Jerry Kleczka

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. KLECZKA. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation which would adjust the rules for deducting military separation pay amounts from veterans' disability compensation. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997--Public Law 104-201--reduced the required offset by the amount of Federal income tax withheld from separation pay for payments received after September 30, 1996. My legislation would make the tax withholding provision retroactive to include all payments to those who were separated from the military after December 31, 1993. This bill would reduce the offset between veterans' disability compensation and certain bonus payments for early retirement received by former members of the military services. It is important that we correct this inequity in the law that unfairly penalizes many of our Nation's veterans' who have served their country honorably. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a Wisconsin- based firm, Roundy's, Inc. which was founded in Milwaukee in 1872 and proudly celebrates its 125th anniversary this year. Roundy's has grown from a small wholesale grocery and coffee warehouse in Milwaukee's third ward, to the largest food corporation in Wisconsin and the Nation's 5th largest food supplier. Roundy's employs over 2,700 individuals in my home State and over 5,100 in the Midwest. The Roundy's name, whether on grocery items, frozen foods, dairy, meat, produce or bakery, is synonymous with quality. For many years, Roundy's has been a major participant in community activities. The corporation is a strong supporter of, and major contributor to, the Special Olympics in both Wisconsin and Illinois. It's president and chief executive officer, Gerald F. Lestina, is the president and founder of ``In The Paint at One Two,'' Milwaukee's extremely successful midnight basketball league. The company is also actively involved with many area charities including the Midwest Athletes Against Childhood Cancer [MACC] Fund, the Lions Clubs, Kiwanis, Rotaries, YMCA, YWCA, the United Way, Salvation Army, and the Ronald McDonald House. Roundy's is also a contributor to the Second Harvesters food bank and other various community food pantries located throughout the Midwest. With all of this in mind, I am pleased to join my colleagues from Wisconsin and throughout the Midwest in recognizing Roundy's as the good corporate citizen it is and in honoring the corporation on its 125th anniversary celebration. Best wishes to Roundy's for many more years of success.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I call the attention of the House to a problem affecting gunsmiths as a result of the 1994 Crime Act. The 1994 law contained a provision requiring applicants for a new Federal firearms license, or renewal of an existing one, to prove that they are in compliance with any State or local zoning ordinances. Many States and localities have zoning laws that prevent individuals from obtaining dealers' licenses. For licensing purposes, the term ``dealer'' includes any person who makes or repairs firearms, which includes gunsmiths. Therefore, many gunsmiths are now being denied their Federal firearms license. One of my constituents, who is a gunsmith, informed me about his difficulties in complying with the Crime Act. As a result, I have introduced legislation to create a new Federal firearms license category for gunsmiths. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which administers the Federal license categories, supports creating this new category. My legislation will not allow gunsmiths to sell or transfer firearms, but it will permit them to continue to work in their profession. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, let me start out by indicating not only my strong support for the legislation, but also my pleasure in working with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer]. Not only is the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] very knowledgeable about the Tax Code, but in his dealings not only with myself but other Members, he always was very, very fair. He uses a saying in the committee, it is called rifle shot. He does not want any rifle shots as it relates to tax policy. I cannot agree with the chairman more. I think if we are going to put in the tax bill relief or fairness or help to a group, it should be a broad group, not one specific corporation, not one group of individuals but it should be a broad array of individuals. This bill, I believe, reflects that. I also want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], who kept us all honest, especially the Republican majority not only in items as it dealt with the education portion but also with the EITC and other areas that are so important to his constituents, my constituents, and all our constituents. The first time the bill came before this body, I could not vote for it. There was a very onerous position included in it, the independent contractors section, which would have the effect of reclassifying hundreds of thousands of current employees who get benefits such as unemployment compensation and workmen's compensation. They would be denied these by reclassifying them. This bill does not have that provision. It was taken out in the conference committee. That is probably the major reason why I stand here today in strong support of the bill. Also, I think one of the criticisms we have all had from time to time on the existing Tax Code is that it does not promote savings. With the inclusion of three new types of IRA's, we are changing the course of this Nation wherein we are going to reward savings and not reward spending. I think that is an important feature. Another area which I think should be highlighted, which is of vast importance to millions of homeowners in the country, is the exclusion of sale of your primary residence. Right now you have to save a whole ton of receipts to prove you are not making any money on the sale. This bill eliminates that. Last, since my tax legislative assistant is leaving today to go on to school, let me thank Win Boerckel for years of service in helping me with my Ways and Means Committee duties. