Albert Wynn

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the Klug-Roberts amendment. The Government Printing Office has served our country for 100 years and they still have a vital role. Just to clarify for the American people, to give them a sense of what this agency does on a daily basis, they produce 20,000 copies of the Congressional Record, 32,000 copies of the Federal Register, 26,000 copies of Commerce Business Daily and process nearly 2,000 orders from the American people. All of this is being done despite a 50-percent decrease in staff since 1975. I would submit that in fact the committee considered this issue very thoroughly. They made reductions to the tune of 200 positions that are being reduced. This amendment would add to that 350, and rest assured, you cannot do 550 positions without some additional cost. You cannot do it all through attrition. There will in fact be some cost as a result of RIF's. But the final point I would like to make is this: They do it efficiently. They produce the overnight service, the 24-hour turnaround that is required to meet our needs. There is no plant, no facility on the east coast, in the mid-Atlantic area that has shown the capacity to deliver this work product in a timely, efficient, and most importantly consistent manner as the Government Printing Office. I believe I would have to return to the old adage: ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.''

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate a very special couple who will celebrate a milestone wedding anniversary on June 26, 1995. In these turbulent times, it is so wonderful to recognize Barbara and Nick Carter, a couple who have honored their vows to each other for 50 years. Their romance began at Blair High School in Silver Spring, MD. He was a football star; she was a cheerleader. After Nick served in the Army Air Force during World War II, where he was a prisoner of war, Nick and Barbara wed on June 26, 1945. In 1969, they left many family and friends in Maryland and moved to Elkins, WV, where Nick managed the Davis & Elkins College Bookstore. In 1975, Nick became city clerk, a position he held until his retirement in 1988. Barbara also worked at Davis & Elkins College, in the admissions office, for 18 years. They are now retired and enjoying their hobbies. They are avid bridge players. Nick enjoys golfing while Barbara enjoys gardening and tole painting. They are also devoted to their children and grandchildren. They raised four children: Denise Carter O'Gorman of San Diego, CA; Melanie Carter-Maguire of Catharpin, VA; Lauren Cater Campbell of Brattleboro, VT; and Ernest (Tad) Carter III of New York City. They are the proud grandparents of Andrew, Alison, Katherine, Ian, and Colin. their family and friends, many of whom live in my district, will gather on June 24 to wish them well. I would like to add my best wishes to this special couple for the years to come and to commend them for their inspiring life together.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise to support the amendment of my colleague and good friend from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer. I believe we are debating a simple proposition today. There have to be consequences of aggression. There have to be consequences of aggression. It is not enough to stand on this floor and bemoan the rapes and bemoan the genocide and then not do anything. I think we all agree we do not want to see U.S. troops actively engaged, but it seems to me that we do have to level the playing field, we do have to allow the victims of aggression the opportunity to protect themselves. When there are consequences of aggression, when the victim has an opportunity to respond, you have a climate in which peace negotiations can take place because now the aggressor has a reason to negotiate for peace because he suffers some casualties and he suffers some hardships. In the absence of these consequences, in the absence of weapons to defend oneself, there are no consequences, and the aggression continues. I believe that people should be cautious and I am not unmindful of the caution cited by the ranking member. But it is clear to me that this lifting of the arms embargo need not be immediate. We can have an orderly withdrawal of U.N. peacekeepers. There is no peace to keep. We can protect them, have them move out, and then lift the arms embargo and enable the people who are the victims of the genocide we bemoan and the victims of the rapes we bemoan to defend themselves in the only way they can, and that is with weapons. If we truly believe that we should exert leadership in the world, if we truly believe as the only superpower we have a responsibility not to allow another Holocaust, it seems to me that we ought to take the only logical step remaining, and that is to lift the embargo following the withdrawal of U.N. peacekeepers and allow the victims of this savagery to defend themselves.

