Albert Wynn

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] for allowing me to speak and also for his hard work. I also would like to recognize the work of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor]. Mr. Chairman, although I disagree with much in the bill, I do agree that we do need to give a raise to our local police officers in the District of Columbia, and that is included in the bill. For that, I am appreciative. On the other hand, I do take great exception to this notion of vouchers that is included in the bill. We should make no mistake; when we hear the Republicans say they are providing scholarships, which sounds like a great idea, they are not; they are providing vouchers, which takes taxpayers' money out of public schools and puts that taxpayers' money into private schools. I think that is wrong. Mr. Chairman, the District of Columbia government is not without its shortcomings. I represent Prince George's and Montgomery Counties. I am their neighbor, and I know. But they have also made tremendous progress. The fact of the matter is, the District of Columbia is not a plantation to accommodate the whims of certain Members of Congress, nor is it a laboratory in which we can experiment on the people of the District of Columbia. It is an elected democratic government, and it deserves respect, and it deserves the right to make its own decisions. Government does have a role. We in Congress do have a role. We exercise that role by putting in place the Control Board to assist in the management of the District of Columbia. But now this bill would supersede the role of the Control Board and try to micromanage government. It does so particularly in the area of vouchers. Mr. Chairman, this bill takes $45 million over 5 years out of the District of Columbia and it gives it to 2,000 students. That leaves behind 76,000 students who need their roof repaired in their schools, that need new books, that need technological improvements, that need teachers with better pay, that need better overall facilities. They say, ``We are doing this to help the poorest of the poor. We are doing this to help the people who are really needy.'' The problem is, it leaves behind the middle class, the working class, the people who pay the taxes in the District of Columbia. Their children do not get the benefit of this latest experiment, and, again, I think that that is wrong. Mr. Chairman, I urge that this body adopt the Moran substitute. It is a balanced, fair approach, and it respects the sovereignty and dignity of the citizens of the District of Columbia.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, today Democrats want to improve education in America. We want to do it because education is the key to our democracy. We want to do it, more importantly, because education is the key to our children's future. In the first instance, Democrats believe we need national standards. The fact is that algebra is the same whether a student is from Maine, Missouri or whether they are from my State of Maryland. We need to be able to measure whether our students can master algebra and other subjects so they can compete against their foreign counterparts. We need national standards. Second, we need school construction funds. We hear the Republicans jump up and say, oh, schools are a local issue. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they are a local issue. But the fact again is that local communities need help. We have crumbling schools. Almost a third of our schools need repairs. They need to fix broken windows and leaking roofs. We have overcrowded schools all over America. Mr. Speaker, we here in Congress have a duty and responsibility to help local communities. Families play the most critical role, but families cannot build schools alone. Families cannot repair roofs alone. We need a national education agenda that the Democrats are pushing.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] for yielding and for his leadership during this process, as well as I would like to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], our ranking member on the Committee on the Budget. They did a good job. This is a good bill, and I intend to support it. It is not a perfect bill. There are legitimate criticisms. The rich still get richer. But the fact of the matter is, we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and this is a good bill. It provides tax relief that my constituents in Maryland can use. They can use a child tax credit because they are trying to put young people through college so they can get better jobs. They can certainly use a child tax credit so that they can buy necessities, perhaps fix a car, perhaps buy clothes for a child, perhaps simply buy groceries. This is not going to solve all the problems of the world, but it is an important movement in the right direction. We can remain here and bicker and try to make this a better bill, or we could pass this bill and begin sending child tax relief to needy families, sending education tax credits to people who want to get higher education, and also giving a break to those people who invest in our people through a capital- gains break. It is a balanced bill. It is a good bill. I hope my colleagues will support it.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to the Klug amendment. I believe it is ill-considered. The fact of the matter is that GPO has been reducing its work force. Since 1993 they reduced by 25 percent, from 4,800 to 3,600. This year's appropriation request is for 3,500. But the gentleman wants to go further, and in going further he would have us make 400 RIFs; that is, 400 people thrown out in the street, within about 65 days, and that will cost the Government money. Mr. Chairman, I would like to close on something that the gentleman from New York said in accepting the amendment. He said the fact of the matter is we need to evaluate GPO. But rather than evaluate first and then make policy, the Klug amendment would make policy in the absence of any study, any evaluation, and just throw people out on the street. If GPO's mission needs to be reevaluated, we have it within our power to do it. That is the responsible approach. This is a meat ax approach. It ignores the progress that GPO has already made in reducing its work force, and it does not make sound public policy. Mr. Chairman, I urge a strenuous rejection of the Klug amendment.

