Albert Wynn

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, now that the first 50 days are past, I think we are beginning to see the true colors of the Republican Party. Once again they are playing Robin Hood in reverse, taking from the poor to give to the rich. When I thought about some of the things that have occurred over the last couple of weeks, it appeared to me that what we have is a party of contradictions. This is a group that said, What we are is pro-life. We believe in debate, but I did find it interesting that, when they started cutting, they went after the Healthy Start Program and cut $10 million from programs that provided prenatal care. Madam Speaker, I wonder how, on the one hand, people can say they are pro-life, but take away funds that help expectant mothers take care of newborns. They took $25 million from the Women, Infants, and Children's Program, another program designed to help expectant mothers and toddlers obtain the kind of nutrition that they need to survive. It seems to me to be a strange contradiction. Next they said, Well, you know, we're the party that believes in work. Well, that is what the Republicans say. But the first thing they did was go after programs that move children, young people, from school to work. They cut a total of $3 billion, including 600,000 positions in summer jobs. Now we can talk all we want about how we can fight crime and we can talk all we want about people need to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get out of the wagon and help everybody else pull, but when you take money out of the Summer Jobs Program, it seems to me you are party in contradiction. Then they said, Oh, yes, sir, we support the elderly. We asked them about protecting Social Security; they said, Oh, yes, we will do it. We won't touch Social Security. We said, If you won't touch Social Security, put it in the bill. They would not do it. I think the contradiction is clear, but we go on and find that in the area of fuel assistance for the elderly the Republicans decided they would cut out the entire program. Two million elderly are engaged in the Fuel Assistance Program. That program is eliminated. Then, you know, they are also the party that is big on patriotism and they always want to talk about a drop of American blood, but that is also the crowd that cut 50 million from medical equipment and facilities from the veterans program, even at a time when we are expecting an increase in the veterans population. Now I just heard one of my distinguished colleagues say, Well, you don't understand. What we are doing is, we are not cutting these programs, we are slowing the growth. I am going to tell you in a minute what they are going to do with the funds that they claim that they are saving. But before I get to that, I want to talk about the School Lunch Program. Because once again they are robbing the poor to give to the rich. Tomorrow morning I am going to have breakfast with young students at Bladensburg Elementary and next week I am going to have lunch with some more students at Green Valley Elementary School, and the reason I am going is to see what is going on. At Green Valley, for example, 61 percent of the students are in the free or reduced lunch program. And the teachers will tell you that this may be the only meal that these young people get. So it seems to me that if the Republicans were really serious about giving people a chance in life, they would not be taking money out of the School Lunch Program. Now, let's get back to economics. They say, Well, we are just slowing the growth of these programs; we are actually putting in more. What you find, ladies and gentlemen, is that when the Republicans are talking about defense spending, they alway talk about funds adjusted for inflation. But when they talk about social spending, they talk about raw numbers, which means that the numbers essentially stay the same while inflation eats away at the purchasing power. So consequently, those programs that they claim they are increasing are scheduled to fail and cannot in fact keep pace with the cost of providing these services, cannot keep pace with the cost of food and other products to make these programs viable. Now, I suppose some would say, You don't understand, Congressman, we have to make these cuts to reduce the deficits. If it were going for the deficit, that would be one thing, but they are giving it to the rich. The cuts that I described are not going for the deficit. In fact, they are going to provide tax cuts for the wealthy. Thirty percent of the tax cuts that come out of the programs that I just described will go to the richest 2 percent of Americans in this country. Thirty percent of the tax benefit to the richest 2 percent of Americans. And a full 50 percent of the tax breaks won't go to the average American citizen that the Speaker likes to talk about. The 50 percent goes to the people who make over $100,000. So, ladies and gentlemen, it seems to me that we are in a grave state of contradiction in that instead of assisting the poor and instead of helping them move out of poverty, we are taking resources from them. And they say, Well, we are just giving it to the States so the States can do it better at less cost and we are just cutting bureaucratic costs. Ladies and gentlemen, you have to have bureaucracy at the State level, so they are substituting State bureaucrats for Federal bureaucrats. The cost savings are not going to be there. The other issue is this: If the States were inclined to do these programs, if the States were inclined to have fuel assistance and breakfast programs and lunch programs, why didn't the States do it? It was not done until the Federal Government stepped in and said giving people a healthy start in life is a national priority and it doesn't matter if they live in Oklahoma or Alaska, we want to make sure that you get these benefits. So you see, Madam Speaker, in the final analysis we have a contradiction. We are not helping the poor, we are only helping the rich at the expense of the poor.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the sponsor a question if he would be willing to respond. Mr. Chairman, if there is no settlement in the first 2 months, what occurs?

