and rescue teams. The point is we can do better. This is about homeland security. This should be a major priority. And, yes, tax cuts for the very wealthy do relate back to the fact that we have not put enough money into our homeland security funding. And so what I am here to say is I think both the chairman and, of course, the ranking member are well-intentioned, but we need to put more money in this bill to protect our homeland.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It is interesting to note the gentleman just said, why should small businesses be treated as second class citizens. The fact of the matter is, they are already treated as second-class citizens because they do not have and cannot afford to have health insurance for their employees. Sixty percent of the 44 million uninsured people in America work in small businesses. Now, there is something very interesting happening in this debate, and I want to lay it on the line. All the people who are against this bill have health insurance. Yes, the unions and the governors, be they Democrat or Republican, and all the other folks who are saying this is a bad bill, have health insurance. On the other side, the folks who want this bill, are small business owners, 12 million of them, who cannot afford to provide health insurance for their employees. Why should they not have an opportunity to pool together to gain the leverage that would enable them to provide affordable health insurance? Now, you hear people saying the benefits are too skimpy and you do not have the State mandated benefits and all these other things. Those benefits are fine, and I have supported them. But the fact of the matter is if you do not have any health insurance, then the benefits and the protections and the consumerism and all that does not mean a thing because you do not have any health insurance. Number one, why not let the employees make the decision? If the benefits are too skimpy, the employees will not buy them. On the other hand, if a basic plan enables you to see a doctor or save money on going to a doctor, that is a good thing and people will buy it. The second item I might mention, large corporations that self-insure and unions that cross States lines do not have to adhere to these mandates that people are saying is so important. So what is the difference? It seems to me that if we do not want to treat folks as second-class citizens, let small businesses have the same benefits that big corporations and unions currently enjoy. Now, the other item you will hear about is cherrypicking. There are provisions in this bill to prevent cherrypicking. You will hear about solvency problems. There are provisions in the bill to ensure that the solvency is the same as the solvency for other insurance companies. Now, who gets insured? You have heard, well, people will lose insurance, insurance rates will rise. CONSAD Research Institute conducted a study that concluded that 8.5 million more Americans, uninsured workers, would have access to insurance under this bill. Now, this bill is not a panacea. It is not perfect. But it is a step forward that will enable us to insure the group of people who do not have insurance. Instead of listening to all the thousands and hundreds of groups that they are saying are against this bill, but who for some reason have insurance, let us provide a benefit to the uninsured small businessperson, give them the opportunity to have associated health plans and move towards insuring the uninsured. This is National Insure the Uninsured Week, not National Let Us Talk About Insuring the Uninsured Week. The thing that we can do that would do the most good is to pass this bill and move toward insuring the uninsured.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize a man who has demonstrated that one person can make a difference in the lives of millions of people. If you are proud of the Metrorail system, you can thank Lemuel M. Proctor, who is the Chief Operating Officer for Rail Service at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). Today, I honor the almost-thirty years of service that Mr. Proctor has given to millions of citizens of Maryland and the Washington region. A lifelong resident of Mitchellville, Mr. Proctor received his education and training in Prince George's County schools and the U.S. Air Force. From his modest beginnings as an electrical mechanic in 1974, Mr. Proctor steadily rose through the ranks to become one of the highest-ranking African-American executives at WMATA. Mr. Proctor's credibility with rank and file employees has been critical to his success, particularly on September 11, 2001. On that day, Mr. Proctor had just overseen a busy morning rush hour, and many operators were returning to their home bases. After the morning's terrorist attacks, Mr. Proctor's task was to convince railcar operators to turn their trains around and transport passengers home safely. Mr. Proctor ensured that his employees had protective gear and sent them out to the system, where they performed their duties without hesitation. On that day, Metrorail transported passengers into and out of the region on back-to-back rush hours without incident. With his energy and intelligence, Lem Proctor could have been a success in any line of work he desired. With the world at his feet, Mr. Proctor chose to make public service his vocation, and for that, we should all be grateful. I wish him the very best in his new endeavors.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, the scandal at Abu Ghraib prison is indeed a stain on our national honor and a grave disservice to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces. More importantly, it is a threat to their safety in the field, as these despicable pictures have increased the fury of our opponents as they fight against us. Only two items I think reflect in any form or fashion of positive sense for the United States. Actions speak louder than words. Two things may be positive actions. First, the apology of the President and the Secretary of Defense, in a rare display not of humility, but at least of a sense of concern for the feelings of others around the world and, in particular, in the Muslim world. This was a good thing. Second, and I think this is very important, the serious congressional hearings and investigations that are underway now are shedding a great deal of light on the scope and nature of abuses. We are showing the world how we respond when our misdeeds are uncovered, and that is a great example of our democracy: public, transparent hearings and investigations. Compare this, then, with the barbaric terrorists who hide behind masks when they commit acts of terrorism, assassination and, most recently, beheading. However, unfortunately, apologies and investigations are not enough. The Taguba report says we have in this country a failure of leadership at the highest levels. I find it ironic in this context, then, that the President says that Mr. Rumsfeld, Secretary Rumsfeld is a superb leader. I beg to differ. First, Secretary Rumsfeld was a party to false and misleading prewar