Mr. WYNN

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

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am delighted to be offering this amendment this afternoon along with my colleague the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Hilliard]. I am also pleased to have been able to work with the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen]. I want to thank him for his cooperation in helping me with this amendment. This is a very simple amendment. It seeks to add $1.5 million to the Department of Agriculture's civil rights division. The purpose of this amendment and these additional funds is basically to assist the civil rights division in addressing its backlog of equal opportunity claims. Many of us on both sides of the aisle have said it is absolutely important that we address the problem of discrimination with our existing EEO laws. These additional funds will enable us to do that in an efficient way. The Secretary has said that with additional funds he can address the backlog with additional investigators and we can begin to move forward in resolving these complaints. We also have concerns about the problems and the plight of the black farmers in America, and these funds will also enable some of those concerns to be addressed. So I believe there is bipartisan support for this approach, and I am pleased to be here, as I say, with the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for her outstanding work on this measure. I do not believe we have any speakers in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, on that basis I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, it appears as though the Republicans are going to treat us to another episode of their favorite show, Robin Hood in reverse. He takes from the poor and the middle class to give to the rich. This is also known by the term ``tax relief for the rich.'' The issue is not whether there ought to be a tax refund. The issue is tax fairness. If you look at the Republican tax package, 60 percent of the tax benefits go to the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans. They give millionaires $12,000 to $24,000 in tax relief through estate taxes and indexed capital gains, but when we suggest that teachers, bus drivers, entry-level policemen ought to get a child tax credit, they have the audacity to say that is welfare. No, that is tax fairness. The working people, the working middle class in America ought to get the lion's share of the tax relief, not the wealthy millionaires who are collecting large capital gains tax breaks. We believe in tax fairness. The Democrats are advocating a child tax credit for everyone. When they had their Contract on America, they said it was a good idea: Give working America a tax break. They reneged on that promise. Promises made, promises broken.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 972.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to talk about taxes, but I want to talk about it in a little different way. I want to talk about tax fairness, because that is what this debate is really all about. The Republican tax plan gives 60 percent of the benefits in tax cuts to the richest 5 percent of Americans. We think that is wrong. We think working families, working Americans, ought to get the lion's share of the tax benefits. If Members look at the Republican plan, we will find something very interesting. They are willing to give a child tax credit of $500 per child for families making over $100,000 a year, but when we say we have a police officer who makes $25,000 a year, or perhaps a clerk that makes $30,000 a year, they say, no, they get the earned income tax credit so they should not get a child tax credit. That does not make sense. They have tax breaks for dinners, lunches, for travel, corporate welfare for building roads, corporate welfare for attending trade shows overseas; there are lots of tax breaks for the wealthy. That is OK. But now, today, we have an opportunity to have tax fairness for working families. That is what we ought to do.