Mr. WYNN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. WYNN. That is fine, Mr. Chairman. Reclaiming my time, that is the point I wanted to make, that in one instance, according to the answer provided by the sponsor, nothing would occur because if the offer is rejected the attorney would simply proceed on a contingency fee basis as is current practice.

Mr. WYNN. Reclaiming my time, that is bad. But what he just said may be even worse if he is in fact correct, because the attorney would just reject a settleman offer, therefore putting into effect a contingency fee. I want to make a couple of other quick points. Mr. Chairman, the point is this, the contingency fees are being portrayed as the villain of the legal system. That is emphatically not true. The contingency fees are a mechanism by which the average America, the person that the Republicans love to cite, gets access to the judicial system. Without contingency fees the fact is a lot of cases would not be brought. I want to tell my colleagues something else. Without contingency fees, we do not have a control on frivolous lawsuits, because contingency fees are in fact the initial screening mechanism, and as an attorney I can tell you that if a case comes in that is frivolous, I am not going to take it on a contingency basis because in all probability I will lose. So a lot of cases that would otherwise be brought are in fact not brought because the initial attorney says this case is a bad case. Let me point out in the second instance this bill does not stop contingency fees. As the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], I believe, indicated, after the 10 percent you are still able to collect a contingency fee. So let us suggest that you are offered in a $100,000 case a $10,000 settlement. You reject the settlement offer. You then win $100,000. You collect a contingency of $30,000. I think contingency fees are good. If my colleagues think it is bad, certainly this amendment will not prohibit it. I suggest that we reject the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].