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

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me emphasize first to my colleagues the amount of money that I am proposing to expend is less that the amount of money that was in the bill when it came out of committee. There is not one nickel more than came out of the committee in its original form. Had I gone ahead of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] yesterday, I would have proposed moving $12 million out of the international organizations account. Unfortunately, because he moved ahead of me, he took $400 million out across the board. I am only suggesting that of that $400 million he would remove that we preserve $12 million to advance our economic interests in the region. But clearly this is not a budget-buster in any form or fashion. I would have to reiterate to the chairman that I believe that this is also an opportune time to advance our interests in that region. It seems to me that all of our foreign policy positions to date have been reactive. Nothing has been done to advance or leverage the direction in which we want to go. Nothing has been done to create new jobs or new trade markets.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WYNN. If the gentleman will yield further, I would say that all of the money I am proposing to spend comes out of the money that the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] has already cut, so it is not any additional money added on. The money has already been cut. I am just suggesting it be moved into a second area. Let me make one comment about appropriations. I feel very strongly about this. This is an authorization bill. We are the Committee on International Relations. We are the ones who ought to set foreign policy that we recommend to our colleagues in the Congress. We should not let the appropriators dictate to us what direction this money should be spent. The purpose of the authorizing bill is just the opposite, to give direction in terms of our priorities. We studied this issue. We need markets in Latin America and the Caribbean. It seems to me our directive to appropriators ought to be this is a worthwhile purpose. It does not bust the budget. It does not exceed what we came out of committee with.

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

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am proposing today is a very straightforward one that addresses our economic interest in Latin America. This amendment would put $12 million into a debt relief program for Latin America and the Caribbean. Yesterday in the course of our debates, we cut money out of a fund called International Organizations, which is dues-assessed, International Organizations. I wan to take a portion of that money, $12 million, and put it toward debt relief. I believe in so doing we can advance our economic interests. One of the things I said a little earlier today was this: that in a post-cold war era, we have to understand that our foreign policy ought to advance our interests. We have specific interests in the Western Hemisphere in terms of encouraging and expanding trade opportunities. Why? Because these trade opportunities in our own backyard can create jobs in the United States. But unfortunately the debt burden in many of our neighboring countries in Latin America and the Caribbean is a major factor in inhibiting economic growth and decreases the absorptive capacity. In other words, they cannot trade with us because they are paying off these very old debts. A debt relief program would help address this concern. To be eligible for this program, these countries would have to meet specific economic and political criteria included in existing legislation for the region. These requirements include an IMF program, a World Bank program, significant investment reform and normalized relations with commercial creditors. In addition, eligible countries must have governments which have been democratically elected, are not in gross violation of human rights, and have supported our efforts to combat narcotics and terrorism. In other words, we want to deal with friendly, democratic countries that are working with us and have normalized economic conditions. Why are we doing this? Debt reduction provides a catalyst for Caribbean and Latin American countries undertaking economic reforms and liberation programs. Debt reduction is specifically important for small countries in the Caribbean, where most debt is bilateral. In Jamaica, for example, debt service continues to consume more than 49 percent of the government's budget. Debt relief will accelerate trade links by freeing vital foreign exchange reserves that otherwise would have be used for debt service. These reserves can now be used to import products from the United States. For example, with 70 cents of each dollar buying U.S. goods and services in the Caribbean, debt reduction in the region can stimulate significant U.S. exports. Think about that, 70 cents of every dollar in that region is spent on our goods and services. We need to do business with them. After a decade of economic adjustment and reform, many countries in Latin American and in the Caribbean are enjoying their best economic prospects. Policy reforms in these countries and the resulting economic stability encouraged will help our economic ties with these countries. Total trade between the United States and Latin America and the Caribbean has grown since 1987. There has been a steady growth in terms of both imports and exports. Latin America is the fastest-growing U.S. export market in the world, and the only region where the United States now enjoys a trade surplus. Open markets also promote economic development in poor Latin American countries. This will help them stem the flow of illegal immigration to the United States. My colleagues are going to hear my colleagues from across the aisle say well, perhaps these are laudable goals, but we just cannot afford it, but I think that argument misses the boat. In the business of economic trade and foreign policy we have to promote our long-term interests. It is terribly shortsighted not to spend this small amount of money, only $12 million from our own backyard to ultimately create jobs for our own people. They can either spend the money on debt service or they can spend the money buying U.S. products. Debt reduction, especially for heavily indebted countries of the Caribbean basin, will send an important signal of U.S. commitment to democratically elected governments in the region. I would like to urge all Members of the House to consider the importance of our regional neighbors, to consider the importance of trade in terms of our long-term economic picture, and begin to think of foreign policy as a proactive endeavor and not just a reactive endeavor and not just an area where we can find some savings here. I think in that context Members will find this amendment is certainly reasonable, modest in the amount of money involved, but the long-term investment will certainly serve America's economic interests.

