Albert Wynn

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, let us get straight on these tax figures. The gentleman talks about the people who make $30,000. They only get 13 percent of the total tax break. We could balance this budget and have a deal. Cut out the tax breaks for the wealthy. Just give it to the folks that make $30,000. They are only getting 13 percent. The rich, over $100,000, are getting almost half, almost 50 percent of the tax breaks. In addition, they repeal the family tax credit so they are actually increasing the taxes on the middle class and working poor. They also give another windfall to the rich because they eliminate the alternative minimum tax. What does that mean? That means $17 billion to the richest corporations in America. That is the truth about the so- called tax breaks.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield on that specific point?

Mr. WYNN. In just a minute. The gentleman said, why do we not put all these people in a room, order pizzas and all that. Maybe we could do that, but you do not need to shut down the Government. You have got Scrooge and the Grinch that stole Christmas. Add to that list the Republican freshmen.

Mr. WYNN. That makes sense to me.

Mr. WYNN. Absolutely.

Mr. WYNN. I would be happy to yield to my colleague from North Carolina.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, over the last few days we have been having a momentous debate on this floor and in this country. We have been debating the balanced budget, not whether to have a balanced budget but how to have it. What are the proper priorities? A lot of people come to me and say, ``Why are you guys going back and forth on this?'' I tell them, no, it is a good debate, we ought to have this debate. But the question tonight becomes, why do we have to shut down the Government in order to have this debate? As a point of fact, I believe in a balanced budget, a 7-year balanced budget with CBO estimates. That is not the problem. The question before us tonight is why are we shutting down the Government, why are we putting millions of Federal employees out of work, why are we then paying them not to work on the eve of Christmas? That is the issue before us tonight. Well, I will tell you why. The reason why we are shutting down Government is because the Republicans cannot get their budget. Not because they cannot have this debate but because they cannot have their way. You see we were making progress. The President and the Republican leadership and the Democratic leadership were making good progress and they said, since we are making this progress, why do we not pass a continuing resolution to keep the Government up and running? The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] took this issue back to his Republican colleagues and the radical freshman Republicans said, ``No, it's our way or no way.'' So instead of having a reasonable compromise, a continuing resolution while this debate continues, we have shut down the Government. I was particularly irritated when I heard one of our smug freshman colleagues comment that, ``Well, I've got my Christmas tree and I'm bringing my family up, so I really don't care.'' Well, I think that speaks for itself, but it is certainly a sad statement.

Mr. WYNN. That is the way the scoring works.

Mr. WYNN. Absolutely. That is why they want to do it, so they can deliver this big tax break to people making over $100,000 a year.

Mr. WYNN. That is right.