Mr. WYNN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, it is time we accept the reality. We are a world power. We are a world power. We defeated communism, and no, we cannot expect Nepal and Bangladesh to pay the same amount of money that we do. Yes, we are going to have to take the leadership, and part of that burden means we are going to have to pay more. But, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that this is a very wise investment, which is why I believe this bill is mistaken when it attempts to undermine funding for U.N. peacekeeping activities. The point I am trying to make is that we have very legitimate and vital national interests which are protected by U.N. peacekeeping. What are our interests? We have an interest in the global marketplace, that markets are allowed to thrive and not be disrupted by localized aggression and by petty dictators. We do not want to set the precedent that might makes right. We do not want to see our markets disrupted by petty dictators. We want to have the ability to work collectively within the world community to thwart these kinds of efforts. We have an interest in oil. Our recent efforts in Desert Storm magnify the fact that we need to work collectively and we need to have the resources of other countries join with ours to fight to help protect our specific interests. We have a very important interest, Mr. Chairman, in fighting terrorism internationally. With the exception of the very unfortunate bombing in New York, we have had the good fortune of not having very much terrorism on our shores. It is better, I submit, to fight terrorism on other shores in a preemptive manner rather than have it come to this country. What does this have to do with U.N. burdensharing? The gentleman was saying that we are paying for Napalese soldiers. I would submit that is probably a wise investment. Better to have other soldiers involved in the fight than to have all U.S. soldiers, because this bill provides us with an unfortunate option. We either go it alone or do not go at all. We have got interests that mean we have to go. I submit we are better off if we go with others.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I rise today to oppose H.R. 7. I believe it is penny-wise and pound- foolish and also very shortsighted, specifically on the U.N. peacekeeping. It seems to me the issue has evolved into a question of whether we have legitimate U.S. interests in United Nations peacekeeping. I would submit we do. First, in terms of the global marketplace. We have committed ourselves to NAFTA, we have committed ourselves to GATT. In the post-cold-war era we have hitched our wagon to the notion of a global marketplace. International instability, localized terrorism, all disrupt that global marketplace and those global markets. We have an interest in U.N. peacekeeping to the extent it helps us to maintain the global marketplace. Second, we have a vital U.S. interest in fighting terrorism on a multilateral basis. Terrorism is perhaps the biggest threat of the coming century. We only have to look to New York City to see the potential. Clearly, it is in our interest to have the ability to act multilaterally to combat terrorism. And third, burden sharing: It used to be very much in vogue to suggest that our allies and other countries around the world ought to join with us in bearing some of this responsibility. It seems to the extent we undermine U.N. peacekeeping by reducing our own commitment, we undermine the ability to command a multilateral force to protect U.S. interests. Now, I am not ignorant of the concern that we may be paying too much. As a matter of fact, this Congress last year reduced our commitment from 30 to 25 percent. But I think if we take the unilateral action suggested in this bill, we will certainly harm our interest because we will set a reverse, negative precedent. Russia will want to decrease its commitment because of the things it has done in the former Soviet Union. France would want to decrease its commitment because of Rwanda. So the net effect will be that we will have an untenable choice: We will either have to act unilaterally or we will have to take no action at all. I suggest that is shortsighted.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning to strongly support the Schumer-Conyers-Chapman amendment. I recall last year when we had a really good crime bill that we had a proper balance, somewhat like a 3-legged stool. We reflected the 3 P's of crime fighting: crime prevention grants at the beginning of the process to prevent crime, police to both prevent crime and apprehend criminals, and prisons to house prisoners and to keep violent offenders off the street. Unfortunately, that delicate and, I think, very sensible balance has been disrupted in the Republican-sponsored bill we have before us today. What they have done is disrupted this balance by being too heavy on prisons, the part of the process at the very end, and creating a very heavily funded dysfunctional leg for prisons, then trying to merge prevention and police into one also dysfunctional leg. It is very unfortunate. I want to commend all of those who tried unsuccessfully yesterday to restore prevention funds. But today I want to talk specifically about the ground troops in the war on crime, and that is police. We say it is a war on crime, and in any other national defense circumstance it seems to me we would advocate national decisionmaking and national priority setting. This is the only one in which we say the most important thing is local decisionmaking. We need to assure that the ground troops necessary to fight the war on crime are in place and that means we need more police. Every single law enforcement entity has said community policing works. Every local neighborhood, neighborhoods who never before had positive relationships with their police departments said, ``Yes, if you bring a law enforcement official into our community not as a storm trooper but as someone who can work with the community, work with young people, identify local problems, this works.'' ``Yes, if you have consistent patrols that can walk the beat and get to know the community, we can solve crime.'' The Republicans, unfortunately, do not believe that this makes quite as much sense, and that is why they have taken away our opportunity to guarantee these police forces. I believe we do need national priority setting on this issue. We do need to ensure that we here in the Congress provide the ground troops in the war on crime. We have an interesting situation here: We have the Republican judgment that we do not need these police or to let the locals make the decision, but we have the law enforcement community saying across the board--major Officers, Law Enforcement Officers Association, Fraternal Order of Police, Black Police Officers, Black Police Executives, National Troopers Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, and the Police Foundation--all say they support the police program. They support the current COPS program to guarantee 100,000 police. They say that it is essential in our efforts to taking back our streets. So we have in this corner the Republican judgment, ``Let the locals decide.'' You have in this corner the judgment of our law enforcement community, the people that we ask to defend our streets, who say the top priority should be the retention of the COPS program. Now, I am not here to object to local decisionmaking. As a former State official, I believe in it. But the fact remains that if we send these grants down to the local level, they will be caught up in competing interests. One gentleman got up yesterday and suggested, ``Well, we are going to need a road to connect one prison to another.'' Another one wants lights. Another group may want sports. Another may want other activities. These are all legitimate activities and all contribute to fighting crime. But the issue before us today is whether we in the U.S. Congress take a stand with law enforcement officials across this land and say that police ought to be our top priority. I can tell you in the State of Maryland we have already received 284 officers. My district has received 55 more police officers. You know what, Mr. Chairman? It is working. My small town mayors, my county executives are all saying this is what we need, additional police. So I want to say emphatically that local decisionmaking has its place, but if we are in a war in this country on crime, it seems to me we need to make some national decisions, and that national decision ought to be to strongly support the cops on the beat.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WYNN

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

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to this point, because I was on the floor when we had the debate about unallocated funds, and I want to really heighten the contradiction that has taken place here today. In point of fact, the gentleman from Florida did allocate money to Federal courthouses and Federal prosecutors, and, by his own statement, INS, another Federal agency. I do not know how we got from local prison funds back to the INS and back to the FBI and back to the Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco Bureau and back to Federal courthouses, because that was the testimony of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] on this floor when he said yes, we need more Federal courthouses and more Federal prosecutors and we need more Federal this and that. The fact of the matter is the gentleman had no problem taking money out of the program, unallocated funds, and sending them back to the Federal Government, but yet now when we have the very legitimate program that deserves attention, he resists taking a very small amount of money for a very worthwhile cause. It seems to me that gang prevention is a better use of our dollars than continuing to build these prisons or, as what happened yesterday, sending money back to Federal agencies.