Mr. WYNN

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

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concern. I too am appalled when I hear the Republicans suggest that the Democratic tax plan amounts to welfare. It is basically tax fairness. They are giving all of the tax breaks to the wealthy. The top 5 percent are getting over 50 percent of the tax breaks under their proposal, and then when we say that the Democratic alternative provides tax relief for the truly working middle class, they suggest it is welfare. I did a little research and an article in the Wall Street Journal indicated that a police officer in Gwinnett County, GA, incidentally the Speaker's district, makes about $23,000 a year. Under their program, he is not eligible for a tax break, yet he pays payroll taxes. He is, in fact, the working middle class of people who are excluded by the proposal of the Republicans. Basically what they are offering us is not tax relief for Americans, it is tax relief for the rich. My grandmother used to say when I was a kid, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. I think we are seeing it in action today.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to renewal of most- favored-nation status for the People's Republic of China. This is, basically, a question of fairness and of common sense. The fact of the matter is that we have a tremendous trade deficit with China. China does not allow U.S. products in. China imposes tremendously high and unfair tariffs. Mr. Speaker, this is simply a question of common sense. Our choice is not either isolate or engage. We also have the choice to negotiate, to say to China, ``We want to trade but on fair terms. You should not have such a trade imbalance. You should not block our products. You should not pirate our intellectual property. You should not trade arms to our enemies.'' These are things that we can negotiate while maintaining a relationship. People say, well, MFN will give us a better situation in all these areas. The fact of the matter is, we granted MFN last year and the situation got worse. In fact, our trade deficit this year is 41 percent worse than it was last year. So there is no empirical evidence that MFN has yielded results. We need trade, but we need fair trade and a measure of common sense.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about tax cuts, Democratic tax cuts. The issue today before America is not whether we should have tax cuts. The issue is who should benefit. The Republicans have an elitist view of tax cuts. That is to say, the rich would benefit. Two-thirds of their tax cuts go to the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans, Americans who make an average of $250,000 a year. On the other hand, the Democrats want tax cuts for the middle class and for the working class, those people making under $58,000 a year. In fact, three-fourths of the tax breaks in the Democratic tax package go to working Americans making under $58,000 a year. The Republicans talk about capital gains, but they give the capital gains tax breaks to the very wealthy. The Democrats, on the other hand, target capital gains tax breaks to working families, families who sell their homes, small businesses. The Democrats want tax breaks for the middle class. The Democrats want tax breaks. They want fair tax breaks.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to call for tax fairness, a simple proposition. Democrats have supported balanced budgets and Democrats support reasonable tax cuts, but not tax breaks exclusively for the wealthy. The American public needs to know that under the Republican approach to tax cuts, the top 35 percent, people making over $247,000 a year, will get two-thirds of the benefit. There is a Democratic alternative. We take a more Robin Hood approach to tax cuts. We suggest that two- thirds of the tax benefits ought to go to the middle class, people who make $40,000 and $50,000, people who make $20,000 and $30,000. So the proposition is really very simple. It is not a question of whether we want tax cuts. We want tax cuts. What we want are fair tax cuts that benefit most of the Americans in this country. That is the Democratic alternative: Targeted tax breaks to the middle class, not to the very wealthy.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me, and for her leadership, and the other Members, including the gentleman from Mississippi, for his leadership in preparing this budget. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of budgets on the floor today. What budgets do is reflect the Nation's priorities. I rise in support of the Black Caucus budget because I think it can best be described as an opportunity budget. A lot of people want to talk about more spending and this and that, and we have lower taxes. The issue is how we visualize America. We visualize it as a country of opportunity. We want to make sure that that opportunity becomes a reality as reflected in this budget. First, I like this budget because it talks about empowerment zones and enterprise communities. We do not have an urban policy in America. We do not have a rural policy in America. We do not have a policy to address the problems of poverty in America. We talk about it a lot, but we do very little. This budget provides $100 million for a second round of empowerment zones in enterprise communities. It will enable us to provide tax credits to encourage investments into both poor urban communities and poor rural communities, and other communities around the country in between that have pockets of poverty. I think that is very important. This is an opportunity budget because it talks about education. It provides funds for school construction. One-third of the schools in this country are in need of repair. This budget will provide educational opportunity by providing a basis upon which those schools can be repaired. We look across our country and we see our young people falling through the cracks. This budget addresses that problem by expanding opportunities in Head Start, a fundamental program that gives every child, regardless of its origins, a good start in life. I like the budget because it provides opportunities for young people. Summer youth employment programs, this budget also provides funds of over $2 billion for summer youth programs. We talk about what has happened with our teenagers, we talk about juvenile crime. The real solution is providing jobs. An important component of that is summer jobs. This budget enables us to do it. Finally in terms of opportunity, it provides educational opportunity by helping young people attend college. I think that is a good thing. I think it reflects America's values. I support the Black Caucus budget.