Albert Wynn

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, by now it is abundantly clear that the Republican leadership wants to kill the minimum wage with a poison pill. Let me explain. Right now 80 percent of the American population wants a raise in the minimum wage. There is bipartisan majorities in both Houses who support an increase in the minimum wage. Today we will have a bill to increase the minimum wage. So what is the problem? Where is the pill? Well, in this bill there is an amendment that would exempt two-thirds of the companies from the requirements of the bill. That is to say, two-thirds of the companies would not have to pay the minimum wage, which means up to 10 million workers would not get the minimum wage. So we are witnessing today a sham, a minimum wage bill that the people want, that the majorities in Congress want, but that the Republican leadership refuses to bring forward. They will not bring forward a clean minimum wage. They would rather perpetrate this sham and undermine real minimum wage increases.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, when you prepare a budget, if you do not allocate as much funds as are projected, that is called a cut. You can ask the generals when you talk about defense spending. If you do not allocate projected funds, it is called a cut. The same is true in Medicare, and that is why once again I would say that in fact the Republicans are cutting Medicare. Their budget cuts Medicare by $167 billion. That is $44 billion more than the President's budget, and therein lies the differential. The fact of the matter is that under the Republican budget, another rehash of their last year's proposal, they will threaten seniors' health security. They want to talk about your future. I want to talk about your parents. Your parents are going to have to pay Medicare premiums that are going to go up under the Republican budget proposal. Your parents are going to have higher out-of-pocket costs under the proposal that the Republicans are advocating. Hospitals are going to close that your parents would use because the Republicans have not allocated adequate funds. There is a difference. We should reject the Republican budget rehash.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Black Caucus- progressive caucus budget. Someone said earlier today this debate is about priorities, and that is absolutely true. Our budget is balanced over 6 years, but we have different priorities. I think we have the priorities of the American people. The Republicans want to talk about your future, but they do not want to spend money on education. If you look at function 500 in our budget, what you will find is that we are trying to create an opportunity society. We spend money for education infrastructure. That means repairing and building new schools. We spend money on family learning centers, so that the average citizen can get on the information highway in his public library. We spend $2 billion more on summer jobs so that young people will have opportunities to work for a living rather than engage in a life of crime. We spend money on Head Start so that every child, black, white, brown, or yellow, will have a chance to get a fair start in life. We believe that this budget reflects the priorities of the American dream. It is a balanced budget. It solves the deficit problem, but it reflects true American values. I support this budget.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the interest of bringing to your attention the issue of religious discrimination in employment. It is my pleasure to represent a district which is rich with diverse religions and great religious institutions. The December 1995 issue of Meat & Poultry, included an excellent article in the Labor Report entitled ``Honor Thy Neighbor,'' by Richard Alaniz. I bring this article to the attention of my colleagues and urge them to read it and to stand for religious accommodations in the workplace in accordance with the Civil Rights Act. Years of publicity and high profile litigation have made most employers aware of the various state and federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, sex, disability and age. What many employers don't know is that Title VII, the primary federal anti-discrimination law, also prohibits discrimination based on religion. Due to a lack of complaints and perhaps a general unwillingness to accept such claims, religious discrimination has not been brought to the forefront of the average employer's concern. This could all change as the country leans toward conservatism and as groups such as the Christian Coalition attempt to bring religion into the mainstream. A recent case involving one of the nation's largest employers and religious discrimination may be indicative of future trends. Wal-Mart, the Arkansas-based retail behemoth, settled a religious discrimination suit brought by a former employee. The employee claimed the retailer forced him to quit after he refused to work on his Sabbath. Rather than litigate the claim, Wal-Mart opted to settle. The settlement calls for the retail chain to train all managers in how to reasonably accommodate workers' religious beliefs as well as pay the plaintiff an undisclosed sum of money. Wal-Mart is not the only business facing this new problem. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has brought several religious discrimination suits against other businesses, especially in the Midwest and South. While the focus has been on retail establishments, it could shift to any employer who has weekend shifts. The basis for many of these lawsuits is that many businesses have no guidelines or policies to handle requests for religious accommodation, which often means having a weekend work-day off. Many employers feel it is easier to require everyone to work weekends rather than grant exceptions which would create jealousy and an administrative headache. However, the courts have clearly stated employers are required to reasonably accommodate requests to observe the Sabbath or other religious days unless the request causes ``undue hardship'' to the business. In order to prevent claims of religious discrimination, an employer should have a policy dealing with employee requests to observe the Sabbath or other religious days. Employers should not have blanket policies requiring weekend work unless they are prepared to justify that to grant days off would be an undue hardship on the business. Typical examples of what may constitute ``undue hardship'' are: difficulty to replace an employee due to a lack of notice or simply not having enough employees; importance of the employee; or economic hardship on the employer. Scheduling problems are not the only area where employers face the possibility of religious discrimination. In many offices it's common for employees to have bibles, signs, posters or other religious articles on their desks. It's also typical for some persons to talk openly about their religious beliefs and perhaps refer to these belief in some aspect of performing their job. This raises the delicate question of how an employer walks the line between allowing employees to express their religious beliefs and maintaining a professional work environment that does not invite friction between individuals of different religions. This can be especially difficult when a supervisor or other decisionmaker is the one proclaiming his religious beliefs. The classic example is the fundamentalist Christian employer who only promotes persons of the same religion and church as the employer. This could easily be challenged as a form of religious discrimination in which the company could be liable. A company's policy should apply equally and fairly to all individuals and religions within the organization. Religious activities that don't impose upon others, disrupt the workplace or create morale problems should be the focus of the policy. For example, this could include a bible on the desk or wearing a cross or other religious symbol as jewelry. Examples of conduct employers probably should not accommodate are proselytizing in the workplace, statements or evidence of religious favoritism, or use of company time and resources for religious practices. Using company time and resources for religious practices can be particularly dangerous. In one well-known case, a business required employees to attend staff meetings that began with a short non-denominational talk and prayer. An atheist employee resigned, sued the company and claimed her freedom of conscience was violated by the prayer. The court of appeals ruled the plaintiff's resignation was justified and that the prayers constituted religious discrimination. The voluntary and nondenominational nature of the prayer was discouraged by the court in favor of the plaintiff's claim of a feeling of compulsion to attend and participate. Court decisions such as these leave little room for employers to conduct similar religious practices in the workplace. No matter how generic or vague a religious practice may be, there is always the chance it will be deemed offensive by someone. The key to avoiding embarrassing and costly litigation is to prepare a clearly defined policy addressing religion, permissible and impermissible actions and to train managers and supervisors to recognize those circumstances in which allegations of religious discrimination may arise. By taking a few simple steps and providing for ``reasonable accommodation'' of religious practices, a proactive company can avoid the time and expense of an unnecessary law suit.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the previous speaker should also keep in mind the Dole dime that actually caused the taxpayers to lose more than a can of beans. This morning I want to talk about the budget. Despite the headlines, this is in fact the same budget with the same flaws. Extreme deep cuts on the poor and the middle class to finance tax breaks for the wealthy. What does this mean? It means that senior citizens and the poor are going to have a second class health care system. They are going to march up here in lockstep and try to tell us that we have to make these cuts to maintain the solvency of the Medicare system. Please do not believe this hoax. The fact of the matter is, we do not need these deep cuts. The President's budget, other Democratic budgets give us the same level of solvency by the year 2006 as the Republicans do without making the deep cuts. What do these cuts mean? They mean a loss of choice for seniors as to the doctors that they would go to. They mean that hospitals will close in rural areas because of deep cuts. And they mean children will go without health care. As one of my colleagues said, it is basically the same old song.