Albert Wynn

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. One of the age-old realities of politics is that old men sit in judgment and send young men off to war, some to die. Today we have young men and women fighting in the Gulf, fighting for our country. As with many of my colleagues, I have reservations, I have disagreements, I have questions. But I think at this moment in time, it is important that we put aside those questions, disagreements and questions, if you will, about how we got to this point, to unify behind these young men and women and let them know that they have our full support, because we indeed are sending them off to fight and perhaps die. So this evening, despite those reservations I may have, I am going to support this resolution. I hope my colleagues will do so as well and present to the world a united front of America, 100 percent behind our young men and women in harm's way. God bless these young men and women, and God bless America.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, the issue of high premiums for medical malpractice insurance is an important issue to doctors and patients. It is important that we lower insurance premiums, giving patients greater access to care. However, I am opposed to H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act. First, tort reform has historically been the province of the States. All but 14 States, have some form of caps on medical malpractice suits. Thus, there is no need for Federal intervention. However, I am not convinced that medical malpractice litigation alone has caused the increase in medical malpractice premiums. There is convincing evidence that suggests that the rise in medical malpractice liability premiums stems from poor business practices by many insurance companies. Insurance carriers in several cases appear to have relied on the investments in the booming stock market of the 1990s to price premiums at levels below the market price. Today's premiums seem designed to offset losses suffered when the market soured. Meanwhile, it is unclear that even capping noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases would lower premiums. Since California passed MICRA and capped noneconomic damages in the 1970s, their premiums have risen at rates above inflation. Lastly, it took the 1985 passage of Proposition 103, which imposed price controls on premiums, to control the rising costs of premiums in California. Even with caps, California premiums are eight percent higher than in States without caps. When considering this issue, we should not just consider tort reform, but examine the business and accounting practices of medical malpractice insurance carriers. In committee, I introduced a substitute amendment to the underlying bill. The amendment would have created a medical malpractice commission to study the rising costs of medical malpractice insurance. Last year, the Health Subcommittee held a hearing on the rising premiums. However, the committee never adequately considered the impact of the business practices employed by carriers on the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance. That is the real issue. To date, the government has not fully examined all of the possible root causes for the rise in medical malpractice insurance. My amendment in committee would have stripped the underlying bill and created a Federal bipartisan commission of eight members to study the cause of rising medical malpractice premiums during the last 20 years. Specfically, the commission would look at the investment, accounting, and pricing practices of carriers, as well as jury awards in medical malpractice cases to determine what is causing the rise in premiums. We all deserve our day in court; the case for caps on noneconomic damages has not yet been made. Before placing an unreasonably low cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice suits, let's sufficiently study the issue and determine the root cause for the rising premiums.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of ``Stop Violence Week.'' Domestic violence is a serious issue that plagues American families and continues to affect our society as a whole. According to statistics nearly one-third of American women, 31 percent, at some point in their lives, are physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend. The National Institute of Justice estimates that, annually in the United States, nearly half-a-million women are stalked by an intimate partner. In my own state of Maryland a total of 20,688 domestic violence crimes were reported by law enforcement agencies during the 2001 calendar year. Often times domestic violence and battery lead to more serious incidents. In one particularly infamous case in Maryland, a husband shot and killed both of his young children after his wife had filed for an order of protection against him. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues throughout this week to use this opportunity to highlight the deplorable problem of domestic violence by speaking out, attending events, and wearing the symbolic tie or scarf to show your solidarity. Last year, Congress did the right thing by nearly fully funding the Violence Against Women Act programs better known as VAWA, but there is still much work to be done. VAWA programs are vital in assisting millions of women who suffer from spousal or partner abuse. We must not ignore this pressing problem. I commend the national and local organizations that continue to be advocates for victims of domestic abuse, and encourage them to keep up the good work.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, not because it allows us two amendments on the Democratic side or two substitutes, but because it supports a bill which fundamentally perverts the congressional processes. There have been no hearings on this bill. New Members who came in this session did not get an opportunity to hear testimony, raise questions or make amendments. That is not the way the congressional process, the democratic process, is supposed to work. For that reason alone, we should reject this bill. But let me go further. Just yesterday, a janitor in this building stopped me and asked me if I could help him find a job for his 40-year- old girlfriend. She worked as a pharmacist's assistant and cashier, and jobs are scarce. I am not sure if my colleagues on the Republican side understand that. The question used to be ``Where is the beef?'' I think the question today ought to be ``Where is the compassion?'' This bill will result in putting people out of work, putting people on the street who used to be on welfare. This bill will put burdens on States, $8 to $11 billion more mandated to the States, without a single dollar of help from the Federal Government. Where is the compassion? Critically, on the subject of compassion, this bill ignores the problem of child care. People want to go to work. That lady wanted to go to work. But is there child care funding? No. Right now there are 15 million eligible children for which the States cannot pay child care. That is one of the fundamental flaws of this bill. Add to that the fact we are asking mothers to work more hours, and you see why this is a major problem. If one looks further, one will find that the bill limits education and vocational training. People want to go to work, they want to get good jobs, but they need training. My colleagues, unfortunately, do not see that as compassion. It seems to me we ought to have a bill that maximizes rather than minimizes training opportunities. Finally, we have legal immigrants, immigrants who pay taxes. They are not allowed to benefit under this bill. This is a misbegotten bill. It ought to be returned to committee. We ought to reject this rule and reject, more importantly, the underlying bill.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, the point I was making is that our welfare rolls are increasing because people are out of work, which means the States will have more people to fund; and the bill does not provide substantial increases in funding to the States. You are asking them to basically take out of their existing TANF money to provide for more people. That does not seem to make sense. I reiterate, 15 million eligible children are not being funded.