Mr. WYNN. In just a minute. That does not make any sense. They come down and they say, give us honest figures, give us 7 years. Gentlemen, I will make you a deal. We will give you honest figures and 7 years. You get rid of the tax break for the wealthy, and I think we can work this out.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I listen with great interest as the other side talks about why the Government shut down. Well, the fact of the matter is that it is shut down and it ought not be. It is absolutely unnecessary, and I concur with my colleague who coined a new phrase, the ``Reverse Houdini.'' Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a linkage of two unrelated issues. On the one hand is a legitimate budget debate. A balanced budget in 7 years. Actually, I would support that. On the other hand we have the operation of Government. That ought to continue. Why then have the Republicans decided that they want to link the two and say if we cannot have our balanced budget our way, we will shut down the Government? Who is being punished? First of all, the American taxpayer is being punished because the American taxpayer is paying for this, whether Federal Employees come to work or not. Second, Federal employees are being punished because their lives are being disrupted as they may get a delayed check, but the bills are now due. Mr. Speaker, it is Christmas time. It should be a season of charity and a season of giving. Instead, it is a season in which Federal employees have been imposed upon yet a second time, unnecessarily so. We could actually compromise and reach a deal, but there is a group on the other side, a crowd that says, basically, ``Our way or no way.'' they want to have $245 billion in tax breaks or it is no deal. Mr. Speaker, we could have a balanced budget in 7 years with CBO numbers if they would be willing to compromise on the size of the tax breaks, but they are unwilling to do it. Because of that unwillingness, they are saying, ``We are not going to give anyone the votes to pass a continuing resolution that would keep the government open, because you guys will not accept our big tax break.'' That is bad for our country. That is bad for our Federal workers. This is not just: We will shut the Government down; this is to say to Federal workers, ``We do not respect what you do. We do not appreciate what you do. We take it lightly, but when we put you back to work we want you to work with all the vigor and enthusiasm and commitment you can muster on behalf of the country.'' Mr. Speaker, it does not work that way. I hope we can reach a compromise in fairness to our employees, the Federal employees.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the gentleman from New York, Chairman Gilman, and our ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Hamilton, were able to work together on this bill to extend the authority of USIA to run the au pair program for another 2 years. The bill before us would change the existing program in two respects. First, it would open the program to applicants from countries around the world; and, second, it would allow the program to be run by any qualifying organization. I understand the au pair program brings many positive experiences both to au pairs and to their host families. The bill before us takes a prudent and practical approach to the extension of the program at this time, and on that basis I urge the adoption of the bill.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, throughout this morning's discussion, one would get the impression that the ethics questions we are considering here today are purely a matter of partisan politics; that is, the Democrats versus the Republicans as usual. Some people want to count the number of complaints. Some people want to say, well, this is stump water politics. All I want to do is read what the bipartisan Democrat and Republican Committee on Standards of Official Conduct had to say, and I think the words will speak for themselves. Referring to the Speaker, they said in a letter of December 6, 1995: The committee strongly questions the appropriateness of what some would describe as an attempt by you to capitalize on your office. At a minimum, this creates the impression of exploiting one's office for personal gain. Such a perception is especially troubling when it pertains to the office of the Speaker of the House, a constitutional office requiring the highest standards of ethical behavior. Mr. Speaker, this is not back water, stump water politics or partisan politics. Both Democrats and Republicans agree there is a problem. We now have a special counsel. We will leave it to him to look into the details.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Areawide Services Limited and its founder, Mr. Weldon ``Mac'' Howard. Areawide Services is located in Camp Springs, Maryland, which is in my 4th Congressional District, and it is one of the true small business success stories in the country. Founded in 1985 with just 3 employees, many dreams and lots of bills, Areawide has grown into a company of nearly 700 employees with dreams fulfilled and a $11 million dollar enterprise. According to Mr. Howard or ``Mac'' as I and many of his friends call him, Areawide's success is attributed to their strategic market analysis, planning, and their continued vision to provide quality business. These are fine attributes for a small business person to describe itself. I know, however, that Mac and his employees are just simply dedicated to this company and have out hustled their competition. This is what it takes to survive as a small minority business person and Mac has done just that. Since its inception, Mac has served as the company's president and Chief Executive Officer. Over the past ten years they have provided outstanding uniformed protection services to federal, state and private sector commercial facilities throughout the Washington Metropolitan area and Baltimore. Not surprisingly, during their ten year growth Mac has watched over the day to day operations of the company serving not only as the boss, but also as an instructor at the company's training school. This is the sign of an individual that does not just stand on the sidelines, but one that puts on the helmet and gets involved in the game. If you look at the distinguished resume of this Lancaster County, Virginia native, you know that anything less than perfection is second best. Mac is a respected veteran of the Vietnam War and has received an Associates degree in Police Science from Northern Virginia Community College in Virginia and a Bachelors of Science Degree in Administration of Justice from American University in Washington, DC. Having educated himself overseas and in the States, this proud man went on to serve his government in another capacity. As a 15 year civil servant, Mac served in a number of capacities with the General Services Administration as a Federal Police Officer, Security Specialist, Chief of Field Operations, Chief Inspector, Chief of Contracts Guards Section and as a Contracting Officer. He also served with the U.S. Information Agency as a Limited Foreign Service Officer and as a Chief of Domestic Security. He culminated his distinguished career as Director of Security at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I guess there was no surprise when he made the decision to open a security business. I know Mac best from his service to the community, particularly the small business community. As the former president and current member of the Board of Directors for the National Business League of Southern Maryland, he has worked with many minority entrepreneurs to bring small business into Prince George's County. In addition to his work with NBL, Mac sits on the Prince George's County Maryland Private Industry Council's Board of Directors. In his continuing effort to serve the community, Mac began a scholarship program in his home county of Lancaster. This program awards a $1,000 scholarship to a high school senior. It is clear to see that Mr. Howard's vision for excellence is demonstrated by his past service to his country and his service in the federal government as a civil servant. His vision continues to grow today through his excellent leadership in operating Areawide Services and his commitment to minority small business in Prince George's County. On behalf of myself and all members of the U.S. House of Representatives I wish to congratulate Mac, his wife Rita and daughter Kathy on ten wonderful years of service.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, under this bill, veterans' checks, Social Security checks, Medicare checks will go out. That is fine. But the important thing is this bill illustrates the game that is being played on the American public. Because you see, this bill is what is called a clean continuing resolution. It has no conditions. It has no time limits. There is nothing but the ability to continue running these essential programs, and there is a reason for that, because they know that the outcry over these programs would be so great if those checks did not arrive that it would overwhelm them. So, meanwhile, folks at NIH, National Institutes of Health, who are doing cancer research are not at work. Folks at NASA are not at work. The national parks are closed. The District of Columbia government is closed. The GI bill checks are not arriving, and FBI agents are not working. That is not fair. That is not right. And that is not necessary. We should have a clean continuing resolution. The Republicans should stop playing this game, this silly charade. We can have a clean CR and put the entire Government back to work.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is a bad rule supporting a bad bill. The Republicans tell you that the balanced budget is the most important thing before Congress today. So I ask you, why do they only give us 2 hours to debate it? They said when they talked about the continuing resolution, if you want to debate the balanced budget, we will have that debate. Some debate, 2 hours. Now, look, I am willing to buy into a balanced budget. I voted for the continuing resolution, so I am on record, but not their balanced budget. Their balanced budget does grave harm to our country. I cannot accept giving $245 billion to the wealthy people in this country. I cannot accept cutting $270 billion out of Medicare that serves our seniors. I cannot accept cutting funds in education, and I cannot accept cutting student loans. We can have a balanced budget. Let us end corporate welfare. Let us end unnecessary spending. We do not need all of those B-2 bombers. The Defense Department did not ask for them. We can have a balanced budget. We cannot have their balanced budget.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding this time to me. I rise tonight in opposition to the Hefley bill. I think it is a well-intentioned measure, but I think it is ill-timed. It is premature. Someone said this will be the only opportunity we will have to vote on whether we want to send troops into Bosnia. Not true. I carefully looked at the letter the President sent in which he made it very clear that he will come back to this body and seek our support before taking such momentous action. As my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, we become easily repulsed when we see pictures of the horrors of war, when we see dead bodies, when we see destruction, when we see evidence of rape. But when the time comes for action, sometimes we begin to pause, we become indecisive. We are a world leader. Moral indignation, rhetorical condemnation is not enough. We must act and act responsibly. Now that is not to say that I am committed nor that I believe that we should send troops. But what I am saying is that we ought to treat our allies fairly. We ought to give the peace process a chance. We ought not undermine the process before it has reached a fair conclusion. We cannot preach multilateralism and preach burden sharing, and then before the issue is even brought to conclusion say we are not a part of this play. It does not work that way. We should not tie the President's hands. People like to come down to the well and talk about how committed they are to peace. Mr. Speaker, there are some people in Dayton, OH, right now trying to fashion a peace after thousands of years of conflict. We ought to give them a chance. We ought not to send them a signal that we do not have confidence in what they are doing. We ought not send them a signal that we want no part of their efforts even if they come up with a lasting and significant peace process. We should not discourage the participants in this process before they have had a fair opportunity to complete their work. It may be then in the final analysis, when the President brings his case before the Congress, we conclude that, no, we should not send U.S. troops into harm's way. We may, in fact, conclude that we may be helpful through other ways, through intelligence, through supplying materials and equipment, but that is not the decision today. We should not make a premature decision and handicap the peace process.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this mean-spirited notion of a budget.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, my constituents who are Federal employees are watching more C-SPAN now than ever, and they are being treated to a sorry spectacle, a bunch of opinionated stuffed shirts sitting around bickering while they are getting paid, while peoples' lives are being disrupted, and while Federal employees are losing their paychecks. Yes, I am in that group. But it is a sorry spectacle. My colleagues on the right like to say we ought to run this place like a business. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, no globally competitively business treats its employees this way. We have broken faith with Federal employees. We have jeopardized their families and undermined their confidence in their employer. That is us. We have also lost a lot. We have lost their loyalty and willingness to go the extra yard. We ought to put Federal workers back to work. We ought to pay essential employees on time. We ought to pay all employees retroactively. On this budget, I will make a deal with my Republican colleagues. I signed on the other night to a 7-year balanced budget. You get rid of the tax break for the rich, and we can work this thing out. But as long as Republicans want to pay off their rich friends, we cannot have a balanced budget.