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

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise because I have to point out that just yesterday, after the gentleman tells us today that this money is for prisons and should only be used for prisons, just yesterday, when we were debating the question of unallocated funds, the gentleman hurriedly put together an amendment to send these unallocated funds back to the Federal Government, not to the local governments that he says ought to be the decisionmaking entities, but rather back to Federal Government to build Federal courthouses----

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today because although I support truth in sentencing, I do not support pork, and that is the problem with the bill as it is currently drafted. We watched yesterday afternoon when the Republicans basically presented us with a porkfest. We had a lengthy debate, and in the course of that debate it was pointed out that there is a $5 billion pot of money called truth in sentencing incentive grants, $5 billion, but of that $5 billion what we found out was only three States could qualify, and the gentleman suggested, ``Oh, no, more States would want to do this.'' But I checked with my people in Maryland and they said even though we have already doubled our sentencing requirements, the time-served requirements, that even with this bill Maryland would probably not be able to get any money because it would not be cost- effective, it would cost the State too much money to build the prisons even with the grant that we could get from the Federal Government. So the debate went on and finally the gentleman conceded that yes, there are probably going to be some States that would not be able to take advantage of this money, so the question became what do we do with the unallocated funds? To those of you who are deficit hawks, watch out. Unallocated funds, rather than have these funds go back to the Treasury for deficit reduction, these funds, which could be $2 billion, $3 billion, because remember only three States qualify, the funds would be suddenly given back to the Justice Department for Federal courthouses and Federal magistrates and to the INS Service. So I see a grave contradiction today, Mr. Chairman. While the Republican chairman suggests we ought to give all of this money to the local governments for prisons, not only is the money not going for prisons, it is not going to the local government, it is reverting back to the Federal Government, not for prisons but for courthouses and INS and other Federal investigatory bureaus. I do not think that is what the American people want. I think yes, we can have truth in sentencing and yes, serious violators ought to serve more time, no disagreement there. The issue becomes whether we take the unallocated funds and have a porkfest for Federal investigatory agencies or whether we use unallocated funds and spend it on deficit reduction. I believe we ought to spend it on deficit reduction, which is why I support the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia which suggests that this money ought to be cut.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Watt amendment and perhaps unlike opponent of the death penalty. But I felt I had to rise today to remind my colleagues, some of whom are on the other side, that the issue is not speed, the issue is justice. And the distinguished gentleman from Florida said that in looking at this amendment, we are creating another way to get to court. And the only way that the defendant ought to get to court is if he alleges under current law that there is some sort of constitutional infirmity with his conviction. I understand that. I have practiced a little law in my time. But the point, Mr. Chairman, is this, that, yes, you ought to be able to get into the courthouse if you have a constitutional infirmity in your case. You ought to be able to make your case. But you also ought to be able to get into the courthouse if you are innocent. If you have evidence of probable innocence, our American judicial system ought to say, the courthouse door swings open for you. You can come through the door and present that evidence. Now, the gentleman may suggest, well, that is a radical change. I am not going to debate that point. I would suggest, maybe it is. In the State of Maryland we recently had a man who sat on death row for 8 years for a rape-murder, probably as tragic and horrific as any of my colleagues can imagine. After 8 years, through DNA evidence, it was determined he was in fact not the perpetrator. Thankfully, he had not been executed. That evidence should be available to the court. That at least ought to get him in the courthouse door. There have been other cases throughout the country in which recantations of testimony have resulted in the determination that the accused sitting on death row was in fact an innocent man. As I said, Mr. Chairman, it is not a question of speed, it is a question of justice. And justice demands that if someone can prove or establish the probability of their innocence, they ought to at least be allowed to come through the courthouse door. There will be time to conduct the execution, if that is merited, if that is the case, but certainly, we ought to seek justice before we seek speed. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].