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, I am also delighted to join my colleagues in supporting the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act. Let me commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), our subcommittee chairman, as well as our newest and quite-generous-with-her-flattery new subcommittee ranking member, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), for her leadership on this bill. As we debate great global and national issues, this may not seem to be such a big deal. On the other hand, if you have worked hard all day, fought through traffic to get home to be with your wife and family to sit down to a simple dinner and you get a phone call from someone from Acme advertising something that you really do not want, this is a very big deal. It is something that Congress can and, I am pleased to say, is taking care of. We are doing something about this, the annoyance of unwanted solicitations. I get lots of complaints about it. I think it is a great idea that we are addressing this issue. As an elected official, I am not usually home at dinnertime; I am usually here in Washington or out in the district at some event. But when I go home, when I am home on those rare occasions and I am trying to have dinner and I get a call, I get quite annoyed. So I know how folks feel. But it is also people who work at home who are trying to conduct their own business who are interrupted. It is also seniors who are at home and are maybe anxious or nervous or sitting alone. They get these repeatedly aggravating calls which they have to struggle to get up to answer only to find someone from Acme on the line. This is a good piece of consumer legislation. Combined with what the States have already done in 27 States and what the FCC and FTC can do, we can have a blanket of protection around consumers from the annoyance of unwanted calls. I am really pleased to see Congress acting so swiftly. I thank Chairman Tauzin as well as Ranking Member Dingell for their leadership. I think it is a great piece of legislation, I am proud to support it, and I look forward to its rapid implementation.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose, and strenuously oppose, this bill. It is fundamentally unfair. We talk in this body about the need for open and fair debate, but the Republicans have shut off the Democrats' ideas on this very important subject, how we can help those people who are unemployed. Years ago the legendary singer Marvin Gaye had a song out called ``What's Going On.'' Let me talk about what is going on. September 11 and its aftermath are going on, mergers, bankruptcy, failed dot-coms, closed plants, airline restructuring, corporate downsizing. That is what is going on in America. And the bottom line is people are unemployed. Now, today we could have a debate about two opposing views, the Democrats and the Republicans. Let us talk about what Democrats would do versus the Republicans' approach to Americans who are unemployed. First, those people we call exhaustees, those who have exhausted their benefits. There are 1 million Americans who have exhausted their benefits. The Democrats would give them 13 weeks of additional benefits. The Republican plan before us today gives them zero. That is unfair. Let us talk about what we call new entries, that is, the 93,000 people each week who become unemployed, exhaust all of their benefits at the State level. The Democrats would give them 26 weeks, roughly 6\1/2\ months. The Republicans would only give them 3\1/2\ months, 13 weeks. The Democrat plan is clearly fair. And critically the people who have been cut off, 800,000 workers were cut off on December 28. The Democrats would give them a total of 26 weeks. The Republicans say, well, whatever is left, that is what you get. If you only have 2 weeks of benefits left, you only get 2 weeks of unemployment benefits. That is not fair. Now the Republicans say we do not want to talk about unemployment. We want to talk about growth and that is why we are proposing to give a big tax break to the wealthy in the form of eliminating the tax on dividends and that will spur growth in jobs. Sounds good, does it not? The problem is that conservative compassion or compassionate conservatism is out of sync because their job creation comes sometimes years after these people are unemployed. They need benefits and help now. Then if the jobs come, fine. But we ought to be helping Americans now and the Republicans do not do it. That is tragedy. I will vote down this rule.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today to honor Montgomery County Police Chief Charles A. Moose for his exemplary work on the investigation of the sniper shootings that recently plagued the Washington Metro Region. I would like to commend Chief Moose for exhibiting great patience and humility amidst the frenzied media coverage, which was marked by excesses and speculation. Chief Moose exhibited tremendous leadership and excellent teamwork by coordinating with other jurisdictions and law enforcement agencies. Chief Moose directed a multi-agency task force, whose work led to the eventual capture of the sniper suspects. Chief Moose became the public face of the investigation, holding daily press briefings, and consoling the public when a child became a victim of the sniper attacks. Throughout the sniper shootings, many in the community looked to law enforcement to reassure their ever-present fears. Chief Moose served as a calming and informative spokesman, providing the public with needed information and a community oriented perspective. Although Chief Moose has just recently come to national attention, he has always been active in the local community and has received numerous awards for his law enforcement and community activity. Along with his role as Chief of Police, Moose teaches criminology at the local community college, and serves as a Major in the District of Columbia National Air Guard. Chief Moose is clearly a tremendous leader, and an invaluable member of the Montgomery County Police force who has a bright and promising future ahead of him. It is truly an honor to have him serve in our community. Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank Chief Charles A. Moose for his work in helping to apprehend the sniper suspects, and returning our community to normal. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing an honorable and professional member of the law enforcement community.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Alicia Juarrero, a professor of philosophy at Prince George's Community College, who is being honored by the Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching and The Council for Advancement and Support of Education as the Outstanding Community College Professor of the Year. Dr. Juarrero at Prince George's Community College, located in my congressional district in Largo, Maryland. She has been nationally recognized among her community college colleagues as the best of the best. Dr. Juarrero's accomplishments speak to the caliber of professors at the community college level. Often times the invaluable work of our community college professors goes unrecognized, so it is especially rewarding for a local professor from my district to receive such an honorable award. Dr. Juarrero earned her undergraduate degree, master's and Ph.D from the University of Miami. She has been a professor at Prince George's Community College since 1975. Dr. Juarrero starts each semester with great zeal, beginning with a quote from Plato: ``Thinking is the talking of the soul with itself.'' She has been called a ``teacher's teacher,'' often serving as a great resource for her follow colleagues. It is truly an honor to have Dr. Juarrero as a professor at Prince George's Community College. She is a great reflection of a tremendous institution. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring a gifted and highly respected teacher.