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

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in support of the McKinney amendment. I think it is a very responsible amendment. I comment her for introducing it. Quite simply, it seems to me in the absence of the cold war we have lost our way in terms of foreign policy. Foreign policy is supposed to advance our interests, our long-term interests, in the global community. To do this, however, we cannot be passive. We have to have some standards and objectives to pursue. It seems to me our objective ought to be encouraging diplomatic solutions around the world and discouraging warfare and the use of weapons around the world. The McKinney amendment represents sound policy advancing our foreign policy interests, because it sets a specific criteria on which we can evaluate arms sales. Democracy, adherence to human rights, the absence of aggression, and participation in the U.N. Registry of Conventional Arms, all give us a sound basis on which to evaluate who we ought to be selling arms to. It is correct policy because it gives us leverage. It enables us to leverage those people who are buying our arms in the direction that we wish them to go. It is also good policy because it imposes moral values. People throw that around. We ought to have moral values in U.S. policy. Well, opposing human rights violations, promoting democracy, and opposing aggression represents the best of moral values. I am not naive. There are certainly circumstances that are exigent that will require changes in this policy. The bill addresses that. It has a national security exception which the President can utilize. It also has an emergency waiver which the President can utilize. But it seems to me we have got to quit being passive and reactionary and understand what advancing our interests really means. I urge adoption of the McKinney amendment.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment of the gentleman from Florida to restore full funding to the Development Fund for Africa. You have heard a lot of talk about how we cannot afford it. Let me set the record straight. For anyone who is under a misconception, foreign aid amounts to 1 percent of the United States budget. I think we can afford it, because it is consistent with our long-term objectives. Someone said, ``Well, money doesn't grow on trees. Where are we going to get the money?'' I suggest that there are a lot of Republican pork projects laying around from which we can get the money. I suggest there are a lot of tax breaks for the wealthy from which we can get the money. At any rate, when you are only talking about a fraction, 1 percent, of the budget, it seems to me the money ought to be found. I would like to talk today about some of the success stories involved in the Development Fund for Africa because I think they illustrate the point. Our foreign aid program ought to advance our interests. Our interests are reflected in these successes. American exports to Ghana expanded by 73 percent between 1992 and 1993 as a result of U.S. programs that helped revise the investment code, remove regulatory bottlenecks and improve infrastructures. In Zimbabwe, U.S. programs to strengthen the business climate have helped to formulate antitrust laws, lowered interest barriers for U.S. exporters, and investors. Forty years ago we had a very different situation. Nine out of ten African countries were still under colonial rule. That is not true today. Today nearly two-thirds of the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have or are in the transition to democratically elected governments. In some of the poorest regions of Africa, U.S. support for childhood immunization and oral rehydration therapy has resulted in saving 800,000 children per year. We have had great successes. But the important point today is we can have far greater successes if we make a very small investment. An investment has two benefits: First, it helps us avoid humanitarian crises which we may ultimately be called on to address. Second and most importantly, though, it opens new markets for U.S. goods. What does that mean? It means jobs for American workers. I think we have an opportunity to advance our long-term interests, provide assistance with infrastructure in Africa, and create new open markets receptive to U.S. exports. We have got examples of our export situation improving dramatically in Africa. We need to take advantage of it. The money is there. It may not grow on trees but it is certainly available in this budget. I hope the House will concur and support the Hastings amendment.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the ranking member for yielding me an opportunity to speak. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this bill. I think it is a major retreat from our responsibilities as a world leader. As a sole remaining superpower in the world, the United States has the responsibility and an important opportunity to exert leadership on the world stage. The opportunity is in shaping the world to reflect our democratic ideals and principles so that we have a world of open societies and open markets. The responsibility is in providing leadership, strength, interest and humanitarian assistance. Mr. Chairman, we have already seen what can happen when the United States withdraws from the global stage. If we choose to run away from our responsibilities and commitments, the rest of the world may come calling. They may visit us, in fact, in some violent and terroristic ways. Now there are those in Congress who believe we are spending too much and that the price of being a superpower is too high. They prefer the rhetoric to the price tag. I disagree. We have heard how they are going to save money through this bill. Let me emphasize in the first instance the reorganization saves no money. They move around little boxes on a chart, but in the final analysis those responsibilities are only moved to another agency where they will be performed there. It is only an expansion of bureaucracy. They suggest that somehow they have a mandate to shrink our foreign commitments based on the November elections. The University of Maryland recently conducted a study of Americans on foreign aid, and what they found is that Americans actually do support foreign aid. It is just that they believe we are spending a lot more than we really are. When Americans were asked how much the U.S. spends on foreign aid, the average answer was we are spending about 15 percent of the Federal budget on foreign aid. When asked how much they felt would be an appropriate figure, they said about 5 percent. Let me set the record straight. Right now we are only spending 1 percent, so in actuality, when we educate the American public, we find that their expectations of our role in world leadership and our actual expenditures are in fact in line. There is simply a lot of reasons why we should support foreign aid. I would like to talk about two reasons in particular. The cuts in this bill for Africa would force us to shut down many of the programs which help make countries--which help countries making a difficult transition from democracy to democracy and to open economies from communism. It will hurt our efforts to open markets in countries such as Ghana, where United States exports have doubled in recent years. It will harm efforts to slow population growth where we have succeeded in Kenya and Zimbabwe, and it will undermine future efforts to prevent humanitarian disasters such at those of Somalia, Rwanda, and Angola. In addition to harming our efforts in Africa. the bill would also harm our ability to support our Latin American and Caribbean neighbors. This bill cuts aid to that region by 25 percent, keeping in mind we are only spending 1 percent of the national budget on foreign aid. Political reforms in the Western Hemisphere and resulting economic stability have encouraged the strengthening of economic ties between this region and the United States. Trade is a winning proposition between the United States and Latin America and the Caribbean. It is the fastest growing export market in the world for our goods. It is the only region where the United States enjoys a trade surplus. Open markets will also promote economic development in poor Latin American and Caribbean countries. This will help stem the flow of illegal immigration to the United States. Finally, foreign aid in the form of preventive diplomacy and international affairs will be our least costly [[Page H5405]] and most effective line of defense. Many Americans have sacrificed, some have even died, for our role as a world leader. Now is not the time to abdicate that role. Leadership does have a price tag. But I think, once the American people understand that that price tag is really a small proportion of our budget, they will support our current aid priorities and will leave us to continue tour role as a true world leader.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the ranking Member. As for me, the only thing I can say about that little quiz was tricks are for kids. First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate the burning question in today's debate. Why are the Republicans cutting Medicare to give a tax break to the wealthy? First, my colleagues, let us be honest. This debate is not about whether we need a balanced budget to protect our children's future. The Black Caucus can offer a balanced budget from the progressive point of view by closing tax loopholes. On the conservative side, the Democratic Coalition offered frontloaded budget cuts to also get to a balanced budget. What they have in common, however, is that neither of these Democratic approaches gut Medicare to give a tax break to the wealthy. Here are the facts. There are 37 million Medicare recipients 65 years or older. Their average income is $20,000 a year. The Republican plan cuts $283 billion from Medicare and will cost each Medicare recipient an additional $1,000 by the year 2002. This means larger copayments, higher deductibles, and the loss of choice of doctors. Meanwhile, on their side of the ledger in the Republican plan, 1.1 million Americans, wealthy Americans, will get over $20,000 in tax cuts. These people make over $200,000 a year. They will get a tax cut totaling $3.345 billion. When we talk about Medicare cuts, the Republicans are quick to say, ``Wait a minute. This isn't a cut. Seniors will actually get more money in the year 2002.'' Yes, but the problem is that more people will be eligible for Medicare, and the increased costs of services will mean that what they are providing is not enough to solve the problem. It is like throwing a 20-foot rope to a man who is drowning 30 feet from shore. It is not good enough to say, well the rope is longer than the 15-foot rope we threw to that other guy who was drowning. It is also not good enough to say, well, somehow services will be cheaper, and people will be able to get them and have better choices because they never explain any of that. They just come before us with these miraculous cures. Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Republicans tell us we have to do all this because the Medicare system is going to be insolvent. Well, last year we said, ``If you want to reform Medicare, you need a comprehensive approach.'' They were not interested. Today we could go a long way toward solving the Medicare problem if we did not have to give a tax break for the wealthy.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall vote No. 334. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a fallen hero. On Monday, May 1, in Prince Georges County, MD, we buried Police Corporal John Joseph Novabilski, known as ``Nova.'' Corporal Novabilski was killed in uniform while sitting in his cruiser working as an off-duty security guard. Allegedly, following an earlier argument, his assailant walked up from behind and shot Novabilski 11 times. Officer Novabilski first joined the Prince Georges police force in 1988. He took his job as an officer of the law seriously, and sought duty in high crime areas. He was also compassionate, using his own money to buy toys for poor youngsters in the neighborhood. His fellow officers knew him for his big, warm smile and good humored griping. At the funeral, a friend, Kirk Mullings, described Corporal Novabilski as a good man who wanted nothing more than to fall in love with a good woman, have many good friends, and do the job he loved. On behalf of the citizens of Prince Georges County and the State of Maryland, I want to say to his wife, Karen, and his family that we appreciate what John did to help our community and we'll long remember his efforts. May God rest his soul. John Joseph Novabilski, American hero.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I come this evening to condemn the senseless and cowardly bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City. I join with my colleagues and all of us here in America in expressing our condolences and sympathies to the families of the victims. On occasions such as this words are certainly inadequate to express both our concern and their pain, so we can only say that we feel the pain, we try to share the pain, but in the final analysis they must bear the pain. And that is very regretful. worked tirelessly, sometimes around the clock, in a rescue attempt to reduce the pain and suffering and to bring out of the rubble the loved ones in Oklahoma City. I want to take a moment to specifically commend a group of rescue workers from my own district in Montgomery County who went down to Oklahoma, as did many other rescue workers from around the country, to lend a hand. In the truest American spirit they did a wonderful job, and I want to thank them one and all. I also want to join with what I believe is a rising chorus speaking on behalf of Federal workers. Now I know this is a somewhat sensitive issue, and let me be clear that I am not here to suggest that conservative speech, antigovernment speech, disagreement with Government policy or disagreement with Government bureaucracy was the cause of the bombing in Oklahoma City. That is not my argument. But I rather hope that, if there is any legacy to the people who lost their lives in Oklahoma City, it will be a legacy of respect for Federal employees. I say to my colleagues, ``If you go down the rollcall, you see the employees from all agencies, from Housing and Urban Development, from the Department of Transportation, from Veterans Affairs, from Social Security, from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, from General Services Administration which were all in that building. These are some of the same Federal employees who have been showered with contempt, who have been described as the worst, as Government vultures, as lazy bureaucrats, as worthless Federal employees. These are the same Federal employees whom we have attempted to cut benefits for, the same Federal employees whom we have increased pensions costs on, at least attempted to increase pension costs on, and it seems to me there is a general attitude of hostility toward Federal employees.'' Legitimate criticism, of course, is intrinsic to this body; contempt for hardworking Federal employees is not. I would certainly caution my colleagues of both sides of the aisle who may have occasion to be contemptuous of Federal employees and their performance to keep in mind that they do not make the laws. We do. They only try to execute to the best of their ability the laws that we make, and, yes, some do not do as good a job as we would like, and some merit criticism, but certainly the kind of contempt and condemnation that I have heard on the floor of this body is not deserving. These people, as we now know, have families, and young children, and dreams and desires, many of which were snuffed out in Oklahoma City. They are people just like us. Now is not a time for finger pointing. Now is the time for sympathy, for condolences, for words of encouragement. But I hope there will be a legacy out of all this, a legacy of tolerance for Federal employees, support for Federal employees, a legacy of restraint on the part of Members of this House and on the part of certain Members of the media when addressing the issue of Federal employees because, while these words did not cause the bombing in Oklahoma City, they certainly showed a contempt for Federal employees which they do not deserve. Let us leave the victims of Oklahoma City with a better legacy in the future.