intelligence and analysis. There are no WMDs, weapons of mass destruction, and we have not been viewed as liberators. I am someone who put aside partisanship based on representations made by this administration that there were, indeed, legitimate threats to our security. Second, we find that Secretary Rumsfeld engaged in inadequate planning for postwar transition. We simply do not have enough troops. Not just Democrats are saying this. Experienced retired generals have said, almost unanimously, we do not have enough troops to do the job that we are required to do. What about winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis? We are losing. We are actually creating recruiting posters for terrorists, because the Iraqis have not seen us as liberators, they have seen us as an oppressive force. This administration has not done the things that would convince the Iraqi people that we are there to do them good. One minute the Baathists are out, the next minute the same old Baathist generals are back in. How does that work for an administration that describes Secretary Rumsfeld as a superb leader? This is the same Secretary Rumsfeld that set aside the Geneva Conventions and then wonders why we are having this problem at Abu Ghraib. Well, he set the tone. This administration and Secretary Rumsfeld bear the responsibility for inadequate planning of confinement facilities and for inadequately training our military police. We heard one of our colleagues on the Republican side talk about all of the great accomplishments that our troops have done. Unfortunately, those accomplishments are undermined by this scandal and these outrageous pictures of sexual abuse of prisoners at the hands of our own troops. What about the role of military intelligence in directing Army MPs to ``set the conditions'' and ``soften them up?'' This too falls at the feet of Secretary Rumsfeld. This is a great disservice to our men and women in the field. Not only is this prisoner abuse a disgrace, it is the kind of behavior that we condemn on human rights grounds in other countries such as Cuba and other Third World countries. I am sure those countries now understandably scoff at our high-minded words. We have created tremendous anger and hostility towards the United States by the Iraqi people and around the world. This will make the job of bringing stability to Iraq much more difficult. What is to be done? First, we must hold those up the chain of command accountable. One of the things that concerns me as we review this scandal is that a few sergeants and privates are being made scapegoats for a failure of leadership at the highest level. Second, since we are about to turn over sovereignty to the Iraqis, perhaps now would be a good time to invite them in as a show of good faith and let them serve as observers, those who have been properly screened, in the prisons to say that yes, we are not only turning over sovereignty, we have nothing to hide. Finally, we need more troops. The generals have said it, the Democrats have said it. Most people realize we have not managed this war well. More troops would help us do a better job and help ultimately to protect our troops.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), for allowing me to have this time. I rise in strong support of this piece of legislation. I would also add in my thanks to the chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and my thanks to the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for working with me on some amendments that I do believe strengthen this bill. I think this is a very important issue for our country and our society. I do not think Congressmen should be the overseers of morality, I do not think Congress people are in a position to dictate censorship; but I do believe we are in a position to say that there ought to be some standards for decency in this country on broadcast TV. You see, unlike cable TV, which we invite into our homes, broadcast TV is ubiquitous. It is a public asset which we give away free to broadcasters to make a great deal of money. Because of that relationship, I believe they should adhere to high standards of decency, particularly during family viewing hours. That is why I think this bill is so important. I think the situation at the Super Bowl was only a small example of some of the things that American families are concerned about. We have to ask the question, will we sink to the lowest common denominator, the lewdest, most lascivious type of content, or will we say there are standards that have to be balanced. I think this bill says yes, there have to be standards. Let me tell you, from the Baptist church to the barber shop, people are saying this is the right thing to do. This bill strengthens penalties against broadcasters and others who engage in indecent content, indecent speech over public broadcast airwaves during family hours. And I think it is very appropriate. I worked with other members, my colleague, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), as well as my colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) on the Republican side, to add some strengthening measures in this legislation. Specifically, current law provides a presumption of license renewal. We should not have that presumption. We have now modified that. There is no presumption if there is evidence of incidents of indecent broadcasting. Similarly, routinely broadcasters have their licenses renewed. We believe that after three strikes, there ought to be an automatic revocation proceeding in which the merits of your conduct are examined before your license is renewed. As I said at the onset, this is a very important issue for our society. It describes the type of people we are. We are not censors, we are not morality police, but we are fair and decent people who care about what our children see and what they are exposed to. This bill, I think, strikes a proper balance by giving some real teeth to the enforcement process and providing incentives for broadcasters to be more conscious, to be more aware of public sensibilities. I think we have done the right thing. I am very proud and pleased to support this legislation.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, good afternoon. Happy New Year. Welcome back. Last year, the President's advisers decided that in 2004 the President was going to talk about big ideas. Good, that is what Presidents are supposed to do, but then the President decided what we ought to do is go to the moon and Mars and cost the taxpayers $1 trillion. We have explored the moon in 1969 and 1970. It is a rock. We have seen pictures of Mars. It is also a rock. It seems to me the big idea is to help the working families in America. This economy has lost 3 million jobs under President George Bush. Two million workers have been unemployed for more than 6 months; 1.4 million workers have exhausted their unemployment benefits but still have not found work. A big idea would be to put people to work like Franklin Roosevelt did. Another big idea would be to provide health insurance for all 41 million Americans who do not have health insurance. Health insurance costs for those who have it are rising, and pretty soon more people will not have it. That would be a big idea. Health insurance. Funding medical research to fight cancer and AIDS and ending poverty and hunger would be big ideas that we ought to be pursuing in the 21st century. Instead, when the President's big idea is to go to Mars, it seems to me he has lost contact with the American people. Democrats have big ideas, making America a better place in which to live.