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) very much for yielding me time. I think it goes without saying that we all want a homeland security bill. We want a good bill. Now, the bill before us today has been characterized as a fair compromise. That is unfortunately not true. It is a very flawed bill. This bill allows the Department of Homeland Security to eliminate collective bargaining rights for the agency's workforce and allows managers a virtual carte blanche in rewriting civil service rules. Why are collective bargaining rights important? Collective bargaining is the negotiation between the employer and the labor union on wages, hours, and working conditions. If employees do not feel secure that they receive fair consideration for their employment concerns, one cannot expect to produce a work environment that produces a feeling of personal security for those employees. Let me state, without that feeling of personal security we will have a loss of morale. We will not get an excellent homeland security product from a workforce that does not have a feeling of employment security. How can granting employees the right to seek redress for resolving labor disputes be interpreted as a threat to national security? The bill allows significant discretionary tampering with respect to four key areas of the civil service process: Pay, job classification, adverse actions and performance appraisals, as well as collective bargaining and employee appeals. This discretionary tampering is left unchecked because it does not allow unions to collectively bargain through binding negotiations over any of the changes and agreements in these vital areas. I have read this bill. This bill provides that the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service could attempt to mediate impasses. That may sound good until you realize that this Mediation and Conciliation Service has no binding authority. So basically they kind of give you a pass-through but the Homeland Security Department retains the authority to alter civil service rules unchecked after a 30-day waiting period. In other words, this bill gives the Department of Homeland Security managers unilateral authority to write their own rules on such important civil service matters as pay, job classifications, firing, and demotions without any involvement for oversight at all from Congress for 5 years. What is the harm? This allows an immense bureaucratic fiefdom to be created in which managers can bestow favor on their cronies, punish whistleblowers, remember the FBI agent who tried to warn us about September 11, punish people who refuse to tow the political lines without any check on this type of abuse. This bill would allow Department of Homeland Security managers to eliminate collective bargaining rights whenever employees are involved in national security work. This is clearly too broad. Given the name of the new department, Department of Homeland Security, such authority could easily be applied to exempt more than 170,000 employees from belonging to unions. Let me state, tens of thousands of employees can be transferred from the Border Patrol, from the Customs Service, from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and from many other agencies that have chosen to belong to Federal employee unions for decades, but they will be performing the same work in the new agency that they performed in their old agency. The only difference is the name of their agency. Why then do these people suddenly become security risks because they want to keep their civil service protections? Why would we remove the collective bargaining rights from these people? This is supposed to be a bill about fighting terrorism. Unfortunately, this bill puts the administration at war with Federal employees, and that is not right. I urge rejection of the underlying bill.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, it should be stated at the outset that not one Member of this body wants war. We all want peace. The decision whether to send American soldiers into battle is the most agonizing vote we will cast in Congress. It is a choice between confronting the horrors of war versus allowing a potentially devastating attack on our homeland, one that could kill tens of thousands of Americans. But make no mistake, the threat posed by Saddam Hussein also ultimately threatens world peace and stability. It is for this reason that we must consider the resolution before us today, allowing the President to take unilateral military action to disarm Iraq in the interest of long-term peace. First, I believe we must consider this issue in the context of the post-September 11 world. Our enemies and their supporters have demonstrated their willingness to strike at us in covert and highly- destructive ways. As a result of briefings I have received from military experts, former weapons inspectors and colleagues in the intelligence community, I am convinced that Iraq does indeed possess weapons of mass destruction. First, chemical and biological threats. Saddam Hussein has VX nerve gas, mustard gas, and anthrax. These toxins are deadly and could kill thousands. Second, we know that Saddam has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, that could be used to disburse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. Intelligence data suggests that Iraq may be exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States. Third, as we learned from last fall's anthrax attacks, sophisticated delivery systems are not required. For chemical and biological attacks, all that is required is a small container and one willing adversary. Next consider the nuclear threat. Iraq can develop nuclear capabilities in 1 to 2 years. We know that Iraq has already experimented with dirty bombs. There is nothing to suggest that they have discontinued this program. With enriched uranium and subsequently an atomic bomb, Iraq could use nuclear blackmail to conquer other countries in the region and threaten U.S. national security. Now, some people that say that our focus should be on the war against terrorism. In my view, the Iraqi threat is part and parcel of the war against terrorism. There is ample evidence of al Qaeda and Iraqi contacts in the development of chemical and biological weapons. Additionally, Saddam has harbored known terrorists such as Abu Nidal, who, prior to his mysterious death, was connected to at least 90 attacks throughout the world. Iraq poses a threat to the Persian Gulf and the Middle East as well as 110,000 United States American troops and civilians. As a representative from the Washington, D.C. suburbs, I am particularly concerned about the threat to our homeland and the Washington metropolitan region. We learned on September 11 that the D.C. area is indeed a terrorist target, and a prime target. Now, many ask why is Iraq unique? Other countries have weapons of mass destruction and hostile intentions. This is true. But none have the unique history of Iraq. I submit to you some of Iraq's prior aggressions and violations: First, Saddam's invasion of Iran. Second, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Third, Saddam's use of chemical and biological weaponry against his own people as well as his enemies. Fourth, Saddam has continued to obstruct U.N. weapons inspections. We cannot continue to ignore these violations. And in his most recent gambit, he tells us yes, we will accept inspections, but you can not inspect my palaces, some of which are as big as small cities. This is unacceptable. I believe that actions speak louder than words and that past is prologue. In Saddam Hussein we are dealing with a shrewd and diabolical aggressor who must be thwarted. However, despite all of this, what we want is inspections and disarmament, not war. I agree with those who believe war should be our last option. Thus, we must consider the viability of diplomatic measures. Although Saddam has defied 16 U.N. resolutions over the past decade, the President has asked the United Nations to pass another resolution requiring complete, unconditional inspections of all sites. The U.N. can do this. To those who can say we only act multilaterally with our allies, I say yes, and I hope they will support us in the United Nations Security Council. Unfortunately, some of our allies are willing to appease Saddam Hussein. Winston Churchill said, ``An appeaser is one who would feed a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.'' Like a crocodile, the longer Saddam Hussein is left unchecked, the stronger and hungrier he will get. This resolution sends Saddam Hussein the type of clear message aggressors understand, that we will no longer stand idly by while he threatens U.S. interests and American lives. Disarm or bear the consequences of your actions. Many of my colleagues believe that this resolution will start war. However, as the President said about the resolution now before us during his speech 2 days ago, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations and all nations that America speaks with one voice, and it is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something.'' Thus, I believe this resolution can be used to apply maximum leverage on the United Nations to step up to the plate and avoid war. As provided in an amendment I introduced to this resolution, I urged the President to give the United Nations a reasonable opportunity to pass and implement a new resolution for unfettered and unconditional weapons inspections. If the President takes his prudent approach, allowing