Mr. WYNN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for pointing that out and also commend him for the thoroughness of his research. To the extent it is not a radical change, I do not even believe the opposition can rely on that argument. We are simply attempting, according to the sponsor, to codify existing law which has been well reasoned by the higher courts in determining that once again justice takes precedence over expediency.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I feel a chill in the air this afternoon. I think we are about to see a very dark day in history of the United States of America, the beginning of the police state. I submit that historians looking back will write that America's liberty began to erode in 1995 when they undertook to substitute language for the fourth amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the great fears that the science fiction writers write about is the black-clad storm troopers that break through your door, seizing whatever they might, seizing your personal items. That is the modern-day version of what our forefathers in the fourth amendment were afraid of. Today, Mr. Chairman, I believe if the majority prevails we are about to undertake the beginning of that scenario. That is not a question of whether we trust police officers. As an attorney, I represented police officers and I know them to be hard- working, dedicated public servants, but I also know from their own mouths that they are not above making conscious mistakes. I also know that there are instances in which they go beyond the bounds of the law. My statement is not to indict police officers, Mr. Chairman, I am here to commend them, but rather to say that the protections contained in the fourth amendment were designed to protect the most precious group of people in this society, more precious even than police officers; that is, the U.S. citizenry. Therefore I say, Mr. Chairman, today, that this could be a very dark day in the history of the United States when we suspend the rights so dearly protected in the fourth amendment, and in its place allow individuals to state what they thought they were doing, what they wanted to do, what they intended to do, rather than provide what the Constitution provides, that the people shall be secure, secure in their person. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the Watt amendment.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, good morning, I rise today to object to people playing God in the marketplace. It is amazing to me that some of the economists who claim to be such free traders and such believers in the free marketplace would intervene in our economy a record seven times in the past year. They have consistently increased interest rates to the detriment of the American consumer. Now, while I understand that some restraint and some interest rate increases are in fact necessary, it seems to me the Fed ought to at least wait and see the effect of this last interest rate increase. I can tell you about the effect of their current rate increase: Variable rate mortgages will increase. The consumer will be harmed. Credit card balances will increase. The consumer will be harmed. Car purchases will become more expensive. The most thriving part of the American economy will be jeopardized. Mr. Speaker, there are other considerations. We are down here talking about people ought to go to work. Well, the effect of the raise in the interest rates is that there will be less jobs for those on welfare and those we want to encourage to work. We also say people ought to save more. There will be less saving because of the higher interest rates. I wish people would stop playing God in the marketplace.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, good morning. I rise today to clarify for the American people what this balanced budget debate is all about. Make no mistake about it, the Democrats want a balanced budget. The difference is, we want to do it right. I am from the State of Maryland, 10 years in the State legislature. We had a balanced budget. We are one of only about seven States with a triple-A bond rating, but we understand how to do it right and that is what we need to do on the floor of this assembly. First we need truth-in-budgeting. We need to know exactly what cuts will be necessary in order to balance the budget. You would not buy a house without knowing the mortgage payments. We need to know what we are going to have to do in order to balance this budget. It seems to me people are wondering will it really cause a 20-percent cut in Medicare? Will it really cut out veterans' benefits, truth-in-budgeting? Second, preserve Social Security. Yesterday we went through a charade. We passed a resolution. That is not the force of law. We need to put in law that our original contract. The original contract was with our senior citizens. We can have a balanced budget but it is important that we do it in the right way, not in the politically expedient way.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to say that the President got it right last night. He talked about empowering people, and critically he said, ``You've got to pay a decent wage.'' He suggests that the greatest incentive to work in America is the ability to earn a livable wage. Mr. Speaker, I recall commenting about a seamstress who, when told, ``If you got an increase in the minimum wage, you might lose your job,'' told a reporter, ``Look. I'll take my chances with a job. I want a better wage.'' There are young people all throughout my district who say the same thing: ``Congressman, we want to work, but it's got to pay a decent wage.'' The President pointed out last night that at the current minimum wage level of $4.25 an average American makes $8,840 a year, less than we make in 1 month. I think that is very telling because subsequent to his speech last night the American people in poll results said by a margin of 72 percent that they wanted a livable wage. Ladies and gentlemen of America, there is a difference. The President has got it right. Let us pay a decent wage.