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, today the American public should ask a simple question, Where are the jobs? We hear the Republicans talk about increases in the gross domestic product, but increases in the GDP do not equal jobs. It does not pay bills or help families. Since this President came into office, we have lost 3 million jobs in this country, and 2.5 million of those jobs have been in the manufacturing sector. So the American public ought to ask the question, Where are the jobs? What is the Republican response? They are going to bring to this floor a bill that grants tax credits to American companies that take jobs overseas. That is right, two-thirds of the benefits in the so- called manufacturing jobs bill that the Republicans are introducing would give tax breaks to companies creating jobs in China and other countries. Today the American public has every right to ask the question, Where are the jobs for Americans? Where are the tax credits for American small businesses to help them expand and grow jobs? Unfortunately, they are going overseas. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs?

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Some would have us believe that today's vote is just about supporting our troops, about promoting democracy, and about helping the people of Iraq. Look, I voted for the use of force in Iraq. I support the troops, and I believe we should rebuild Iraq. But it is not quite that simple. We need to do this in the right way. The real issue is the credibility of the Bush administration, the accountability of this administration; but most importantly, the real issue is protecting the American people. We went to war on bad intelligence without our allies. We were either deliberately misled, misled by ineptness, or we have had a massive intelligence failure. We did the right thing, but we did it for the wrong reasons. Secretary Rumsfeld tell us, oh, we will be greeted as heroes and liberators to mask the fact they had no plan. Secretary Wolfowitz said, do not worry about reconstruction, Iraq is a country rich in natural resources and oil reserves, and they can pay for their own reconstruction, which brings us to today's debate. This grant should be a loan to the Iraqi people. We should not be giving this money away. Interestingly, despite the Halliburton controversy, the Republican administration has refused to unbundle these contracts so small businesses could participate, so that women and minority businesses could participate. Then they say, we're going to give this money away. The fact of the matter is while we are giving money to Iraq, Iraq will be paying back grants to Russia and Germany for loans that they got from those countries. This smells. Other countries know that America has contributed both in cash and in blood. The fact of the matter is if the problem is debt in Iraq, what about the debt in the United States, the $500 billion that this administration has put on the American people? Our schools are crumbling, our streets are crumbling, and we do not have prescription drug benefits for our seniors. We need to protect the American public. This program should be a loan. Enough is enough. Let us vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived proposal.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking my colleague, the distinguished ranking member from Michigan, for allowing me this time. I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct conferees on the energy bill. This motion instructs the conferees to promptly agree on a measure to provide mandatory electricity reliability standards that would help avert the type of widespread blackout we just saw in August. Very interesting, my colleague just used the term eviscerate the energy bill. We are not trying to eviscerate the energy bill. What we are saying is simply this: There are provisions that we agree on, Democrats and Republicans, and that is that we need mandatory reliability standards. If we agree on both of these on this issue, why not pass it? Why not do what is doable? That is not to say that we should not discuss a comprehensive bill. It is not to say we should not try to reach a comprehensive bill on drilling in Alaska, on natural gas, on alternative energy sources, but the issue is that the blackout in the Northeast had nothing to do with ANWR, nothing to do with Alaska. It had nothing to do with natural gas prices. It has nothing to do with solar energy and alternative energy. It had to do with problems with our electricity grid. If there are measures that we can take, and this is not the final measure, but if there are measures we can take now to address this problem, I think we ought to do it. Currently, we do not have an electricity grid that meets the requirements of a 21st century economy. In fact, our electricity grid is overburdened, outdated and underfunded. It is critical that Congress focus on reliability standards for the national electricity grid. In fact, today we had a panel testify, an industry panel testify before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and that panel said unanimously we need mandatory reliability standards to avoid the kinds of problems we have experienced. Yesterday, my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) introduced legislation to provide for mandatory reliability standards, but I would note and emphasize that this approach has bipartisan appeal. Earlier this year, several months prior to the blackout, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) from the Republican side and myself introduced H.R. 1370, an interstate transmission act, which also requires mandatory electricity reliability standards. We need an electric reliability organization with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission oversight. This would facilitate the development and enforcement of mandatory reliability rules and standards that are binding on all electric companies and market participants. These standards would include, first of all, technical standards relating to the maintenance and operation of electrical systems; performance standards for electrical systems; and preparedness standards related to the ability of those managing the electrical system to respond to anomalies or unexpected events on the grid. For example, we must require working and compatible hardware that monitors our transmission systems for faults and disturbances in order to contain problems and keep electrical systems up and running. These monitoring systems should, at selected switch yards and substations, include