a reasonable opportunity for the U.N. to act, it would demonstrate our desire for international support and cooperation and a peaceful resolution to the Iraqi problem. I believe our patience could garner further support. Finally, should military force be necessary, I believe nation building is a requirement. Some of my colleagues across the aisle have opposed nation building. I am pleased to see the President say we must have nation building if we implement a military action. Finally, this end game strategy is as important as military action if we are to achieve our long-term goal of peace in the region. In the final analysis, we all want peace, we all want a diplomatic solution or a multinational military effort. If we can achieve these things, fine. However, being a world leader means more than just waving flags and saying that we are the greatest country in the world and waiting for others to be willing to act. Sometimes we have to make difficult decisions and sacrifices in order to stand for principles and against aggression. Sometimes the willingness to fight a war avoids the necessity to fight. I support this bipartisan resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule as well as to the underlying bill. When we first listened to the bill and we listened to the gentleman who just spoke, this bill sounds appealing. It is aimed at the working class whom he calls the poor. It is designed to help them afford education, and we would think on first blush that that is good idea. But on closer examination what we find is this bill is really a very bad idea. First of all, it is fiscally irresponsible. They do not want to talk about that, but the fact is for the same duration of this bill we will also be experiencing tremendous deficits in this country and this bill will only make that situation worse. Second, we find this bill is very disingenuous. They tell us they are trying to help the working class poor, but in fact most of those people will not be eligible because this is a deduction, and if they have other deductions that do not have the requisite income levels, they will not get the benefit of this deduction. So do not believe that they are really helping the poor. This is basically an election year gimmick bill. Third, the bill is very contradictory. In the No Child Left Behind bill, the appropriation, they have underfunded education by $7.2 billion. They are indeed leaving children behind. Let us look specifically at special education. We made a commitment several years ago to fund 40 percent of special education costs for local school districts. We are only funding 18 percent. But now they have a new gimmick bill while they are not fulfilling the commitments they already made in the area of special education. I find that very disturbing. They want to talk about the poor. Title I is specifically the program designed to help the poor. The No Child Left Behind bill calls for $16 billion in funding. But they actually only appropriate $11.3 billion. We are short $4.7 billion. About the same amount that they want to claim they can give back in their bill. Remember, most of the poor will not be eligible, but they will be shortchanged because we underfunded Title I. After-school programs, certainly low income residents and students need after-school programs. They underfund after-school programs by half a billion dollars, but yet they come up with an election year gimmick bill. As we will hear from the Democratic side, what we really need in poor communities is school modernization, technology, improved roofing, air conditioning. Young people come to me and say, We need air conditioning. It is 90 degrees and our building is not air-conditioned. That would really help the poor. But at the end of the day what we find is this is a gimmick bill. They do not expect it to be signed into law. It is disingenuous. It suggests that people will get benefits when they are really not eligible. It is fiscally irresponsible. And it contradicts promises they have already made. There are abundant reasons why we should reject this bill and I urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for yielding me this time, and I thank all of my colleagues in the region, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), as I have indicated, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and also the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and other Members for supporting me in this legislation. I rise today in support of this bill honoring, as the Washington Post simply put it, ``Two Men Who Were Just Doing Their Jobs.'' My bill, H.R. 3287, redesignates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 900 Brentwood Road, N.E. in Washington, D.C. as the Joseph Curseen, Jr. and Thomas Morris, Jr. Processing and Distribution Center. This facility was the site of the deadly anthrax contamination that resulted from a letter en route to Members of the United States Senate. I am particularly pleased that the wives of these 2 men, Ms. Curseen and Ms. Morris, are able to see this day as a small measure of compensation for the loss that they have suffered. If my colleagues would indulge me, I would like to tell a little bit about these gentlemen. Joseph Curseen, Jr. and Thomas Morris, Jr. were like thousands of other hard-working, dedicated Federal employees who came to work every day and quietly went about their daily duties, keeping the wheels of our government turning. However, unlike many of our Federal employees, in October of 2001, the hand of fate wearing the mask of terror touched these two young men. They died as a result of anthrax sent through the mail that was intended for our colleagues. First, Joseph P. Curseen, Jr. was born in Washington, D.C. in 1954, the only son of Billie and Joseph P. Curseen, Sr., and big brother to Joan Jackson and Janice Curseen. He was a graduate of Our Lady of Perpetual Help Grammar School, Gonzaga High School, and Marquette University. In 1985 he married his beautiful wife, Celestine. Joseph was a quiet, warm, and fun-loving man. He was an active, respected community leader who was founder and served as President of his neighborhood homeowners association. He served his spiritual community as a eucharistic minister at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Roman Catholic Church, as a Bible study leader at work, as a Promise Keepers participant, and as a true servant of God. At work, Joe's quiet dedication and professionalism set an outstanding example for others in the service of our Nation. Joseph joined the Postal Service family in 1985, following in his father's footsteps. His assignments may have changed over the years, first to the flat sorting machine and then to automation, but his personality and inspiration were always solid anchors for those he worked with. Joseph P. Curseen, Jr.'s legacy is one of love for his God, for his wife, for his family, for his church, for his community, and for his coworkers. Thomas L. Morris, Jr. was born in Washington, D.C. in 1946, the first of three children born to Eva and Thomas Lee Earl Morris. He has two sisters, Yvonne Hankerson and Sheila Howard. Educated in the public schools of the District of Columbia, he continued to learn and teach throughout every day of his life. For 11 years, Thomas was married to his wife Mary, and to their union was born one son, Thomas L. Morris III. They also shared two stepchildren, Tara Underwood and Akai Snorten, and three grandchildren. Thomas was a kind and private man. He shared his emotions fully and happily with those who were closest to him. He derived great pleasure from the warmth of his loving family. One of his passions was bowling, where he served as President of the Tuesday Morning Mixed League at Parkland Bowl. Thomas was faithful to his church, Kendall Baptist. He was dedicated to his country and served honorably in the United States Air Force for more than 4 years. His choice of more than a 30-year career with the Postal Service was further reflection of his commitment to serving the people of our Nation. Starting his postal career as a government mail distribution clerk in 1973, Thomas' varied assignments took him through other tours and sections at the Brentwood facility, including a promotion to general expediter. Just 3 years ago, Thomas's duties took him full circle, with a return to the government mail section. During the course of his distinguished career, he was honored on four occasions with outstanding performance and service awards. Thomas L. Morris led a life marked by devotion to his family, his friends, and his coworkers. He shared the lessons he learned with those he knew and loved and learned life's lessons from all he came in contact with. These two dedicated Federal employees have been honored by their leaders and coworkers with the Postmaster General's Medal of Freedom. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring these men today by redesignating the Brentwood Postal Facility in their names.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor Mildred C. Parsons, a constituent in my district who recently retired from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. With the recent controversial security revelations and the new reorganization of the Homeland Security Department, we have not heard much positive news about our Nation's security agencies. Despite what we often hear or see in the media, there are many dedicated individuals who are working diligently within these agencies. In particular, I would like to commend Ms. Mildred Parsons of Takoma Park, Maryland, affectionately called ``Millie'' by her co-workers, for her tremendous service. Ms. Parsons, who retired from the FBI in June at the age of 88, was recognized with an article in the Washington Post, which I would like to enter into the official House Record. In 62 years, 9 months, and 2 days, Ms. Parsons never once called in sick to work and retired in June with over 6,000 hours in sick leave. She has been called an ``institution within an institution'' by her former supervisor at the field office. I would like to again thank Ms. Parsons for her wonderful and diligent service, and wish her a wonderful retirement. Judging from the article on her, she still has a lot of spunk left. I think all of us can learn a lot from Ms. Parsons' spirit, hard work, and determination. Thank you Ms. Parsons, your hard work is the foundation upon which our Nation was built. [From the Washington Post, June 29, 2002] Not a Single Sick Day in 62 Years (By Allan Lengel) Mildred Parsons, bucking the very laws of nature, worked as an FBI secretary in Washington for 62 years, 9 months and 2 days--never once calling in sick. Yesterday, clad in a bright-pink dress suit adorned with a white corsage, Parsons, 88, the longest-serving employee in FBI history, retired. Her final day on the job included a visit to the office of the director, Robert S. Mueller III, and a party, during which former and current co-workers showered her with hugs and unbridled adulation. ``No, I'm not going to cry,'' she told well-wishers. ``It is sad, but at the same time, it's nice. Everyone has to retire sometime. It's time for me to leave.'' In nearly 63 years on the job, Parsons, known as Millie, had a headache or two and a cold, but no ailment serious enough to make her stay home. ``I may have sneezed or something, or had a little bit of a cold,'' she said. ``If I had a headache, I just went in there. If I was around people, I would forget.'' Parsons said she doesn't take vitamins or use secret herbs. ``I eat whatever I want,'' she said. ``I eat a lot of TV dinners, whatever sounds good or looks good at the time.'' She gets some exercise. There's ballroom dancing and the six-block walk to the bus to stop each workday, and back again, from her home in suburban Maryland. But she credited her good health to the joy of ``being around people.'' Parsons's sick-free record became a matter of pride--and legend--at the FBI. In the early 1990s, FBI agent Frank Scafidi pulled a prank, altering her pay-check stub to reflect an hour of sick leave. Furious, she got on the phone to FBI headquarters--then learned it was a joke. Her boss, Van Harp, who heads the FBI Washington field office near Judiciary Square, called her ``an institution within an institution.'' Co-workers described her as witty, with a good sense of humor but also a serious side. She liked to take charge, they said, and she paid great attention to detail. ``She was a stickler for everything. . . . You have to have every comma in place, every `i' dotted,'' said Donna Cummings, administrative assistant to Harp. ``But she liked to party and have a good time.'' After graduating from high school in Frederick in 1930, Parsons worked at the old Woodward & Lothrop department store in the District. In 1939, she took a job as a clerk-typist at FBI headquarters, moving to the Washington field office in 1940. By the end of her career yesterday, she had worked under six FBI directors and 30 bosses at the field office. ``People ask who my favorite boss was,'' she said. ``That's something I do not discuss. I enjoyed working for the majority of them. Everyone had a little different style, which made it more interesting.'' Some notable moments included being summoned to the office of J. Edgar Hoover, who wanted to give her a 10-year anniversary pin for her service. ``He was very, very nice, very formal,'' recalled Parsons. She also remembers the time she spoke with Shirley Temple. Her boss in the early 1950s, who was from California, had friends in Hollywood. One day, he asked her to get the actress on the phone. ``I gave her my name. I said, `I think I've seen all your movies.' . . . I had to tell her that.'' Parsons was always discreet about discussing her work. She wouldn't even share FBI information with her husband, who drove her to work every day until his death in 1967. With leisure at hand, she plans to continue with ballroom dancing and keep up with her favorite television program, ``JAG.'' Other than that, ``I have no plans. . . . I can't help but miss [the FBI]. I mean, I've been here for over 62 years. It will probably take a while to get adjusted.''

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Morella amendment. I represent 72,000 Federal employees. I think this so-called ``flexibility'' is a great mistake. It abrogates employee rights and ultimately it undermines their moral. Our greatest asset is our human capital. We cannot expect our fellow employees to protect homeland security if we undermine their employment security. The Morella amendment provides a compromise. It allows the President to say if they are engaged in investigative work relating to counterterrorism, relating to the war on terrorism, they can abrogate those rights. If they do not, if they are performing administrative or clerical functions not relating to investigations, they retain their bargaining rights. Support the Morella amendment.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in remembering and paying tribute to Special Agent John Michael Gibson and Officer Jacob Joseph Chestnut. Two valiant federal employees who, in a selfless act of heroism, made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country on July 24, 1998. Special Agent John Michael Gibson was a religious man, a family man. He always made time for his wife and their three children. He is remembered as a kind, honest, devout, caring and giving human being who was loved and respected by his friends, colleagues, and his community. As are many employees on Capitol Hill, Officer Jacob Joseph Chestnut was a resident of the 4th Congressional District of Maryland. Not only is he missed by the Department, but also the Maryland community suffers without the benefit of his kind and gentle spirit. A retired Air Force Master Sergeant and a 18 year veteran of the United States Capitol Police, Officer J.J. Chestnut was a model federal employee and a gentle human being. A husband and father of five, he was an individual who, by his deeds, made an indelible mark on the lives of all those he came in contact with as he performed his duties protecting the Members, staff and visitors to the United States Capitol, and in his service to his community. It is only fitting that we honor this individual, who has brought honor to his family; his community; his organizations, the United States Capitol Police and the United States Air Force; and his country with his dedicated service and human kindness. As a result of a bill that I introduced, and as a token of appreciation from a grateful nation, the United States Postal Service building at 11550 Livingston Road, Fort Washington, Maryland was designated the ``Jacob Joseph Chestnut Post Office Building, on April 8, 2000. Mr. Speaker, it is only fitting that we honor and cherish the memories of these brave men. I hope their families can continue to take comfort in knowing that many throughout the nation, including myself, remain in prayer for them and the U.S. Capitol Police Department.