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment. The Republicans like to moan about us calling them extremists. Well, they are and this is a classic example. Mr. Chairman, they take a bill that has many laudable points and then they ruin it because they repeal the Brooke amendment which was designed to cap the rents that are paid by some of the poorest people in this country, people who make $6,400 a year. That is extreme. The Brooke amendment simply reflects the standards of the industry, the banking industry, the real estate industry, the financial services industry which says that people should only pay a reasonable portion of their income, about 30 percent, for housing. If we do not have the Brooke amendment, what we do is create a cycle of poverty because poor people then have to choose between medicine and rent; between paying bills and rent; between car repairs and rent. The first emergency that happens, they fall further behind. That is the cycle of poverty that is created in the language in this bill. My Republican colleagues recognize this is a problem because they keep the Brooke amendment for current residents, disabled people, and for seniors. If it is good enough for the disabled and seniors, why not new tenants? We need to keep the Brooke amendment.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to support the minimum wage. People will tell you that while this is just an issue about young teenagers, that is absolutely untrue. Seventy-five percent of the people who make the minimum wage are adults. Fifty-eight percent of them are women, and they head households. Do you know how much you make a year off the minimum wage? $8,400 a year, doing some of the dirtiest, most unpleasant, hardest work we have in this country. Now, I cannot understand why we cannot increase the minimum wage. There are bipartisan majorities in both Houses willing to support a $1 increase in the minimum wage. So why will the Republican leadership not bring it up? The fact is that the Republican leadership makes over $100,000 a year. People on minimum wage make $8,400 a year. Is it too much to ask to give these people, these women, these hard-working Americans, a raise of $1? I do not think so. Again, I reiterate, we ought to raise the minimum wage.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for yielding. In 1983 I was elected to the Maryland House of Delegates. As I looked around the orientation, I noticed another young man who really impressed me. That man stands before you today. So I can tell you from personal experience, having stood shoulder-to- shoulder with Elijah Cummings, that he is a true worker for people. I do not have to tell you a lot. Let me simply say that I have watched this man and worked with this man. He has worked for economic development, but he has never forgotten the needs of the downtrodden or the less fortunate. He brings to this House tremendous compassion. All Members need to know about Elijah Cummings is that he is a man of tremendous sincerity, commitment, compassion, and faith in God. He will do a wonderful job for the people of the Seventh Congressional District. He will do a wonderful job for the people of this country. I am looking forward to working with him. Congratulations and welcome, Elijah.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, good morning. The battle about the minimum wage rages on. Some people would have our colleagues believe that the minimum wage only affects kids, so we should not worry about it. Not true--10 million Americans are affected by the minimum wage. Some 75 percent of them are adults and 58 percent of them are women. We need to increase the minimum wage. The minimum wage has not been increased in 5 years. The purchasing power of people who earn the minimum wage has decreased by 15 percent. We are talking about people who make about $8,400 a year operating under the current minimum wage. I am pleased to say today, Mr. Speaker, that there is some bipartisan support for increasing the minimum wage. I am distressed, however, that there are still some Republicans who believe that we should not increase the minimum wage and want to fight it. We do not need any convoluted bureaucratic plans to pay employers. What we need is a very simple solution: Raise the minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, if we raise the minimum wage, we will bring 300,000 families out of poverty, we will bring 100,000 children out of poverty. Raise the minimum wage.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, we know what distinguishes America from Third World countries, not just its democratic processes but its standard of living, the high quality of life we have in this country. Well, at least that is the way it used to be when people could get good paying jobs in industry. That is not the case now. USA Today says, ``How would you like to raise a family on $8,800 a year?'' That is what we get with the current minimum wage. We ought to raise it. I am appalled when I hear my Republican colleagues who make over $100,000 a year say that they will fight a 90-cent increase in the minimum wage with every fiber in their body. It is absolutely shocking. We need to maintain a high minimum wage so that we can have the high standard of living in this country. The current minimum wage is $1,100 less than the poverty level. People cannot exist on the current minimum wage. If we increase the minimum wage, 12 million Americans will benefit. And do not let the Republicans tell us they are just teenagers. Thirty- nine percent of those Americans, 39 percent of those 12 million, are breadwinners, heads of households. Mr. Speaker, the equation is very simple. Decent minimum wages mean less welfare. The people who are getting welfare are there because many of them cannot get a decent wage even though they work.