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill because I am a little confused. As I said earlier this morning, I thought we were in the business of cutting taxes with this bill only to find out that we are actually increasing taxes on 2 million Americans. I am disturbed because those 2 million Americans are Federal employees, FBI agents, cancer researchers, people that help move our Social Security checks, people who work very hard, who have experienced downsizing, and who are now confronted with the notion that in order to get a $500 per child tax deduction, they are going to pay an extra $750 to get that. They are paying that in the form of an increased contribution for their retirement. There is nothing wrong with the Federal retiree system now. It is not overly generous. In the private sector they would not have to pay anything at all. It is not insolvent. We have had research to indicate that it is in fine shape. Why are they doing this? They are doing it to raise money and they are raising money to give a tax break to the wealthiest citizens in America. This debate does not have anything to do about whether ma and pa ought to get a tax break. The problem with this tax proposal is all the money is going to the very wealthy. The top 1 percent of Americans will get 10 percent of the benefits under this bill. The top 20 percent will get 50 percent of the benefits under this bill. It does not seem right to me.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, the debate this week is not about whether we ought to have a tax cut for the average American or for the seniors or for the hard-working folks back home. This debate is about whether we ought to give most of the tax break to the wealthiest people in America who make up to $200,000 a year. I say no. To raise the money for this tax break, the Republicans have once again gone after the middle class, this time in the form of Federal employees who only make an average of $30,000 a year. They raised $12 billion by raising the pension contribution of Federal employees by 2.5 percent, which means that the average Federal employee making $30,000 will have to pay $750 in new taxes, because that is what it is, a tax on Federal employees. So let me see if I have got this straight. In order to get a tax deduction of $500 per child, the Federal employee under the Republican plan will have to pay $750. I do not think that makes good sense. Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about a tax break for the folks back home; this debate is about whether we ought to give a tax break to the wealthiest.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, it looks like the Republicans are at it again: Rob from the poor to give to the rich. First it was the school lunch program; now it is college scholarships. It would not be so bad if tax breaks were going to people who really deserve them, but that is not the case. That is why I made up my top 10 list in the spirit of the times--top 10 list of people making more than $100,000 who would get a tax break under the Republican proposal. No. 10, big developers. No. 9, doctors. No. 8, wealthy landlords. No. 7, big agri-farmers. No. 6, corporate managers. Remember, these are people who are going to get a tax break under the Republican proposal. No. 5, overpaid conservative talk show hosts. No. 4, the chairman of the local country clubs' admissions boards. No. 3, wealthy lobbyists. No. 2, attorneys. And the No. 1 group that is going to get the tax break under their proposal, your local Congressman, because they make over $100,000. Do you think they need a tax break? I do not.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to join the fray in the debate about the tax increase that we are about to vote on this week. I am very concerned about the issue of tax fairness. I think what we have seen over the past couple of weeks is a consistent pattern wherein the Republican majority has consistently stolen from the poor to give to the rich. This is not an issue of whether there ought to be tax break for middle class, working poor people in America, because that is not what there tax break does. It goes to people who make as much as $200,000 a year, and I think that is wrong. This was dramatically illustrated when we analyzed the proposal to cut the school lunch program, and the Republicans suggested we will cut the school lunch program, we will underfund it in comparison to anticipate needs, we will not adjust for inflation, so we can cut money out of this program to help fund the tax cut. It is evident in the attempts to cut the college scholarship program. Once again, taking from the middle class, the working class, in order to fund tax increases that benefit people who make up to $200,000 a year. It is my view that if there is going to be a tax break, it ought to be given to people who are making under $100,000 a year, not the wealthy people, not the attorneys and the Congress people and people like that who do not need it. Or, and there seems to be a lot of sentiment that this is what ought to be done, we ought to take that money and put it into deficit reduction. Even when I talk to some of the wealthy people who would get this tax break, and I say do you, making $150,000 a year, want this $500 per child tax break, or do you want to see this money go for deficit reduction? Overwhelmingly, the professionals, more well off people, say Congressman, what we need to do is put this money into deficit reduction. So it seems to me the Republicans are wrong on two accounts. They are wrong for taking money out of the mouths of children to fund a tax cut for the wealthy, and for not responding to the legitimate needs of the country, which is deficit reduction. What I wanted to focus on today is yet another indictment of the Republican tax proposal in that it creates an additional tax on working people, a specific category of working people, Federal employees, I rise today to express my grave concern for several measures contained in H.R. 1327. I am concerned specifically about title IV of this measure. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will tell you they are reducing the taxes for the American family, in actuality they are increasing taxes for some of our hardest working citizens, Federal workers. Under the proposal coming forth this week, 2 million people working for the Federal Government will be taxed an additional 2.5 percent of their income. This so-called contribution comes in the form of an additional contribution by these Federal employees toward their retirement. What this amounts to on average is a $750 per year tax on the average Federal employee who makes $30,000 a year. Now, what I cannot understand is how they are going to receive on the one hand a $500 per child tax break, but yet on the other hand lose in the form of an additional contribution, additional taxes toward their retirement, $750 a year. They are going to be $250 in the hole. There may be some question in Republican minds as to whether this is a tax. Well, the Congressional Budget Office scored this as a revenue, which means it is in fact a tax. Apparently the CBO knows it is a tax, yet the chairmen of the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Rules would not recognize this as being the case. The proposal to increase the employee contribution is so ludicrous that even several Members of the Republican Party have stated should their party continue to pursue this proposed tax credit, they would vote against the measure. Let me repeat, and urge my colleagues to listen carefully. This bill coming before the House tomorrow taxes Federal employees making $30,000 a year to provide a tax credit for those making up to $200,000 a year. Each Member of this House has Federal workers in their district. I hope you will stand up and tell them you are imposing a tax on them so you can give someone making $200,000 a tax break. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details, and this is certainly the case. The Federal contribution would be increased from 7.0 percent to 9.5 percent of salary in order to meet this requirement. This is an unusual situation because initially it was couched as a suggestion that there needed to be some sort of change in the system, that the retirement system was somehow flawed. But in fact a study by the Congressional Research Service indicated that there was no unfunded liability. So if it is not to solve unfunded liability, it can only be to round up money to provide tax benefits for the wealthy. Mr. Speaker, I hope we will reject this ill-conceived recommendation.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and for her kind remarks. Mr. Speaker, I do rise as a Member of our region representing Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties, the neighbors to the north and east of the District of Columbia. Let me begin by extending commendations to the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], and to the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Michigan [Miss Collins], and also to the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], a freshman who has done exemplary work on this project. I am certainly appreciative, and all of my constituents are appreciative. Finally, let me note the outstanding work of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], who has done yeoman's work on this bill in both being an advocate for the District of Columbia and a strong negotiator here in Congress, in helping to bring this measure to fruition. Mr. Speaker, we in the suburbs do recognize the importance of the District of Columbia to the Nation's vitality. That is why I am here to support the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act. I hope my colleagues in this body also recognize the importance of the District of Columbia as the seat of our Nation's Capital and would also support this measure. Looking at our current situation, Mr. Speaker, it is in fact a crisis. There have been some mistakes on the part of the District of Columbia, but the Congress also bears a significant part of the responsibility for this situation. We have helped create this structural deficit that includes congressionally imposed unfunded pension liabilities, so it is good that both parties have come together. Again, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] has been inclusive in allowing the District of Columbia officials to participate and accepting their suggestions as to how to make this proposal work. Mr. Speaker, it retains the strong role of the District officials, the Mayor, and the council. It also maintains limited home rule. I believe the bill is a significant movement in the right direction toward correcting the problems of the District of Columbia, and urge its adoption.