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and extend my compliments to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that have brought this bill forward. I think it is a good piece of work, although I have some questions. Our most important resource in homeland security is human capital. I represent 72,000 Federal employees, and I rise to take exception to the so-called flexibility provisions. I fear they will result in lower morale and, thus, less effectiveness. This bill undermines the rights and protections currently afforded to Federal employees and in certain cases creates unfairness. The bill allows the new Department after 1 year to reduce the pay of employees transferred from other agencies. The bill would allow the Department to establish a new human resource management system, one that is different from other Federal employees, and leaves to the discretion of the Secretary whether the new system would apply to all or just some organizational units. In addition, the bill undercuts the ability of unions to represent employees. The bill would allow the Secretary the authority to exempt some employees from organizing unions. Currently only the President has that authority. Second, those allowed to organize would not necessarily be afforded current features such as agency recommendation of unions as the exclusive representatives of employees, a right to have union representation at grievances, and the requirement to mediate disputes with unions in the case of an impasse. The bill allows the Department to establish its own appeal system rather than taking appeals to the Merit System Protection Board or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I understand that some flexibility is necessary. However, in this respect the bill uses a meat-ax approach more akin to union busting. Many of these proposed personnel changes are not rationally linked to security functions. The tragedy of September 11 was linked to a lack of coordination, information-sharing, and intelligence failures, not unionization and not the existing grievance procedures. We are asking our Federal employees for more to help us with homeland security while we undermine their employment security. This is a wrong-headed approach which I hope we will correct as we move forward in this process.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 385, a resolution supporting research on tests used to screen for ovarian cancer. Currently, among women in the United States, cancer of the ovary ranks fifth in the number of women affected. Approximately half of the women with ovarian cancer die within five years. Therefore, the need to detect and treat ovarian cancer in its earliest stages is critical. This resolution would express support for the National Institutes of Health to conduct or support research on the effectiveness of screening technologies to detect ovarian cancer. With improved technologies we will be able to better detect ovarian cancer in its initial stages. H. Con. Res. 385 is about improving the quality of life of our loved ones--mothers, daughters, sisters, wives and friends. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. WYNN

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

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do intend to withdraw this amendment, but I want to bring to the attention of the House, and more importantly, the American people a very important issue, and that is, contracting out and whether the American taxpayer is receiving best value. Some people have characterized this issue as private contractors versus Federal employees. It is not. The issue before us today is whether the American taxpayer is getting best value for the services we contract out. The essence of this amendment is to ensure that there is transparency and scrutiny of government contractors to determine whether the American public is receiving best value, both quantitatively and qualitatively, by establishing a centralized reporting by each agency of its contracting efforts. In recent years, the notion that outsourcing is the most cost- efficient approach to providing government services has gained considerable momentum. However, when we asked the Government Accounting Office to tell us how many contracts were being let by the Federal Government, who was involved and how much the savings were, they could not tell us, and they said they could not tell us because there was no centralized accounting so that they could identify how much each agency was doing. In the absence of accountability and congressional oversight, indiscriminate outsourcing and privatization of government services will grow with no guarantee of actual cost savings. My amendment is very simple. It will require that each agency establish a centralized reporting system on its contracting practices. The reports submitted to the director of the Office of Management and Budget would include the contract number and the Federal supply class of service code; a statement of why the contracting effort was undertaken; the name of the supervisors and officials involved; the cost of Federal employee performance at the time the work was contracted out, if the work had been previously performed by Federal employees. It would also report the anticipated cost of contractor performance and the cost of, the anticipated cost and the actual cost of contract performance, and most importantly, the reports would include the actual savings, if any, compared with performance by Federal employees. The number of contract employees would also be listed. This oversight responsibility would be accomplished by submitting these reports to the Committee on Government Reform in the House and the Committee on Government Affairs in the Senate. The director of the Office of Management and Budget would publish in the Federal Register notices of when the reports would be available to the public so that the public could determine if they are getting best value. Currently, agencies do not closely monitor the cost efficiency of the billions of dollars in contracting out and privatization. There is no oversight of contracts after they have been awarded to compare past costs with current costs or to consider the potential effects of cost overruns. If outsourcing and privatization are to work, it must be transparent. It must be truthful. All the parties must be disclosed, identified and held responsible and accountable for their actions. My amendment very simply would add basic safeguards such as reporting and oversight, two that are currently missing from the process. I believe this is a good amendment and an important issue for this Congress.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5120, the Treasury- Postal appropriations bill. This bill includes $45 million in funding to build a much-needed, state-of-the-art laboratory for the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Devices and Radiological Health. This project is a critical component of the overall consolidation of the Food and Drug Administration. I would like to, of course, thank the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Istook), for his work and single out for thanks and appreciation to my Maryland colleague (Mr. Hoyer) who has been very active on behalf of the consolidation of the Food and Drug Administration. Currently, nearly 6,000 FDA Washington-area employees are housed in commercially leased space at approximately 39 different streetfront buildings, many of which are vulnerable to attack. This FDA consolidation would transfer all 6,000 FDA employees to state-of-the- art laboratory and administrative facilities at the White Oak campus in Silver Spring, Maryland, facilitating easier communications between the FDA employees and the various centers. At a time when we are reorganizing the government for purposes of homeland security, the most important thing we can do is actually secure something. We have that opportunity to do that in this bill by providing a secure, fenced campus setting in White Oak, Maryland, formerly the Naval Surface Warfare Center. By moving the FDA to a government-owned facility at White Oak, the consolidation is expected to yield savings of approximately $300 million in government lease costs over 10 years. The $45 million included in this bill will be used to construct laboratories for the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, which improves mammography scanners, x-ray machinery, and irradiation devices used to kill bacteria in food and in mail. Currently, several such labs are housed in old, dilapidated, leased buildings scheduled for demolition in 2004. Importantly, this funding in the fiscal year 2003 budget means the construction of these labs will likely be finished by 2004, several months prior to the expiration to the leases in three separate facilities. This means savings of millions of dollars for the taxpayer in lease space and multiple moves. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is an excellent bill. I also note that it includes $177 million for the construction of a new Census facility in Suitland. I urge my colleagues to support the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, as we approach Independence Day, I submit for the Record a speech given in my Congressional District on Memorial Day, by James E. Merna of 7503 Dover Lane, Lanham, Maryland, honoring the heroism of veterans from Prince George's County, Maryland, that have fought to protect our freedoms. Honoring Five Sons of Prince George County, Maryland, That Have Fought to Protect Our Freedoms (By James E. Merna, Former Maryland State Commandant, Marine Corps League) Thank you Mayor Harrington, Councilwoman Marion Hoffman, Bill Hickey, other Town of Bladensburg elected and appointed officials, members of American Legion Post 131, leaders of other veterans organizations, and fellow veterans. Thank you for inviting me. I am pleased to be here. The town and citizens of Bladensburg should take great pride for the many years you have conducted ceremonies such as this. Bladensburg is not only a historic town--a famous port town--it is also a very patriotic town. Thanks also to Colmar Manor American Legion Post 131 for helping to make these events happen. Memorial Day, as it is now observed, is a special day set aside to remember the service and sacrifice made by Americans who answered their country's call to duty in all wars--those who gave their lives, those who served and returned, those who were injured or disabled as a result of their service those who remain missing in action, and those who serve today in Afghanistan and around the world to defend freedom and to fight terrorism. In my remarks today, I want to talk about five brave Sons of Prince George's County, who answered their nation's call, and of their courage, devotion to duty, and personal sacrifice. I believe it is a message for all, but especially for our young people, Better role model other than their parents or close relatives, they could not have. I stress younger people in light of an announcement from the U.S. Department of Education this mouth that said ``More than half of America's high school seniors do not have even the most basic grasp of U.S. history, showing no improvement in a nationwide test since 1994.'' The Education Department issued a national history ''report card`` which measured the performance last year of fourth, eighth and 12th graders in history. Students did not know, for instance, that America's fundamental belief in individual liberty was expressed in the Declaration of Independence, or that the image of UNCLE SAM was used to appeal to patriotism during wartime. Educators said the results were ``truly abysmal,'' pointing out that the higher the grade and closer a student was to voting age, the lower the understanding of U.S. history. In grade 12, only 43 percent of students had a basic or proficient knowledge of history. More than a third of fourth graders and nearly 40 percent of eighth graders also did not have a basic understanding of the subject. The Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, stressed that ``basic'' is the bottom of the achievement ladder. And, he said, they didn't even reach that--``the lowest rung.'' In this complex day and age, this is troublesome. History is a key component of our nation's school curriculum, and it is through history that we understand our past and contemplate our future. Especially following the September 11 attacks that targeted U.S. democracy. It is appalling that some of the questions that stumped students involved the most fundamental concepts of America's democracy. Our work is cut out for us--we need more enlightened students--and better trained history teachers. The first notable Son of Prince George's County that I want to mention, is one of your very own, a life-long resident of Bladensburg. When I think of him, I'm reminded of the many great songs that were popular during World War II. And I'm referring to records, not CD's, tapes, or DVD's. Among the best in my opinion, were three: (1) There'll be Bluebirds Over, the White Cliffs of Dover,'' sung by Vera Lynn (2) ``Long Ago and Far Away,'' made famous by Jo Stafford, and (3) ``When the Lights Go On Again, All Over the, World,'' sung by Vaughn Monroe. This individual, I am about to name, and many others of his generation exemplified the very ideals inscribed at the base of this Peace Cross Memorial: endurance, courage, devotion, and valor. Because of their wartime service and sacrifice, they made it possible for the bluebirds once again to fly over the White Cliffs of Dover, for the lights to come on again all over the world, in a global struggle long ago and far away. Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to join with me in applause for one of your finest citizens, a World War II Navy veteran of many battles in the Pacific, a venerable gentleman who will celebrate his 88th birthday in August, the Chairman- Emeritus of Bladensburg's Promotions Committee--Mr. Bill Hickey. Let us never forget that we have yet to erect a Memorial on the Mall in Washington for our World War 11 veterans, and we're losing these veterans at an astounding rate of 1500 a day. Like all of you, I want to see that overdue Memorial built--and soon, as a tribute to the Bill Hickey's and all our World War II veterans. I have a personal interest in this Memorial as well. My oldest brother George was killed in action in World War II. He went down with his ship, LST 577, sunk by a torpedo from a Japanese submarine in the Philippines, on February 11, 1945. He was 19 years old Let me mention another truly outstanding Son of Prince George's County--one who epitomized the motto of those long ago great Notre Dame football teams coached by the legendary Knute Rockne. Coach Rockne once said the motto of his teams was: Don't Let Your Buddy Down''--a motto which he admitted he borrowed from our Marine Corps on the battlefields of World War I. Captain Jim Graham grew up in Prince George's County, in Accokeek, finished high school in Brandywine, and graduated from Frostburg State College in 1963. His family later lived in Forestville. He was a career Marine officer serving in Vietnam in 1967. Listen to this stirring account of Captain Graham's heroic actions as described by General Lewis W. Walt, former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps: ``Captain Jim Graham was a young company commander serving with our 5th Marine Regiment in Vietnam. His company, while in the attack, came under heavy fire from mortars and small arms which immediately inflicted large numbers of casualties in his Second Platoon. Graham, upon seeing this, organized and boldly led a fierce assault through the Second Platoon's position, forcing the enemy to abandon the machine gun position, thereby relieving some of the pressure on the platoon and enabling evacuation of the wounded to a more secure area. During the afternoon and early evening, Graham's small force stood steadfast in its hard-won enclave. He was wounded twice while personally accounting for 15 enemies killed. His battalion commander ordered him to withdraw to friendly lines. Graham reacted by sending all of his men back except one man who could not be moved due to the seriousness of his wounds. He apologized to his battalion commander for not completely carrying out the order to withdraw, but said ``I just can't leave this young Marine, keep the firing coming through Colonel, we are hurting them.'' About 20 minutes later, Captain Graham radioed: ``This is my last transmission. I am being assaulted by at least 25 of them. It's been a pleasure soldiering with you.'' Captain Jim Graham was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for his heroic deeds that day.'' A year later, I had the privilege to attend a ceremony at 8th and I, Marine Barracks, Washington, DC when Captain Graham's widow, Janice, accepted the Nation's highest award, the Congressional Medal of Honor, in her husband's name. It was the first Medal of Honor to be awarded to a Marylander in the Vietnam War. Another Prince George's great, the late Maryland State Senator Ed Conroy, was a highly decorated army Korean War hero who led the defense of Heartbreak Ridge. He was severely wounded twice, lost an arm and sustained burns over 90 percent of his