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, as Members well know, bipartisanship are those rare occasions on which the Democrats and the Republicans agree. We have found some agreement. We agree we need health care reform that provides portability so people can change jobs and keep their health insurance. We agree that we need to prevent people from being barred from insurance because of preexisting conditions. The question becomes, why do we not pass the bill that we both agree on. I will tell Members why: because the Republicans want to ruin this bill, kill this bill with extraneous material to benefit their wealthy friends. Once again, they ruined bipartisan support by putting on benefits for the wealthy. Just like the tax breaks, here they come again. These medical savings accounts are basically a boondoggle to benefit wealthy, healthy people. They take their money and put it in savings accounts and get a tax advantage. That leaves the rest of us, those who are poor, those who are sick, the regular working guy, to pay higher insurance rates. That is not right. Every major editorial paper in this country has criticized these medical savings accounts because they only benefit a few wealthy people. We need bipartisanship. We have an opportunity. Please, Republicans, do not ruin it.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I rise in strong support of the Chrysler-Berman-Brownback amendment. It is a refreshingly bipartisan amendment, and that is because it is the right thing to do. This bill is well intentioned. It talks about the legitimate problem, which is illegal immigration. Unfortunately, it goes too far because it tries to make changes in legal immigration. We do not have a problem with legal immigration, and as I listened to the debate, I have not heard one articulated. The fact of the matter is we are all immigrants. We are all the descendants of immigrants, some voluntary, and some, like myself, on an involuntary basis. But the point is we all came to America. America is a beacon to immigrants. But this bill would reduce legal immigration by 40 percent over 5 years, and yet there has been no rationale presented to justify why we should shut people out of our country, why we should pull families apart. Why are we doing this? This bill is not trying to increase immigration. I realize we cannot accept everyone, but there is no reason to significantly reduce the level of immigration. There are those who want to suggest immigrants are a burden on our society. Not legal immigrants. They earn $240 billion, they pay $90 billion in taxes. They only consume $5 billion in benefits. Clearly, we need legal immigrants. We ought to vote for this amenement.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose this piece of legislation, the conference report. This is a bad bill. It is a bad bill for several reasons. First, we have to understand this is not foreign aid. This is a budget for the State Department, USAID, our own agencies. Under the Constitution, the President is empowered to conduct the U.S. foreign policy. This bill hamstrings the President in the exercise of that responsibility. First, it abolishes an agency indiscriminately. They do not tell us which agency. They do not say why. They do not indict the agency for malfeasance or any other problems. They just say abolish an agency. It is not real reform. It is reform purely for the sake of saying we had reform. It does not make any sense. We cannot manage a foreign policy by these kinds of arbitrary changes, moving boxes around without any meaningful purpose. Second, is deep and unreasonable cuts. This budget, this program, will hamstring the President in terms of his ability to retain qualified people. This budget and the cuts they propose will result in RIF's, layoffs, and the loss of highly talented people. We cannot run a foreign policy without qualified people. We have international responsibilities as a world leader. A couple of final very important points: This bill discourages burden sharing. We found out through Desert Storm that we need multilateral action. But by discouraging and inhibiting U.S. participation in the United Nations and other multilateral organizations, we discourage burden sharing, because other countries will say, ``If the United States does not participate, if the United States does not pay its dues, then why should we? If the United States is trying to pull back on its financial commitment, why should we commit when we are a much smaller country?'' It discourages burden sharing at a time when we need to involve other countries. Finally, it limits U.S. population assistance programs. One of the biggest problems we will confront in the year 2000 and beyond is the question of an exploding population. Under this bill, as many as 7 million couples will be denied the opportunity to get family planning assistance. I am not advocating any kind of coercive abortions, but I am saying people ought to be able to get information and assistance to engage in family planning.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend a wonderful project going on in my district that is helping children with disabilities. The Easter Seal Society and a group of Montgomery County churches have created a Faith in Action project that will help youngsters living with disabilities, along with their families. What is Faith in Action? It is a program funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation that helps religious congregations and social service agencies create community volunteer service projects aimed at families, elderly persons, and children. The Easter Seal Society for Disabled Children and Adults will work with seven churches, a school, the Montgomery County Department of Disability Services, and Catholic Charities on this effort. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has awarded hundreds of Faith in Action grants to organizations all over the country. Volunteers target families and offer to help in any way they can. In Montgomery County, this can be offering to take a child to the park, drive a youngster in a wheelchair to the doctor, or care for youngsters while parents take a much needed break. In the Washington, DC, region, over 30,000 children under 5 years of age are at risk for developing a disability. That's over a 1,000 classrooms of kindergartners. Also, because of advanced technology, infants born prematurely and with birth defects have a much better chance of survival today than in years past. Often, however, they will need long-term care. Volunteers from Takoma Park Presbyterian Church and St. Matthew's United Presbyterian Church are good listeners, they have comfortable laps, and are wonderful huggers. They love to read and tell stories and to sing. They can help feed a child or practice speech therapy exercises, take siblings to the playground, accompany fearful parents to their child's medical appointments, and help advocate for the child. One of the most valuable things a volunteer gives a family is the gift of time and respite for harried parents. When children are diagnosed with a disability, parents often struggle by themselves. Parents need the right support to insure that their child is receiving the proper medical care, therapy and education. Too many families don't know where to turn. Now, Easter Seals and a group of churches in my district want to help. I congratulate them and wish them good luck.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, the President has presented a balanced budget: Seven years with CBO scoring. So why do we not have a budget deal? I will tell you why, because the Republicans insist that they want to give tax breaks to the rich. The President made prudent budget cuts, but he protected the beneficiaries of Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare guarantees hospital care for seniors. Medicaid guarantees nursing home care for seniors and for the disabled. But the Republicans want to cut these programs. They want to cut $270 billion out of Medicare, they want to cut $163 billion out of Medicaid, and they want to give a tax break of $245 billion largely to the rich. According to the Treasury Department, half of the tax breaks go to people making over $100,000 a year, and that is wrong. There is a difference. The Republicans believe in an America that says every man or woman for himself. The President and the Democrats believe we are a caring society and the standard of that society is we take care of our seniors, our disabled people, and our young people. We have a balanced budget. The problem is they want to give tax breaks to the rich.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, we do have a new majority. Let us see what they have brought us. Well, basically we have had a year of acrimonious and bitter debate. We have had a costly and wasteful government shutdown and we still have a budget stalemate. Why? Well, the dust has settled and it is abundantly clear that the problem is the same problem it has always been. The Republicans want to give a big tax break to the wealthy. The Republicans want to give a big tax break to wealthy Americans. We will recall first they said, give us a 7-year balanced budget, 7 is a magic number. The President has agreed to that. They then said no, we have to have CBO audited numbers, CBO real numbers. The President has given them that. They said they wanted to protect children and the future of our society, future generations. But when the President of the United States presented a balanced budget, balanced in 7 years with CBO real numbers, what did they do? They walked away from the table. Why did they walk away from the table? The gentleman from Florida said it is how we balance the budget. Well, they wanted to include a big tax break for the wealthy. The President has said he will not go along with that. The President and Democrats are for a balanced budget, but we believe it should not just be a balanced budget, it should also be a fair budget. In truth, in point of fact, we should not have any tax breaks in this budget. If we are serious about balancing the budget and eliminating the deficit, we do not need to be taking money out of the Treasury in the form of a tax break. But again the President has been willing to compromise, and he has offered modest tax relief for education deductions and for people with children under the age of 14 for the true middle class. But that is not good enough for the Republican new majority. They want to give tax breaks to people who make over $100,000 a year. Ladies and gentlemen, if their package goes through, half of the tax breaks, half of the $245 billion in tax breaks will go to the richest 2 percent of Americans. The richest 2 percent of Americans will get half of the tax breaks. That is not a fair balanced budget. Let us move on and talk about Medicaid, because that specifically hurts our seniors and our disabled citizens. Item No. 1, there was not a single public hearing on specifically Medicaid cuts. Many people do not understand and say, well, this is another, quote, entitlement program. In point of fact, nearly 60 percent of Medicaid funds pay for acute and long-term care and services for elderly and people with disabilities; 60 percent to the elderly and people with disabilities. Thirty-five percent pays for long-term care. That means when your mother or father or aunt or uncle or grandparents have to go into a nursing home, Medicaid is paying for that. Medicaid pays 52 percent of the Nation's nursing home bill. Why? Because nursing home care is very expensive, and Medicaid also pays for home services for the frail and the disabled. They want to cut Medicaid. They want to cut Medicaid and then send it to the State and say States can do it. Well, I have been in the State government for 10 years as a State senator. They cannot do it if they do not have the money. So shaving this money and sending down the so-called block grant is no solution, because the States, in fact, under their new program, would be able to cut their funds. This is not a balanced budget, not morally. It is an accounting device. But we want a balanced budget both from an accounting standpoint and a morally balanced budget that is fair to all Americans.