the installation of dynamic disturbance recording equipment and fault recorders to provide data that would enable the verification of power flow and provide warnings of a disturbance in the bulk power system. Importantly, these monitoring systems must be compatible so that we can report and analyze disturbances in the system quickly and concisely. A compatible transmission monitoring system over interconnected regions can help contain the problems we have experienced recently. Finally, mandatory reliability standards would provide the Federal Government with the tools to sanction companies that do not comply with reliability standards. This language in the Burr-Wynn bill and the Dingell reliability bill would accomplish these goals. As we are moving toward a conference, if we can agree on a comprehensive bill, I certainly will be supportive of that; but if we cannot, I submit that we should do that which is within our grasp immediately to address a problem that is confronting this country, and that is, we need mandatory reliability standards now. There is agreement. We ought to act on it. I urge the adoption of the instructions to the conferees.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, seniors in America are crying out for help. Heart patients in need of blood thinner, coumadin, are having to pay $64 in America but only $24 if they can get it from Canada. Diabetics have to pay $124 in America but only pay $26 if they could get it from Canada. We ought to give them some help and cut out the lip service. The arguments we hear from opponents is always safety-safety-safety. That is absolutely false. It is the worst kind of scare tactic. There is overwhelming consensus reflected in editorials in the Washington Post, the New York Times, there are no safety concerns. My colleagues have stood before us and talked about antitampering, anticounterfeiting technology. We have the methodology to prevent the safety concerns, the safety problems that are being discussed. What we need this evening is the will to do the right thing to really help seniors. We hear a lot about what we want to do, what we ought to do, what we could do. It is time to quit talking. It is time to do. We need to pass this bill. Let me say this in conclusion: Whenever we see Democrats and Republicans walking down the aisle hand and in hand, it is something called bipartisanship. It also means we have got a good bill. Let us pass the Gutknecht bill.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kilpatrick amendment to provide an additional $3 million in funding to combat the AIDS/HIV pandemic. I also want to take a moment to commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), for her outstanding leadership on this issue. I will acknowledge that the Millennium Challenge Account is important, but the HIV/AIDS pandemic is lethal and therefore must have a higher priority. I would also note that we are not attempting to take all the money from the Millennium Challenge Account. We leave a substantial amount and we are only asking for a mere $300 million to fulfill a commitment that this President has made and, by extension, that this country has made. Millions of people are dying. We are the world's only superpower. If we were serious about addressing the problems of this planet, about creating a better world, about ending human suffering, then we must proactively combat the HIV/AIDS problem. Last year more than 3 million people died from the virus. There are currently 42 million people infected. It is the greatest humanitarian crisis of our time. HIV/AIDS contributes to decreased economic growth by often killing the most productive members of society, young adults. Further, it is estimated that more than 14 million children will become orphans, a figure that could triple by the year 2010. If nothing is done, Africa will continue to struggle economically and we will continue to see unstable regions throughout the continent, fertile conditions for terrorism. In fact, recent reports from the World Bank show that the continuance of the AIDS epidemic in Africa dramatically will reduce economic growth, perhaps to the point of economic collapse. Millennium Challenge Funds will be for naught if we do not effectively address the aids crisis. The education of youth in Africa and around the world is essential for the development of African countries. Unfortunately, the virus is a huge obstacle that prevents young people from getting an education. Some are infected by the virus and die. However, many others are forced to take care of their younger siblings when their parents become ill and die. A vicous cycle is created in terms of a lack of education caused by the devastation of the disease. President George Bush returned from Africa after making a host of commitments and promises that included a plan that calls for $3 billion in HIV/AIDS funding for this year. This bill falls $1 billion short of that $3 billion commitment. It is, therefore, imperative that we act now to increase funding for HIV/AIDS to act now. Failing to provide adequate funding for HIV/AIDS will only result in more devastation. The greatness of America will not be judged by the extent of our material wealth, but rather by the extent of our compassion and our actions today to end human suffering. I urge support of the Kilpatrick amendment.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to the Republican plan. This Medicare reform plan is woefully inadequate. Everyone agrees that a real prescription drug plan would cost between $600 and $800 billion. This plan only provides $400 billion. Why? My Republican colleagues will say, well, this is because that's all we can afford. The truth of the matter is that is all we can afford because of their big tax cuts. But keep in mind, you did not get a big tax cut. The wealthy got a big tax cut. Mr. and Mrs. Average American got cuts in service, cuts in benefits and cuts in quality. What we have here this evening is an attempt by the Republicans to do prescription drug coverage on the cheap. There are three problems with this. First, in their plan, there are no guaranteed drug benefits. The private insurers determine what drugs are going to be available to you, not your needs. So that if your drugs are not covered, then you have to pay the full price. This is no prescription drug benefit. Second, there are no fixed premiums. You hear the Republicans tell you, well, it's going to be $35 a month. Wait a minute. $35 a month is nowhere in their bill. These premiums could rise to as much as $85 a month. You will drive seniors into bankruptcy with that. The third problem with this plan is the hole in the doughnut, the gap. Under the Republican plan, this plan they are talking about tonight, after the first $2,000 of prescription drug costs, you have to pay the rest up to $5,000. That is a gap of $3,000. Again, that would drive seniors into bankruptcy. The neediest, sickest seniors do not get the benefits when they need it, the consequence of doing prescription drug coverage on the cheap. Forty-eight percent of Medicare beneficiaries will fall into this gap. This is not a true prescription drug plan. Second, this bill contains something called Medicare reform. That is another name for privatizing and destroying Medicare as we know it. Plans will have to compete. Medicare will compete against private plans and our seniors will be forced out of a plan that they have come to trust. This plan will not work, will not provide the benefits as a safety net for our seniors. I urge its rejection.