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, it appears that the Republicans are already reversing their own reforms. First they say that committees should not meet on the floor during debates under the 5-minute rule because Members cannot effectively be in two places at the same time. Actually, they had a pretty good idea. Unfortunately, they decided to renege on it last night. What they said is, ``Well, we're going to change the rules.'' I know they take offense at the parliamentary skirmishes that are going on right now, but when you change the rules and try to silence the Democrats, when you say, ``We'll take 58 minutes or 67 minutes and give you 3 minutes,'' we are not going to stand for it. I think the message we want to transmit this morning is that there will be comity on this floor--not comedy, but comity--fairness and a sharing of the time, or else. I conclude with the words cited in the American Revolution, quite simply, ``Don't tread on me.''

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening in strong support of the amendment sponsored by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders]. I think this is an opportunity in which we in Congress define our role. Not too long ago we stood and raised our hands and took an oath, and the essence of that oath was that we would protect the national interests. That is the interests of all Americans. And I submit that in the areas of occupational safety, minimum wages, and, most importantly, child labor laws, that this is an appropriate area for national decisionmaking and that we have in fact an obligation to protect the Nation's best interests. Let me say, it was interesting listening to the discussion a few moments ago, that I too served in the State legislature for 10 years. And in the State legislature I was a strong advocate for limiting unfunded mandates. I support the concept today, but I feel strongly that the bill can be improved, and that is why I am supporting this amendment. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues on the other side have attempted to paint themselves as the advocates of the working class. Well, I will tell you, working class people are in trouble and the issue is wages. The bill in its current form makes this situation worse. The current minimum wage of $4.25 an hour has only increased $4 since its creation under the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938. At this rate the average family of two is just above the poverty level at $8,840. This minimum wage only buys 65 percent of what it could buy 10 years ago. The problems of homelessness, poverty, all go back to the question of wages. I think when I listen to some of the opponents of this amendment that they would have us resort to the levels of under developed countries and eliminate all wage standards. It was interesting, Mr. Chairman, in a recent show the question of the minimum wage was discussed. Opponents of the increase in the minimum wage said this would cause us to cut jobs. Then they talked to a seamstress who did piecework and asked her, you are a minimum wage worker, and if they increase the minimum wage, could this with children. She said I will take my chances with the increase in the minimum wage. I think there are jobs out here, but I need a decent wage. So we at the Federal level have a responsibility to respond to that seamstress. If we take on that responsibility, we should not have our intentions abrogated or intercepted by virtue of this bill. I think it is very important, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that we support the gentleman's amendment. Similarly in the area of child labor laws, we got into the business of child labor laws about 50 years ago when someone said, you know, it might make sense for us to impose some national standards on what age children should be allowed to work and under what conditions. And I find it hard to believe that some of the Members in this Chamber would say we should turn back the clock 50 years and say the Federal Government has no role. Yes, as a State legislator, I, too, have a great deal of confidence in the judgment of State and local officials, but I feel when I stood up and took that oath, I said, I was going to look out for the national interest. I was going to make sure we had fair minimum standards for occupational safety and minimum wages and child labor laws, and I think, in order to keep my oath, I have to support this amendment. And I certainly urge my colleagues to do similarly.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WYNN

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to comment on the sad situation affecting the House Historian's Office. In December, around Christmas-time, I read with dismay that the House Historian would be disbanded as another so-called cost-saving measure. But lo and behold, on December 30, it was stated by the Speaker that the office would, in fact, remain. Unfortunately he neglected to disclose that he had already selected the person, a highly partisan supporter of his, who had actually already moved into a suburban Washington townhouse. Not only do we have a highly partisan Historian, we are also going to have her husband as a paid chronicler. Perhaps there is another book deal in the works, but the most outrageous aspect of this whole situation is the fact that this Historian opposes a disclosure. Most historians want more information to broaden history. This Historian says she favors secret side contributions and opposes our current Federal election disclosure laws in order to protect GOPC, to protect large contributors who want to contribute behind closed doors. The Republicans have gone out of their way to say, we are not going to have business as usual. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it appears, based on the evidence of the Historian's Office, that we are not going to have business as usual. We are going to have business that is worse.