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, today is day 21 of the Government shutdown. Again, your tax dollars are not at work. But it does appear that the haze may be lifting a bit on the Republican side. Even these self- styled revolutionaries seem to have figured out that Government operations are essential and that we should not be abusing the taxpayers' employees by having them out of work. The only problem is, while they are proposing to send them back to work with pay, they are not proposing to fund the operations and functions that they perform. It seems highly questionable. Let us take a look. Toxic waste inspections that preserve our clean water cannot be performed, health inspections may not be able to be performed. Occupational safety inspections may not be performed, and trade operations at the Department of Commerce may not be performed, these trade operations which create jobs. So, although the haze may be lifting a little bit, there is still a lot of confusion because the employees are at work, but they cannot do their jobs.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, at the State and local level, when you pass a roadway, there is a big sign that says your tax dollars at work. Here in Washington we ought to have a sign that says, your tax dollars are not at work. Because that is the reality in day 20 of the Government shutdown. Let us be real. The Republicans are trying to say this is President Clinton's shutdown. Absolutely wrong. The President could not open the Government if he wants to. The Republicans set the agenda. The Republicans are in the majority. The Republicans have the vote. Let there be no mistake. This is a Republican, a Gingrich Republican government shutdown. This is not about a balanced budget in 7 years with real numbers. I am for that. A lot of Democrats are for that. There are budgets out there to do this. This is about their desire to give tax breaks to the wealthy while cutting Medicare and Medicaid. Meanwhile our employees, the taxpayers' employees and their families are suffering. Mortgage payments are not being made. Utility bills are not being met. Car payments are not being made. Clothes for the kids are not being met, and contractors are not being paid. I hope Federal employees will come to Washington, to Capitol Hill to share their pain with these Republican revolutionaries.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, today is day 20 of the Government shutdown and the spin coming from the Republican side goes something like this: Well, you know, it is not really our shutdown. It is President Clinton's shutdown. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear to the American people that nothing could be further from the truth. The President does not have the power to end this shutdown. He can take no unilateral action, because if he could, he would. But he can take no unilateral action that will end this shutdown. It is not his shutdown. The only way he can shut it down is toe acquiesce to the Republicans' demands. It is in fact the shutdown of the Gingrich Republicans, because they have the power by virtue of being in the majority and by virtue of having the votes to pass a clean continuing resolution which could put Government employees back to work. Let there be no mistake. This is a Gingrich Republican shutdown. Mr. Speaker, the second spin we hear is in reality it is just bickering and really both sides are at fault. That is not true. We have 198 votes to put Federal employees back to work, to pay contractors for work that they do for our country. But it is not just Democrats. In the Senate, Mr. Dole says enough is enough. So, on the Senate side both Democrats and Republicans are willing to put Federal workers back to work, and House Democrats are ready to put Federal employees back to work. It seems to me it is clear that this is not a matter of more partisan bickering. So what is it? It is an attempt by a few self-styled Republican revolutionary hard-liners and extremists to dictate the terms of the budget debate. They are essentially saying, ``If the President does not accept our budget terms, then we will keep the Government shut with all the attendant harms that go along with that.'' Let me digress for a minute, because one of these revolutionaries got on the floor and talked about, ``Well, gee, it is not a problem because the banks are going to provide emergency mortgage relief.'' No. 1, that acknowledges that there is in fact an emergency but, No. 2, that is not what banks are for. In this country banks are supposed to enhance our economic vitality. The money they are giving out to Federal employees because of their emergency could more better be spent expanding our economy, providing small business loans, or helping new home buyers, instead of bailing out people that the Republican hard- liners put in trouble. But let us go to the meat of the issue, the balanced budget. Again, the Republican revolutionaries get on the floor and say, ``This sacrifice is worth it, because ultimately we are going to fundamentally change the way business is done in this country.'' That is right. More for the wealthy, less for the seniors, less for the poor, less for children. The