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the tax bill before us today. The Taxpayer Relief Act brings us to a balanced budget while also providing tax relief to many Americans. On balance, I would have liked to have seen across-the-board tax relief for everyone, not just those with children, or those selling a house or securities. However, this was not to be since my committee amendment to increase the personal exemption for all taxpayers was defeated. Mr. Speaker, this legislation may not be perfect, but it is much improved over the version that came before us in the House 1 month ago. The changes made in conference have earned my support for this measure. The House bill contained a provision that could have had a devastating impact on workers and their benefits. The measure, innocently labeled as a safe harbor for independent contractors, would have permitted many employers to reclassify their workers as independent contractors and thus deny those workers employee benefits and worker protections. This was not only bad policy, it did not belong in this tax bill in the first place. Fortunately, the conferees wisely removed this language from the conference report before us today. Likewise, this conference report provides reasonable capital gains relief without triggering massive outyear revenue losses. The original House bill contained not only the capital gains cuts, but also a measure which would have allowed indexing the value of assets for inflation. The final bill leaves out the indexing which could have led to large revenue losses 10, 15, or 20 years from now, but includes the rate cuts that will provide significant relief to taxpayers today. The bill contains relief for parents raising children, small businesses being passed on to family members, workers saving for their retirement, and people saving to buy their first home. In order to help parents make ends meet, taxpayers with children 16 and under will receive a $400 tax credit next year, and a full $500 tax credit in 1999 and thereafter. This credit will be available to single parents making up to $75,000 and couples making up to $110,000. The bill also provides much-needed help to families with students going on to college. The HOPE scholarship will give students up to $1,500 a year for the first 2 years of college, and up to $1,000 a year for their third and fourth years. The agreement allows individuals to contribute tax-free to State-run prepaid tuition plans, like the one we have in our State of Wisconsin. The legislation also creates education individual retirement accounts to which families can contribute up to $500 per year toward college expenses. Single parents making up to $95,000 and couples making $150,000 can open and contribute to such education accounts. In addition, taxpayers will be allowed to withdraw up to 10 percent from a regular retirement IRA to pay for the education expenses of a child, grandchild, or spouse. Starting next year, taxpayers will be able to deduct a portion of the interest on their student loans. The allowed deduction will be $1,000 in 1998, gradually increased to $2,500 in 2001 and thereafter. The bill provides significant estate tax relief, increasing the amount of an estate exempt from tax from $600,000 to $1 million over the next 10 years. In addition, small business gets more immediate relief beginning next year when family-owned businesses and farms will be eligible for a $1.3 million exemption. Under this legislation, more and more Americans will be able to take advantage of individual retirement accounts [IRA's] to save for their old age, purchase a home, or save for their children's education. Single taxpayers making up to $95,000 and couples making up to $150,000 will now be able to contribute up to $2,000 a year to new back-loaded IRA's. The contributions will not be deductible from income, but the withdrawals will be completely tax-free. Withdrawals can be made penalty-free not just for retirement, but also for the purchase of a first home. More taxpayers will be able to contribute to regular IRA's as well. Over the next several years, the income limits restricting use of regular IRA's will be gradually increased. Those single individuals with incomes up to $50,000 and those couples making up to $80,000 will eventually be able to make tax-deductible contributions to regular IRA's. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that objectionable provisions have been removed so that I can support this legislation bringing tax relief to many people across this country and in the Fourth Congressional District of Wisconsin. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the growing concerns that our constituents have about the invasion of their personal privacy. The latest to take up the cause is Money magazine. In its August issue, Money recounts a poll it took. It found that nearly 75 percent of those surveyed were somewhat, or very concerned, about threats to their privacy. Those concerns have increased--about 66 percent are more worried now than they were 5 years ago. And more women than men are feeling threatened: 80 percent versus 68 percent People's biggest fear is the sale of their Social Security numbers and other personal identifiers, such as unlisted telephone numbers. Why? Because this information can unlock the door to medical records, school records, you name it. Under current Federal law, it is not a crime to sell this information. Some 88 percent want Government to change that. The Money article, entitled ``Protect Your Privacy,'' talks about legislation that I introduced to protect personal privacy. H.R. 1813, the Personal Information Privacy Act, would prevent the sale of Social Security numbers, unlisted phone numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, and other private information by credit bureaus, departments of motor vehicles and Internet vendors. Money says, ``Washington and private businesses need to work hard to minimize the biggest threats you face.'' It says that Congress and the President should enact this piece of legislation into law. I urge my colleagues to heed the concerns of their constituents and become cosponsors of H.R. 1813.