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his hard work on this budget. I rise in support of this budget. It is not a perfect budget, but I do believe we need to pass a balanced budget to stimulate economic growth in America. This is not a perfect budget. The Black Caucus makes what I consider to be better investments. I am disappointed we were not able to provide money in this budget for school construction, and I think the tax cuts go too much to the wealthiest in America. But we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good and there are many good things in this budget: $35 billion in tuition tax credits, and tax deductions to help working families send their kids to college is a very good thing. Increasing Pell grants by $300 for over 300,000 additional young people is a very good thing. Coverage for 5 million uninsured children who do not have health insurance now is a very good thing. Improvements in last year's welfare reform bill to take care of some of the problems of our immigrant population is a good thing. This is not a perfect budget, it is a compromise. And as I say, neither side is completely happy. Maybe that means it is a good deal. I support the compromise budget.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time and also for his leadership on this issue. I rise in strong support of the Gekas amendment. I joined him in this amendment because it is the right thing to do. My fellow colleagues, public employees do not care about our negotiating leverage and our negotiating positions and our personal biases. Taxpayers who cannot get into parks, who cannot get passports, who cannot get fundamental services do not care about which side has leverage nor about which side is at fault. What they care about is responsible government. And responsible government is government that is open, functioning and ready to do business, ready to do the people's business. This amendment will enable us to keep the government running, and that is the right thing to do, regardless of which party we are in. Now, there are a lot of people running to the well and saying if we do this we will lock in cuts to education and to WIC and a lot of important programs. That is simply not true. The fact of the matter is, this amendment maintains the status quo. We can debate our differences. We may want to increase a program, we may want to decrease a program. While we work that out, let us keep the government up and running. That is what we are supposed to do. That is what this amendment accomplishes. There is not going to be any lock-in of cuts or anything like that. That is simply misinformation. I find it very ironic that 2 years ago on the Democratic side every single Member rushed down to this well and said, please, we need this continuing resolution. And not 100 percent. They were willing to accept 98 percent. I say this is a much better continuing resolution. I compliment my colleagues on the Republican side for their willingness to compromise. A 100 percent continuing resolution will accomplish our ends of maintaining the government while we negotiate our differences, and that makes common sense. I want to tell my colleagues what President Clinton said in 1996, or rather let me say this. A lot of people are walking around today saying there will not be a shutdown. We said that Christmas of 1995 and there was a shutdown over the Christmas holidays and Federal workers were out of work. The President said, ``Again, let me say I am convinced both sides want to balance the budget, but it is wrong, deeply wrong, to shut the government down while we negotiate.'' Let us heed the President's words and keep the government open.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time and also for his leadership on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Democratic alternative and in strong opposition to H.R. 3. The Democratic alternative is both tough and smart. It strikes the proper balance between toughness and also prevention. On the other hand, H.R. 3 is dumb and dumber. Let me be clear. I support charging violent juveniles as adults. The problem is we can already do it. In each and every State, the prosecutor can petition and the judge has the discretion, local judges that are elected or that are appointed locally have the discretion to charge juveniles as adults. So do not believe that this is a legitimate issue before the Congress today. We can address this problem. Prosecutors, police, the people on the front lines, however, will tell my colleagues that prosecution is not the answer. The issue is prevention. That is why this amendment is smart, because it puts most of the money into prevention programs that really matter, gang prevention, safe havens, programs that help divert young people from a life of crime. I said H.R. 3 was dumb and dumber. Here is why. Under their bill, only 12 States would qualify to get the money. They come up and tell Members how critical fighting juvenile crime is, but they introduce before this body a piece of legislation under which only 12 States could qualify; 38 States cannot qualify. Even the sponsors of this legislation could not get money into their own States. That is dumb. We need a balanced bill. The Democratic alternative meets that criterion.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, important new research has indicated that the first 3 years of a child's life are absolutely critical. They determine his future life successes, brain development, and the likelihood of becoming a productive citizen. That is why I find it strange that my Republican colleagues would eliminate 180,000 American women and children from the WIC Program. The WIC Program is an important nutrition program to help poor people have adequate nutrition. We are not talking about estate taxes, and no, we are not talking about capital gains taxes, we are simply talking about healthy food, milk, vegetables, fruits, the things Members would like for their family. We as Americans ought to practice true family values, and that means putting our funds behind a program that has proven to be successful. That is the WIC Program. The WIC Program can guarantee that every young child in America gets a healthy start. That is the first step in leading a productive life. I cannot understand why they think estate taxes are so important but do not think a healthy meal is equally important.