Mr. WYNN

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

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I think we have some of the same concerns, representing probably more Federal employees than any other Members in this body. I am concerned when I turn to the last page. I want to understand what kind of commitment we are making. Quite frankly, while I can live with a balanced budget and think we probably ought to get there, I am not willing to accept $270 billion cuts in Medicare nor am I willing to accept certain tax breaks. Do you interpret this language to mean that we are making commitments to essentially your budget?

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this resolution. In our times, we have found out that giants do not get to die in bed: John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Anwar Sadat, and now Yitzhak Rabin. Because these giants have the courage to stand up and speak out on controversial issues and take risks, all too often they are the victims of the assassin's bullet. Yitzhak Rabin was indeed a giant. Among his last comments at the peace rally before his assassination he said, ``People really want peace.'' This was the idea that guided the last few years of his life. Because Rabin was both a realist and a visionary, he understood that the use of force alone would not solve the problems of the Middle East. He also understood that the road to peace would be long and difficult. He understood that a political solution would require consideration of politically unpopular terms, and direct talks with people he often believed were directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Israeli citizens. He understood that it is sometimes necessary to do that which is unpleasant for the sake of a greater good. I believe this led him to shake hands with former adversary PLO leader Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn for the sake of peace. He leaves us a legacy that should not die. A giant has died. Let his legacy of peace live on.