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge America Online [AOL] to be up front with its customers over the issue of informed consent for telemarketing purposes. An AOL subscriber myself, I was outraged when I learned the company planned to market its 8.5 million customers' telephone numbers to scores of telemarketing hucksters, without informing them or getting their consent. Under a siege of protests, the Internet provider canceled that plan but instituted another that still breaks faith with its subscribers, Now it plans to allow its own employees to make the telemarketing calls. AOL still doesn't get it. Families sitting down to dinner do not want to be disturbed by unsolicited vendors. The company needs to make it clear to its customers up front what use it plans to make of their private information and then give them an easy option for protecting themselves from the unauthorized use of that data. And I emphasize ``easy.'' If you've ever tried to opt out of AOL's marketing gimmicks, you know how hard it is. Good luck in even finding the option on the company's Web site. What AOL should do is display a pop-up notification box informing subscribers of any new marketing schemes using customers' phone numbers and other personal information. This notification box should contain a simple yes or no option for customers to inform AOL of their decision whether to allow the company to release their personal information, or to permit AOL's own employees to market other companies' products to them. AOL also needs to call itself to a higher standard. Originally, it said it was collecting its subscribers' phone numbers so it could call them if their account was tampered with or if their credit card was stolen--not for telemarketing purposes. Its revised plan amounts to a bait-and-switch tactic. This whole saga is another example of how an incredibly useful and powerful medium can abuse the public trust. With power must come responsibility. And if online companies aren't willing to police themselves, Congress may very well do it for them. I have sponsored a bipartisan bill to safeguard the privacy of citizens' Social Security numbers and other personal information by restricting their marketability by credit bureaus, departments of motor vehicles, and the Internet. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 1813, the Personal Information Privacy Act.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, the domestic violence gun ban amendment, included in last year's omnibus appropriations bill, was intended to protect victims of domestic abuse by prohibiting anyone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor from purchasing or possessing a handgun. Supporters of this provision wanted to ensure that if one spouse was convicted of this kind of offense, he or she could not then have access to a gun, which could increase the likelihood of deadly violence against the abused spouse in the future. However, I do not believe that this amendment also intended another consequence: taking away the livelihood of some Americans. The domestic violence gun ban amendment would make it illegal for law enforcement officials to do their job, because it would prohibit them from carrying a gun during normal work hours. There is a simple answer to this problem. My legislation would allow law enforcement officials with past domestic violence misdemeanor convictions to carry a handgun on duty while engaged in official police business. A police officer with a prior domestic violence conviction would pick up his or her gun when beginning a shift at work, and then turn in the weapon when they leave to go home. I believe that my legislation is a practical solution to allow law enforcement officers to continue to do their jobs, while also protecting victims of spousal abuse. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding individual, David Mayer of Franklin, WI. On July 5, 1997, David was honored by the Franklin Civic Celebrations Commission with a moving recognition ceremony highlighting his many years of dedicated service to his community. David was born in the town of Franklin in the fall of 1918. For many years he was a partner with his brothers in a business founded by his father, Robert Mayer. He is a World War II veteran who has raised four children with his wife, Doris. David was first elected as a Franklin supervisor in 1948 following the retirement of his father. He was responsible for many of the early accomplishments in the growing community. The town's first fire truck was brought to Franklin with David's help. That same truck was in Franklin's Fourth of July Parade this year. David was a vital part of Franklin's city incorporation in the mid- 1950's, going house to house to collect signatures from supporters of the incorporation. In the city's first election on October 2, 1956, he was elected as an alderman, and for the next 40 years he would serve under 7 mayors until his retirement in 1993. As an alderman, David was active on many boards and commissions. He served as the council president and was also a member of the 4th of July Commission, the board of public works, and the library board. David was also an active member of the Franklin Historical Society. I am proud to say that I know David Mayer. He has always been a man of integrity, warmth, and sincerity. Congratulations, David, on this ceremony. You truly deserve it.