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that most frustrates the American public is the failure of Congress to address the Nation's real business. Today the trustees of the Medicare system will make a report and talk about the real business, and that business is the problem of our Medicare trust fund going bankrupt in about the year 2002. The question then becomes what are we going to do about it? Or, rather, what is the Republican majority going to do about it? We believe that we can make prudent cuts and achieve savings that will solve this problem. The President has put that proposal out on the table. We can adjust it and avoid this bankruptcy. The question becomes, what does the Republican majority want to do? So far, their crown jewel is not solving Medicare but providing tax breaks that basically benefit the wealthy. The tax breaks that they have talked about amount to $300 billion over 5 years. Who gets that $300 billion in tax breaks? Not the average American. Rather, the richest 5 percent, people who make over $100,000 a year. My suggestion is this: Let us not give those big tax breaks, let us put the crown jewel back in the drawer, let us address the Nation's real business which is solving the Medicare problem. We can do that without giving tax breaks to the wealthy, and that is what we ought to do. Take care of the Nation's business.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 963.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the key issue here in reality is that private employees are not on an equal footing with private employers. That is why they call the employer the boss. The fact of the matter is that secretaries, construction workers, textile workers are vulnerable to the employer's decision regarding comp time. Whether they want comp time or not, it becomes abundantly clear that if you want your job, you better take the comp time. Studies have indicated that as much as 64 percent of the working population prefers overtime pay to comp time, because overtime pay sends kids to college and overtime pay helps you buy a house. Employees in the first instance cannot decide whether they want comp time because the employer will make that decision and make it clear. Second, they cannot decide whether they want to use the comp time, because the employer can decide, well, you will unduly disrupt my business. So all of those stories you heard about how people can go to their school plays and they can have time with their children and their sick relatives really does not apply if the employer says you cannot have it. We prefer real time. The fact of the matter is that overtime pay is in your hands. You can spend it or not spend it. Comp time is in the boss's hands. He can tell you whether you can spend it and when you can spend it, and that is the fundamental problem. They go on to say, we have all of these employer protections. Well, you do not really have protections, because the Labor Department is already overburdened trying to enforce the minimum wage and fair labor standards. Who is going to go out and enforce all of these new laws? I do not think that that is a realistic proposal. The fact of the matter is many of these companies are undercapitalized. When they go under, your comp time goes under. Many of these companies are fly-by-night. When they leave, your comp time leaves. The problem is that the employee cannot be adequately protected. The Labor Department does not have the adequate resources to take on these additional responsibilities. We have a good system now that works, that protects employees and provides them with the thing they need, and that is a paycheck so that moderate income families can have additional resources. We should not compromise this with this radical comp time proposal.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for allowing me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the committee's bipartisan bill to decertify Mexico with the waiver. The fact of the matter is that 75 percent of the cocaine that comes into the United States comes from Mexico. Approximately 25 percent of the heroin that comes into this country comes from Mexico. Now, my point today is not to lambast the Mexican people. They are certainly fine people. Not to lambast the Mexican police. Many have given their lives for this cause. But the fact of the matter is that the Mexican Government has not complied with our law with respect to full cooperation. That is American law. We only certify if there is full cooperation. There is not full cooperation. The fact of the matter is that the Mexican drug czar is in league with drug cartels. The fact of the matter is that he lived in a luxury apartment supplied by a major drug dealer. The fact of the matter is that our DEA could not track him because Mexican officials were tracking them. The fact of the matter is there are 150 extradition requests still pending in Mexico where we have requested that they send drug traffickers back to this country for prosecution. I have to say that I am very concerned when I hear people say, well, this is totally a demand problem. It is not a demand problem, but it is easy to wag your finger at poor kids in the ghettos. It is much harder to take on official corruption, and that is the dual standard that I take offense at. We should not smooth over this incident. We should say that Mexico has not cooperated fully. But rather, people would like to have harsher penalties on teenagers and mandatory sentences for teenagers. Well, there is a place for that. But there is also a place to stand up and say to the Mexican Government that we expect better performance, we expect a higher standard. We should not continue to allow business as usual. We will never convince kids in poor communities that we are serious about fighting the war against drugs when all they see is us shaking hands with governments that do business with drug dealers. Mr. Speaker, I think we can do better; I think the committee has proposed a fair policy, which is to decertify with the waiver.