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this piece of legislation. It is interesting, in the 10 years I have been down here, we have been able to talk about regulations, talk about cherrypicking, corporations have had insurance, big unions have had insurance, Members of Congress have had insurance; but small businesses have been crying out as they have not had insurance, and those that had it lost it because the price continues to go up. Bottom line: we have not done anything to help small businesses and their employees have health insurance. It is time we do something. Second, I hear a lot of talk about the great State regulations and the protections they offer and these mandated benefits and those mandated benefits. Let me tell you something. If you do not have health insurance in the first place, the mandated benefits and the regulations and the protections do not mean anything because they do not apply to you because you do not have health insurance. The fundamental bottom line is you have to have health insurance. At the end of the day that will be the question you have to ask yourself: Do you want some health insurance, or do you want to continue with no health insurance? This plan works because it provides enhanced purchasing power for small businesses. They come together, and they have the leverage to put together an insurance plan to help those small businesses. They also can lower administrative costs so they get savings. Small businesses are very price sensitive. They will buy insurance even if they can get just a small amount of savings. So on balance it is a very good idea. We hear a lot of talk about the vaunted cherrypicking. Again if you do not have health insurance, there is no cherrypicking because you are not there to be picked. But the important issue is there are regulations in this bill strictly regarding cherrypicking, prohibiting cherrypicking, so that is not really a problem. Finally and most importantly, what people are saying is this is a bare bones policy and so you should not get it because it does not have all the protections that admittedly we would all like. I am submitting that it is better to have a basic policy that gets you into the doctor's office, because if you get into the doctor's office, your cancer, your heart attack, your diabetes and your blood pressure all can be picked up by your doctor. They say, it is a bare bones policy and no one's going to get it. Let me tell you, if it is that bare bones, if it is that bad, if it does not provide any benefits at all to the employee, they are not going to purchase it. They purchase it because it provides the basic insurance that they can use. It is not everything we would like, but it is better than nothing; and at the end of the day, half a loaf is better than none.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, yes, there is an uproar; and, yes, we are appalled. We are appalled that the children of 12 million working families have been excluded from this bill. They are quite content to give $93,000 in tax cuts to the very wealthy millionaires; but we have 12 million children who have been excluded, 196,000 from my State of Maryland. Yes, there is an uproar. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. What the Republicans are trying to tell Americans is that these people do not pay taxes. Oh, yes, they do. Number one, they work every day. Every one of these families works every day. Number two, they pay property tax, sales tax, entertainment tax, and they pay all the other kinds of taxes. Importantly, many of these people are in the military. They are privates, they are grunts, they are the people who do the dirty work to defend our country. Yet our Republican colleagues say it is okay to give a millionaire $93,000 in tax cuts, but it is not okay to give someone making less than $26,000 a tax break. Mr. Speaker, I do not call that welfare; I call that democracy. We are Democrats. Every time we talk about this issue, the Republicans want to say that is class warfare. Yes, that is class warfare. But let me talk about that class. It is a class composed of people who work every day and make less than $26,000 a year. They have 12 million children, and they are not going to get the benefit of tax relief. Republicans want to talk about putting money back into Americans' pockets. What about the class of Americans that work every day but do not get the benefit of this big $350 billion tax deal? This tax deal gives a $90,000 tax cut to millionaires, but they cannot give $1,000 to a family that works every day and has a child. My colleagues have the audacity to come on this floor and say it is welfare. Yes, there is going to be an uproar. Yes, I am appalled, because it is undemocratic, it is unfair, and it is disgraceful. All my Republican colleagues want to do is give more money to the very rich; and when we tell them that people are working and need a tax break, they cannot see fit to do it, particularly when some of those people are in our military. It is a disgrace. Let us reject the Republican approach.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill. My colleague from Virginia only said one thing that is correct, and that is our Federal employees are our greatest resource. Unfortunately, in this bill they are treated very poorly. In this bill, the Secretary of Defense can waive collective bargaining. That was designed to allow employee input into working conditions and grievances. He talks about Federal employees, but every Federal employee organization opposes this language. The Secretary of Defense would be allowed to exempt the Department of Defense from the Federal wage schedule that was designed to prevent discrimination and nepotism. The Secretary of Defense is allowed to exempt the Department of Defense from due process and appeals rights, appeals to the Equal Opportunity Commission, fighting discrimination. This bill would authorize the Secretary of Defense to bypass OPM and create an entirely new personnel system. It authorizes the Secretary to have authority under this proposal to take action at his sole, exclusive, and unreviewable discretion. The Secretary of Defense, in an opinion piece in The Washington Post yesterday, said our military needs more agility and flexibility because they are fighting terrorists in caves and bunkers. Then he cleverly transfers this reasoning to the civilian population. I ask Members why do clerks and secretaries and administrators need to be deprived of their appeals rights? They should have a fixed appeals system. They should have the rights that Federal employees have had over the years. He makes the case for a flexible military, he does not make the case for depriving Federal employees of their rights, and he attempts to trade off agility for morale. I suggest we need to improve morale and protect our Federal employees.