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about term limits, and maybe debunk some of the myths that have been put out about why term limits are such a good idea. Now, the first argument that you hear is that well, the majority of people like it. You just heard 80 percent of the people like term limits. Well, they have an easy solution. Do not vote for us. The fact of the matter is, the people right now have that option. All those people who do not like the incumbent can not vote for the incumbent. But if you think about it, ladies and gentlemen, the point of the matter is this is not a popularity contest. A lot of the majority at one point in time thought slavery was a good idea. You could probably get a majority today to abolish all taxes. That does not dispose of the issue. Clearly we need more thought on this issue. Second, you hear what we need is a citizen legislature. We are all citizens. It does not matter whether you have been here 2, 10, or 20 years, we are all citizens. But my point is, being in the legislature is not a hobby. It is not a lark. It is a job with a tremendous amount of responsibility. I am going into my third year, and I have to tell you, it is an awesome responsibility, and there is a very high learning curve. You do not manage a multitrillion-dollar budget by walking in off the street. People want to say, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, well, you ought to run Government like a business. Ladies and gentlemen, you know, every business cherishes its talented people. There is no corporation in America that says after you have been here 6 years and begun to learn the business or after you have been managing for 12 years and things are going well, we are going to kick you out the door. It does not work that way. Yes, run Government like a business, keep talented people there. At least give them the opportunity to be retained. Third, you hear about incumbency. First of all, there are 83 new Members in this body, so incumbents are not winning all the races. The gentleman says most of the incumbents still won anyway. Yes, people like me, who are incumbents the last time around, who were freshmen incumbents. There are over 100 in my class. Most of us did win. That is not an indictment of this system to suggest that incumbents win. That is the reasonable outcome. Finally, there is the issue of career politicians. Let me state emphatically, there is nothing wrong with a career in politics, if you do a good job, if your people think you do a good job, and if they elect you. Mr. Chairman, I think the people ought to have the right to select the person that they want. That is the only issue in this debate, the right of American people to decide in their individual district and their individual community if they want to retain someone or if they want to oust them. I trust the wisdom of the American people to make that decision on election day, and that is why I believe we do not need term limits.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I come to deliver a message from our luncheon on Sunday: Stop picking on kids. Little 10-year-old Touissant Clemmens probably said it best, ``Children have to say no to a lot of things. Food should not be one of them.'' Mr. Speaker, I cannot for the life of me understand why we are cutting $6 billion out of the School Lunch Program to provide tax breaks for the wealthy. I cannot understand why we are trying to replace a Federal bureaucracy with 50 State bureaucracies, and why that is a better idea. I cannot understand why we are eliminating national nutrition standards. Does someone want to go back to calling catsup a vegetable? I am concerned, because these cuts are going to finance tax breaks for the wealthy. Fifty percent of the tax breaks go to families making over $100,000, like Congressmen. I do not think we need a tax break. Five hundred dollars per child for people making up to $200,000? I do not understand why. Twenty percent of the tax cuts go to the wealthiest 2 percent of the people in this country. Mr. Speaker, you like to talk about the average American. Well, I will tell you, when the average American citizen figures out we are taking money out of the mouths of children to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy, I think they are going to resent it. I think they are going to resent it all the way to the 1996 elections.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, this a good amendment that makes a bad bill better. I am appalled at these cuts. I understand we have tough decisions to make, but I find it ironic that the people that say we need more people working and people need to pull themselves by their bootstraps want to cut off the bootstraps. They cut adult job training. They cut summer jobs. They cut job training programs. But what made it so appalling was that they would make these cuts affecting the disadvantaged only to give to the rich. Under this bill, the wealthiest 2 percent of this country would get 30 percent of the tax breaks. The wealthiest, the people with over $100,000, would get 50 percent of the tax breaks. This amendment corrects that. At least we see money going into deficit reduction, as it should be. Perhaps the poor will benefit from lower interest rates. Perhaps the poor will benefit from not having to pay as much in debt service, and we can put some of that money back, but clearly we should not be making these draconian cuts to give money to the wealthy. They say, well, they will find that money elsewhere to do the tax cut. Maybe so, but I submit that now the average American can ask the question, ``Who is getting the tax break?'' I think when they see who is getting the tax break, they will reject this approach. I am pleased to support this amendment. I think it is moving in the right direction. It makes a bad bill better.