specifics of the budget break down this way, and this is why the President does not like it and I do not like it, either. They want to give $245 billion of tax breaks to the wealthy. They say, ``Oh, no, that's not true, we just want to send money back home to the people.'' Well, here are the facts. According to the Treasury Department, half of the $245 billion would go to people making over $100,000 a year. So some $120 billion plus is going to people making over $100,000 a year. Folks, that comes to about 4 percent of the population. So it breaks down like this: 4 percent of the population is going to get half of the tax breaks in their so-called balanced budget, which amounts to about $100 billion. That is not fair. On the other side of the coin, they want to take $270 billion out of Medicare, the program for the seniors, and about $160 billion out of Medicaid, the program for the poor and the disabled. Let us think about it. If we did not have to give the big tax break to the wealthy 4 percent, we would have to take a lot less money out of the pockets of the seniors and the poor and the disabled. That is the meat of this debate, and this is why the President says their budget is unacceptable. If they would give up some of the tax breaks, we could have a balanced budget. There are many of us on this side of the aisle who want a balanced budget in 7 years using the so- called real numbers. We can do that. We do not need to shut down the Government and we do not need to give a big tax break to the wealthy. Who is being cheated in all this? The taxpayer. Remember, these are not President Clinton's employees, these are not the Democrats' employees. There are our employees, they are the taxpayers' employees, and quite frankly these people are not at work, they are not doing the taxpayers' business. They are not providing Federal home loan assistance; 2,500 applications are not being processed. They are not providing renewals of vouchers for moderately priced homes. They are not providing services to small businesses. Two hundred and sixty small business applications a day are not being processed through the SBA. Ninety small businesses a day are not being able to bid for contracts because of this Government shutdown. And on and on its goes. Ladies and gentlemen, the balanced budget is a real issue, but the Government shutdown is a false issue created by so-called revolutionaries who somehow believe that the ends justify the means, and they do not care who is harmed in the process.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, it appears that self-styled Republican revolutionaries believe that the end justifies the means. Somehow they have this notion that these Federal workers are the President's Federal workers, or they are the Democrats' Federal workers. Sorry, fellows. They are the taxpayers' Federal workers, and the taxpayers are being cheated because of your shutdown. They are being cheated because small businesses cannot get their loans processed through the SBA. They are being cheated because small businesses cannot bid on contracts because the contract offices are closed. They are being cheated because toxic waste cleanup is not proceeding. They are being cheated because student loan applications are not being processed. They are being cheated because FHA home mortgage applications are not being processed. And then they go on and abuse the Federal workers: No checks for the Federal workers. That means no mortgage payments, no utility payments, and, sometimes, no food on the table. There is one thing wrong with these self-styled revolutionaries. Someone told them that the end justifies the means, and they do not care who they hurt. In this case, they hurt the taxpayer and they hurt our Federal workers, and that is a shame, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I too want to join the chorus of folks objecting to the idea that we might, and it is inconceivable, but that we might actually recess tomorrow to January 23. We have got the people's business to do. Somehow folks on the other side of the aisle think that these are the President's employees or they think that they are the Democrats' employees, but the fact remains that they are the taxpayers' employees and they ought to be allowed to do the taxpayers' business. We have lost a lot throughout this process, a lot of services, a lot of productivity, a lot of employee loyalty, and we ought to try to recover that by putting these people back to work as soon as possible. We do not have a deal right now. We should stay here and continue working toward a deal. There are folks on this side of the aisle that are willing to accept a 7-year balanced budget. All we are saying is let us keep working to get people back to work. It is not just Federal employees. We have contract employees, thousands of contract employees, and at the end of the day they are not going to be paid unless we change the rules of the game. They are out of actual cash dollars to feed their families. We have imposed a lot of pain. It is time to sit down and address the problem.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and specifically address the issue of the integrity of the House. Mr. Speaker, I believe this resolution is appropriate because by our inaction, we have compelled the services of certain Federal employees, specifically those being the essential Federal employees performing such services as prison guards, security, and the like, compelled their services without compensation. It is unclear to me what definition of integrity the Chair is utilizing, but I would say that under most generally accepted definitions of integrity, compelling services from employees without compensation when it is within our power to provide them with compensation is in fact a question of the integrity of the House. On that basis, I believe that this resolution, which addresses the integrity of the House by requiring us to take action to provide compensation to those employees and others, but specifically to those who are in fact working but are not being paid, does in fact raise a legitimate question of the integrity of the House, and ask the Chair to rule favorably on the resolution.