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, now that we have declared victory over Iraq, the country's attention will turn once again to important domestic priorities. Unfortunately, we find our economy in a great slump. The President and my Republican colleagues come before you with a program that I believe is woefully inadequate, because all they have done is trot out their all-purpose solution to domestic problems: More tax cuts. I would say to my Republican colleagues that was then, this is now. In the year 2000, we had a surplus, a $5.6 billion surplus. At that time, then-Governor George Bush said he wanted to give the surplus back to the taxpayers and invigorate the economy. I would suggest that the economy has not been invigorated. Two years later millions have lost their jobs and we are looking at deficits of $2 trillion going forth over the next 10 years. So the question Americans should ask is, why do they want to cut taxes now if the rationale for the tax cut in 2001 was that we had a surplus? We do not have a surplus today. We have huge deficits today. We also have a war against terrorism and a homeland security program to fund. Reducing government resources at a time of war against Iraq and a war against terrorism just does not make sense. It is kind of like George Bush said when he was running for President, ``It is fuzzy math.'' In the year 2001, President Bush passed through his tax cut, $1.3 trillion, saying it would stimulate the economy. Again, 2 years later, economic growth stands at a mere 1 percent, compared to the 4 percent growth from 1996 to 2000 during the Clinton administration. Additionally, despite President Bush's promise in his 2001 tax cut that he would invigorate the economy, 2.7 million Americans have lost their jobs. The stock market has lost about 40 percent of its value, roughly $7 trillion. The tax cut program did not work. Their all-purpose solution just does not cut it. But that did not deter my conservative colleagues. This week on the House floor we will hear more of the same. We have the Bush tax cut, and now we have the tax cut of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). Originally the Bush plan would provide a tax cut of $27,000 for households earning more than $1 million a year. The top 5 percent would receive 64 percent of all the tax cut breaks. That seems pretty bad. But along comes the Thomas tax bill that we are going to consider this week. It is even more unfair. According to the Brookings Institute analysis, the average tax cut offered under the Thomas proposal for households earning more than $1 million would be, get this, $43,000 for people earning more than $1 million a year. The top 5 percent of American households would get 75 percent of the tax cut. So when they tell you the tax cut is for everybody, do not buy it. It is clearly a tax cut for the rich. When you give the Republicans these numbers, they say okay, we are giving a tax cut to the rich, but the rich create jobs and the jobs will trickle down. Remember, that was then, this is now. The tax cuts in 2001, $1.3 trillion, did not invigorate the economy, did not create jobs. People in fact lost jobs. Tax cuts for the wealthy do not stimulate the economy. Let me talk a little bit about why it is even more unfair. They make the tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. Remember that 75 percent goes to the wealthy. Those are permanent. When it comes to the child care tax credit that could benefit working Americans, what happens? Well, the child care tax credit drops from $1,000 in 2005 to $700 in 2006, and after 2006 the child care tax credit is phased out, so working Americans get nothing. The same thing with small business. My Republican colleagues say, well, we will make the dividend tax cut for the very wealthy permanent, but the small business tax cuts and tax breaks to provide more deductions for small businesses and help them expand and create jobs, they phase out after 5 years. After 5 years, small businesses get nothing. Now, there is another element to this issue, and that is called State aid. What is happening here is the Federal Government is just passing along tax increases to the States. They say ``we are cutting your taxes.'' But what happens when the States do not have enough money, as is the case now? They cut Medicaid, they cut child care subsidies, they cut education. So that means what, either you lose programs at the State level, or you get a tax increase at the State level, while the Republicans tell you we are giving a tax cut to the very wealthy at the Federal level. We Democrats believe that if we want to stimulate this economy we do a couple of things. We give money directly to the American working class. Second, we give money to the States so they can hire people, build roads, improve our infrastructure. That is how you create jobs. There is a consensus among economists that this tax plan will not work. I think this dog will not hunt. I think we need to reject the Republican proposal this week.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, now that we have achieved victory in Iraq, the country will refocus its attention on matters close to home, specifically our sinking economy. Unfortunately, victory in war does not necessarily translate into success in domestic economy. In terms of the economy, we have been treated to a cycle of failure by this administration and my Republican colleagues. Consider that unemployment is now up to 6 percent. There has been a decline in the length of the workweek, meaning more people are working fewer hours. Manufacturing workers were hurt particularly hard last month. Factory payrolls fell by 95,000, the 33rd consecutive monthly decline. According to Jerry Jasinowski, President of the National Association of Manufacturers, ``Since July 2000 manufacturing has lost 2.2 million jobs, among the highest-skilled, best-paying jobs in our economy.'' My colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), goes on to point out that ``Republican claimed that both the 2001 and the 2002 tax cuts would create jobs but they were wrong. Instead, 2.7 million private sector jobs have vanished since this administration took office a little over 2 years ago.'' The fact is tax cuts have yielded 400 to $500 billion deficits. They did not revive a sluggish economy, and what you are hearing now is, well, this is because of the war. Not true. Forty-three percent of our current deficits are directly attributable to these tax cuts. A small percentage is attributable to the war. We have only authorized $80 billion and the rest comes from the sluggish economy which the 2001 tax cuts failed to revive. What happened in 2001 was that we had a $5.6 trillion surplus, and my Republican colleagues came down here and said, We have got to give this money back to the American taxpayer so we can invigorate our