body. Among his decorations were the Silver Star, and two Purple Hearts. Ed had a miraculous recovery and went on to earn a law degree from Georgetown University. He never forgot his fellow veterans and was known in the Maryland Senate as the champion legislator for all veterans legislation. I had the pleasure to organize a testimonial dimer for Ed when he was elected as National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans. On many occasions when I would introduce him, he would have me say with pride that he was ``the closest to a Marine without being a Marine.'' We miss Ed and his tireless energy. A great patriot. Many of you, I'm sure, know Ed's widow, Mary Conroy. She serves Prince George's County today with much distinction, as a Member of the House of Delegates in Annapolis. Moving along, I want to mention two other notable Sons of Prince George's County who served their nation with honor in Vietnam: Charles E. ``Butch'' Joeckel, Jr., and John Clements, both distinguished combat Marines. Butch Jeckel was raised in Colmar Manor, within walking distance of this monument. He graduated from Bladensburg High School in 1965, joined the Marines in 1966, and went to Vietnam in 1967. He was a 20-year-old squad leader and only in Vietnam three months when his river boat was ambushed during the Tet Offensive in January 1968. While searching out a suspected enemy position ashore, one of his men inadvertently stepped on a land mine, triggering an explosion which blew off both of Butch's legs above the knee. Seven other Marines were wounded by the blast. Despite his severe injuries, Butch maintained exceptional presence of mind and called for a medical evacuation and directed the clearing of a helicopter landing zone. As is the case with all seriously wounded servicemen and those killed in action, a military officer is usually assigned to make personal contact with the family. The casualty notification officers, as they are called, was in Butch's case, a Marine Lieutenant just back from Vietnam. It was my brother, Jerry Merna. When Jerry got back home that night, in Alexandria, Va., he called to let me know he had just been in Colmar Manor, visiting with Butch's parents. He let me know of the severity of Butch's wounds. For me, that was the beginning of a 34-year friendship, to this day, with Butch. I soon rounded up a few other former Marines and we visited Butch at the Philadelphia Naval Hospital. In fact, we brought him home once he was discharged, back to his boyhood home--at 3605 40th Place, in Colmar Manor, where his dad, a World War II veteran, still lives. On the way home, we made a detour, to Peter Connell's Restaurant on Annapolis Road, now called The Italian Inn, for ``refreshments.'' I was with Butch at a ceremony at Headquarters Marine Corps when he was awarded the Silver Star, the nation's third highest award for bravery in combat. It was presented to him by four-star General Lewis W. Walt, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps. Earlier, in the Korean War, General Walt was my Commanding Officer, when he commanded the 5th Marine Regiment, First Marine Division. When pinning the medal on Butch, General Walt said, ``This is one of the proudest moments of my military career, for I am more proud of Butch than of any Marine I know.'' That was quite a compliment coming from someone like General Walt, who during his military career, won two Navy Crosses and the Silver Star in World War II, the Legion of Merit, and the Bronze Star in Korea, and the Distinguished Service Medal as the Commander of Marines in Vietnam. This was not the first meeting Butch had with General Walt. Back on July 6, 1968, thirty-four years ago, I had the pleasure of organizing a Welcome Home Parade for Butch. The parade commenced right here at this very site, the Peace Cross, and marched all the way down Bladensburg Road to the DC line. My Prince George's County Detachment of the Marine Corps League and the American Legion Post 131 in Colmar Manor, co-chaired the event. We had the county proclaim that day, July 6, 1968, as Butch Joeckel Day. Youth groups, veterans groups, community service organizations, high school marching bands, the Marine Corps Band, and troops from each of the military services marched proudly in Butch's honor that day. The grand marshal of the parade was General Walt, just back from Vietnam himself. Admittedly, and unfortunately, there weren't many parades for returning Vietnam Veterans in those days, but we had one, right here in Prince George's County. It was a huge success, and was nationally televised by ABC-TV. One last word about Butch. He went on to a very distinguished career. He earned his college degree, then decided he wanted to help his fellow veterans. He took a low- level position in the Washington office of the Disabled American Veterans, and then went on to head up not only the Washington office, but the entire national organization itself, with more than one million members strong. He lives in Annapolis now, is married with two grown children, and is a grandfather. He's currently serving on a presidential disability commission. But he's never forgotten his roots. In an interview with the Capital newspaper in Annapolis not too long ago, he said, ``I've been working in veterans affairs since I came back in 1968. It's in my heart. I felt like I had to give back to my community because they were great to me. I got a welcome home parade in my hometown. Not many did.'' Finally, a word about John Clements. John was raised in Cheverly, and graduated from DeMatha High School. John was a contemporary of Butch's, and like Butch, joined the Marines right out of high school. He went off to Vietnam where he won three Purple Hearts. He was seriously wounded and spent a long time hospitalized. I visited John at Bethesda Naval Hospital a number of times. The doctors wanted to amputate one of John's legs, but through perseverance and much prayer, he was able to convince them otherwise. John has gotten by since then with the use of a cane. Like Butch, John too wanted to help his fellow veterans, and went on to a successful career with the Veterans Administration designing prosthetic equipment for disabled veterans. In closing, as we leave here today, let us affirm to remember Memorial Day for what it was intended to be--a day of recognition, honor, and respect, and not just a three-day holiday. Let us remember our fallen comrades--those who fought and died for freedom, and the children, spouses and parents they left behind. Let us never forget those who returned, many disabled. If we can remember these worthy veterans on Memorial Day, we ought to honor them on Election Day. Let's do all in our power to put more upcoming Ed Conroy's in City Hall, on the County Council, in our State House, and in the Congress. We have the opportunity to do so with elections coming up in the Fall. They served us so well in war--and they would do as well in preserving the peace. Our very own heroes--Bill Hickey in World War II, Ed Conroy in Korea, and Captain Jim Graham, Butch Joeckel, and John Clements in Vietnam--they represent the best that America has to offer. They are object lessons themselves. They made history. Hopefully, our young people will be inspired by their example. If America is to remain great, it may indeed depend on how well we continue to inspire our youth to excel. Our noted Sons of Prince George's County have shown the way. Thank you--and God Bless America.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how you measure greatness in the modern world, but if in fact America is the greatest country in the world, then it seems to me we ought to be able to provide prescription drug coverage to our seniors. Unfortunately, the Republican prescription drug plan that is going to be brought to the floor is best symbolized by the hole in the doughnut, too much cost for too little coverage when compared with the Democratic alternative. Take a look at the premiums: the Democratic alternative, $25 fixed in statute. The Republican premium, not in statute, fluctuates. It may be $35. It may be $85. Probably at least $50. Clearly, the Democrat plan is better. Deductible: Democrats, $100 deductible; Republicans, $200 deductible. Copay: Democrats, 20 percent; Republicans, after the first $1,000, 50 percent copay. Clearly, too much cost, too little coverage. Finally, stop loss. Between $2,000 and $3,700, and the taxpayer pays the bill. There is no coverage, no protection whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad plan, and we ought to reject it in the land of the great.