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, we really do need to put the people back to work in this city. The Federal Government being out of work costs the taxpayers millions of dollars. The crowd across the aisle says they want to run this place like a business. You do not pay people not to work in a business. Federal workers are ready, willing, and able to go to work. They ought to go to work. We ought to get the welfare checks out, the AFDC checks out, the veterans checks out, and we ought to make Government work like a business. We are losing something equally precious. We are losing productivity. There are going to be backlogs, even when the Government employees go back to work. We cannot recover that time. Let us put the Government employees back to work.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise today to oppose this rule because it is a bad rule supporting a bad bill. I am for welfare reform and I am for work requirements. The problem is that this bill fails in the commonsense department. Let us turn to the CBO, their sacred cow for fiscal analysis. CBO says this bill cannot fund the work program. It cannot provide the training necessary. It says it falls $5.5 billion short in the year 2002. Over the 7 years, this bill is $14 billion short in what is needed to provide adequate employment and training. In fact, their original Contract on America had $10 billion in it for employment and training. What happened? That is not in the bill. Let me tell Members what the people of Maryland think. My Governor has already spoken on the subject, and he says, quite frankly, the idea is good, but the funding is grossly inadequate to support employment and training. We cannot take people who are out of work, who are low- skilled and expect them to go into the work force without training. There is no employer around, no matter how willing this person is to work, that will hire them without some level of training. If we are serious about welfare reform and work requirements, we ought to put in the necessary funds for the training programs and not pass the buck on to the States. What else is wrong with this bill? The child care is inadequate. That is the second component. We cannot expect women with two and three children to go to work without adequate child care. Right now States provide funds for the working poor. But with these new people coming onto the rolls, the States will not be able to afford to pay adequate child care. This bill falls $6 billion short in terms of providing the necessary child care programs. Again, we go back to the CBO. CBO figures show that the legislation will force States to choose between maintaining current levels of child care assistance for working poor families and providing child care resources for these new families that are coming on. So Mr. Speaker, the issue is not defending the status quo. We on the Democratic side do want welfare reform, we just want to make sure it works, and that requires common sense, something that is sorely lacking in the Republican approach.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. I would be happy to yield in just a minute. Let us talk about the merits of this issue. Let us talk about their notion of a balanced budget. First of all they cut $270 billion out of Medicare. Now, a gentleman got up a little earlier on the Republican side and said, ``Oh, no, this isn't a cut. We're just slowing the increase.'' Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, try this on the Defense Department. Take $270 billion out of a Defense Department budget that is below projected needs and then tell them that is not a cut. I do not think it would fly. We all know this is a cut. It is a significant cut. It means that by the year 2002 seniors will be paying on average $138 more per year just in additional premiums, not to mention the loss of choice of their doctors. They say, ``Well, that's not all that significant.'' Keep in mind these same seniors only average about $25,000 or less in annual income. So the Medicare question is significant. We do not need the big cut in Medicare. As was indicated, the actuaries say we only need to cut about $89 or $90 billion and we could solve the solvency problem. Then we go to Medicaid, and in their budget they want to cut 8 million people off the rolls by the year 2002. They want to eliminate the guarantees that we have for the sick, the elderly, the poor, the blind, and the disabled. They want to take 3.8 million children off the Medicaid rolls and deny them the safety net guarantee that we have now. We have a problem with that. We do not think it is necessary. The reason it is not necessary is because they have hidden in their budget a little poison pill in the form of a $245 billion tax break for the wealthy. You cannot see this chart out there in America but I will tell you what it says. It says that about half of the tax breaks, half of the $245 billion, go to people making over $100,000 a year. I do not see any reason why we in this Congress ought to be giving a tax break to people making over $100,000 a year. But apparently they do. That is why we are having this problem.