economy. That did not happen. What we have instead is a projection over the next 10 years of a $2 trillion deficit and we are going to borrow over $500 billion this year. The fact of the matter is the tax cut policy of the Republicans has not worked. We have seen this plan before. Now we turn to what I call the Bush/Thomas model. I think it is a model of tax unfairness and ineffective economic policy. An analysis of the Thomas proposal by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center concluded that his plan would be even more tilted to the affluent than Bush's original plan. According to the Brookings analysis, the average tax cut offered by the Thomas proposal for households earning more than a million dollars would be almost $43,000 in tax cuts in 2003, compared with the administration's original proposal to give the very wealthy only 27,000. Then on top of that the top 5 percent of households, the top 5 percent of American households would receive 64 percent of the Bush dividend proposal, but under the Thomas proposal that they will roll out this week that same 5 percent would get 75 percent of the tax benefits. There is something fundamentally unfair about that. Now, in truth the middle class will only get about $100 to $200 in so-called tax relief; but the administration says, oh, no, a family earning about $40,000 would get about $1,000. That is called flimflamming the numbers. What they do is they take the average, reflecting the fact that the millionaire will get $43,000 annually. That is how they get that false average. In addition, we find that the Thomas plan does not create jobs. There is broad census among economists that reducing dividend taxes does not create jobs. In fact, economy.com has rated this as one of the least effective options in terms of stimulating growth. Bill Dudley, chief U.S. economist for Goldman Sachs has pointed out, ``Rather than shoehorning the dividend plan in, they should be trying to shoehorn in the most amount of economic stimulus.'' When the Democrats talk about our plan, we will talk about that, stimulus, putting money into the pockets of the middle class, helping our States' government so we can really stimulate this economy. Finally, the Republicans tell us, well, look at our child care tax credit. We do not just care about the wealthy. It is very interesting when you look closely because although the tax breaks for the very wealthy are permanent, the child care tax credit that they would have you focus on is really only temporary, and by the year 2006 they will actually be losing money on the child care tax credit. So what we see in conclusion is a very flawed tax proposal tilted very much to the wealthy. They give us a solution to the American economy that says if you cut taxes on the wealthy, you will improve the economy by creating jobs. It did not work in 2001. It did not work in 2002. It is as Yogi Berra said, deja vu all over again. I think we ought to reject this approach to tax policy and adopt a progressive Democratic approach that really works for middle class and working Americans.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue. It is very good to stand here in support of a bipartisan bill that addresses some of the real problems in the world today. Particularly in the wake of the situation in Iraq, it is important for the United States to show the world that we care about the big problems that affect other people in other countries as well as issues that affect American interests. Let me take a moment to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for her leadership. If anyone in this body has stood up on this issue, it is the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). This is truly a bipartisan bill. I would also like to applaud the President because he has pushed this issue $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa. I think that is a very good thing. I hasten to note that many of these programs started under the Clinton administration, and for years, Democratic activists have been fighting for additional money to fight AIDS in Africa. I intend to support this bill; however, the rule allows amendments which I believe are problems. Some of my conservative brethren come to this debate and argue that we ought to give more priority to abstinence. In a tone of some self- righteousness they suggest that abstinence ought to be the preferred method, and that this reflects American values. I think on the issue of fighting AIDS, the American value is saving as many lives as we possibly can. And for that reason when later today we have this amendment to prioritize and single out abstinence, I am going to oppose it. I think our responsibility is to make resources available to be used in the best, most efficient way possible. Abstinence does have merit, I will be the first to say that. And where it can be used effectively and advocated to young people, I would support that. But to say that abstinence should get a specific share of the money, even if it is not the most effective proposal, does not make sense. The American value is to save lives. Now, it seems to me that we ought to use all available approaches and use our money most effectively and most efficiently. My conservative colleagues say look at the Uganda model. And as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) just pointed out, they have somewhat distorted it. They would have us believe that Uganda, which has been very successful in reducing AIDS, primarily relies on abstinence. That is not true. It is true that Uganda has been successful in reducing infection rates from 26 percent to 6 percent over a 20-year period. It is not true that they rely solely or even primarily on abstinence. Abstinence is only part of their Anti-aids program. In fact, Ugandans used 80 million condoms last year. 80 million condoms. Condom use by prostitutes in Kampala, the capital city of Uganda, has increased from zero to 95 percent. It has been proven that condom use is an important part of the program. What we are saying today is that we need to include all approaches: Abstinence, faithfulness, and condom use, and not single out any particular approach. Let the affected communities in Africa decide what works best and spend the money accordingly. If we do that, this is truly a great bill and we should be proud to support it.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise to oppose the rule and oppose the underlying bill. We need to take our heads out of the sand. Energy independence is the most important issue facing America today. Fifty-eight percent of our oil needs come from foreign sources. Twenty percent of our imports come from the Persian Gulf, 40 percent from OPEC countries. What else do we know about this problem? We know that 45 percent of our oil consumption goes into cars, yet this bill fails to adequately address the problem of fuel efficiency standards. That is unfortunate. We need a strong regime of fuel efficiency standards. Their answer, on the other hand, is ANWR, let us drill in the Arctic Refuge. Unfortunately, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, this is inadequate. At best, it will yield 300,000 barrels a day. By the year 2015, the United States will be consuming 24 million barrels a day. ANWR is not the solution. They will say, well, this will give us a little more oil. Yes, but they do not tell us that there is no prohibition against exporting that oil; that is to say, the people bringing it out of the ground could easily export it to France for more money and we would not get the benefit. What do we need to do? We need to talk about fuel efficiency and hydrogen cars. This bill woefully underfunds hydrogen fuel cell technology. It proposes $1.79 billion, and that would give us hydrogen cars by 2020. That is not good enough. I suggest we spend about $5.3 billion, take on the task as Kennedy took on the task of putting a man on the moon, and say, we are going to do this quicker. We are going to do this in 10 years, and we are going to fund the technology necessary to give us energy independence through hydrogen fuel cell cars. I think we can do it, Mr. Speaker. I urge us to reject the bill and the rule.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to talk about this bill that will provide much-needed support for our men and women in the armed services who find themselves in harm's way. That aspect of this bill is very good. As a matter of fact, I see this bill in three parts. First, the war. We are doing the right thing. We are supporting our men and women through the supplemental. Second, the post-war. Provisions are made in this bill, I believe, to the tune of $8 billion that would provide for the reconstruction of Iraq or the beginning of the reconstruction of Iraq after the war as well as assistance to our allies. But then there is the third part, homeland security. And here I must say, Mr. Chairman, I am greatly distressed. We are not adequately supporting our homeland security needs. In this bill we have not put in enough money to help the local firemen, policemen, public safety personnel, emergency medical technicians, the people on the front lines to keep our communities safe. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has tried to put in an additional $2.8 billion. That has not been accepted. That money goes into our communities to provide the same kinds of protections in our hometowns that we would want to see in communities abroad in Iraq after the war is over. Let me give an example of what I am speaking about. Here in the Capitol we have all sorts of protections. We have barriers around the complex. We have an emergency communication system. We have got special equipment in the case of a chemical or biological attack for ourselves but also for other Federal employees working in this complex. But when these same employees go home to their districts in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., and specifically to my district in Prince George's and Montgomery County, they do not have these same kinds of protections. For instance, in Prince George's County, Maryland, just outside of the Capitol where many of our employees live and where evacuation procedures may take place, we still need funding to purchase 800 megahertz radios to seamlessly communicate with surrounding jurisdictions as we try to facilitate traffic and respond to emergency situations. Montgomery County, Maryland, again in the Washington, D.C. suburbs where many of our employees live, needs gas masks and monitoring equipment for first responders and schools. These counties and many others all across our country are working tirelessly to respond to the orange alerts and the red alerts and all the other kinds of exigencies connected with war on terrorism and what we anticipate may be increased problems as a result of the war in Iraq. But yet when it comes to funding them, we cannot find the additional $2 billion that we need to provide resources that they need. One of my counties is actually cutting personnel because of the strains caused by trying to maintain homeland security. There are still questions. Schoolteachers come to me and say, well, what are we going to do about protecting the schools? We have concrete barriers, but many of our schools do not. We have extra police personnel, but many of our schools and local government facilities do not have them. We have reservoirs, we have water systems with other public accommodations at the local level where our citizens live that do not have the adequate resources for homeland security. We should include more money for homeland security in this bill. It is a true tragedy that we have not. So I urge my colleagues, as we consider this bill and as amendments come to the floor, to give us an opportunity to do more than just wave the flag or pay lip service, but that we will actually put some money, more money where it belongs, and that is in the protection of our local communities.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I have to say, I am appalled that we even have this bill on the floor today. We are now in the first 24 hours of a war against Iraq, and I think that Congress should present a unified front supporting our men and women in harm's way. But no, the Republicans decide this is a great time to slip through a budget while people are watching the Iraq situation and may not pay attention to the big tax cuts for the very wealthy, may not pay attention to the cuts in education, veterans benefits, and in other critical domestic programs. Well, if they want to have this bruising and controversial debate, let us have at it. First of all, this budget is designed to protect a $396 billion corporate dividend tax cut that benefits the wealthy. Let us look at the State of Maryland. The average 1 percent of earners in Maryland would get a tax break of $30,000; 24 percent of couples would get zero. And 43 percent of couples and singles would receive less than $100 from this tax break. So when the other side says it is a big tax break for the American people, no. It is a big tax break for the very wealthy. In order to give the wealthy this tax break, what we find out is they cut critical programs. They have cut veterans programs by $15 billion. That is kind of ironic when we are at war. We are sending men and women into war, and they are cutting benefits to the veterans who have already made that sacrifice. What do they cut? They cut compensation for service-oriented disabilities. They cut burial benefits, Montgomery GI bill benefits, and rehabilitation benefits. The Democratic budget, on the other hand, provides $16 billion more than the Republicans for our veterans. Do not let them wave the flag unless they are willing to put some money there. Do not just believe me, believe the veterans organizations. The Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the American Legion have all issued statements opposing the Republican budget. Then they give us a prescription drug plan on the cheap so they can give a big tax cut to the wealthy. They give $400 billion for prescription drugs. We give $528 billion. We keep seniors in Medicare; they say they have to go to an HMO.