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss whether the United States should continue normal trade relations with China. If I believed for one moment that revoking our current trade status with China would improve the human rights situation there and benefit American workers, I would oppose renewal of most-favored-nation [MFN] status. However, revoking MFN would only serve to make matters worse. To begin with, MFN is not a special privilege. It would be more accurate to call it ``normal trade status'' because it is the trade relationship our country has with 184 nations. If the United States were to revoke this normal trade status, China is likely to retaliate against United States exports by increasing tariffs on these products. Such retaliation would put a large number of U.S. workers at a disadvantage. China is the United States' fifth largest trading partner, with our annual exports to that country having quadrupled to $12 billion over the past decade. An estimated 170,000 Americans work in jobs that produce United States exports to China. In my district, a number of companies, including ABB Drives and Rockwell [Allen-Bradley], have penetrated Chinese markets, expanding trade and job opportunities. In 1995, Wisconsin companies exported products worth $142 million to that nation, an increase of 29 percent over the previous year. If the United States unilaterally denies normal trade status to China, other countries like Japan and the members of the European Union will immediately replace United States exports to that country. Since none of our allies would be willing to join us in sanctioning China our sanctions would do the most damage to ourselves. In 1979, we made a similar mistake when we imposed a grain embargo upon the Soviet Union as punishment for the invasion of Afghanistan. What happened? The embargo cut off an important market for United States farmers while Canadian, Argentine, and European growers rushed in to fill the gap. We lifted the embargo in 1981 with a realization that it had had little impact on the Soviets. The Soviets did not get out of Afghanistan until years later, when the Afghans threw them out. This recent historical case illustrates that our unilateral sanctions wreak most of its punishment on one nation: ours. When we placed sanctions upon South Africa several years ago, they were effective because we had the cooperation of all our major trading partners. If we revoke normal trading status with China, we will be doing it alone--and the Europeans and Japanese will take the business opportunities that United States companies will now be forced to forego. Opponents of MFN renewal note that over the last several years we have had a growing trade deficit with China. However, the deficit figures show that while our trade deficit with China has increased, our deficit with other major Asian exporters has decreased. In other words, according to the Institute for International Economics, Chinese imports of labor-intensive consumer goods have simply replaced the imports we used to get from Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Chinese production has largely displaced imports from other third-party nations, not United States domestic producers. While I continue to be concerned about the human rights situation in China, is there any reason to believe that we can work to improve human rights by severing our normal trade relations with China? Historically, China's treatment of its own people has always been at its worst when it is most isolated, like their repressive Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976. By contrast, today reform in China has a tenuous foothold, thanks partly to our close economic engagement with that country. In the 2 previous years, over 39,000 Chinese students studied at United States universities, who will eventually return to their homeland having experienced American ideas of pluralism and democracy. In 1995, over 164,000 Chinese residents visited this country on business, and thousands more who do not visit here are supervised by American managers and work with American counterparts via phone and e- mail on a daily basis, and thereby get a sense of our politics, our economy, and our personal freedoms. Regarding religious freedoms, a number of the missionary groups working on the ground in China have expressed their fears that revocation of MFN would hinder, not help, the cause of human rights there. The China Service Coordinating Office, an organization serving over 100 Christian organizations in service and witness there, fears that ending MFN would close doors in China through educational, cultural, and other exchanges, and cause harm to burgeoning social and political reforms. Similarly, Dr. Samuel Ling of the Billy Graham Center has called on ``evangelical Christians to think twice before supporting efforts aimed at revoking China's MFN trade status.'' Our engagement has led to a number of significant human rights advances over the last several years. Village elections have given millions of rural citizens access to a more democratic process for choosing local officials. Exposure to international norms and legal systems has played a role in China's legal reform effort to broaden citizens' rights. Reforms include the 1997 amendments to the criminal procedure law which impose limits on police detention of suspected criminals, and the 1994 state compensation law, which allows Chinese citizens to sue government officials and collect damages. By withdrawing economically, we jeopardize future reforms by reducing the positive influence we can continue to have on China. A vote to continue MFN is not a vote in favor of the policies of the Chinese Government. A vote to continue our normal trade relations with China is a vote for an ongoing engagement which not only supports thousands of American jobs, but allows us to promote reform and democracy among the people of China.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] started out the debate, he indicated that he is going to dedicate this tax bill to Debbie and Bill from Manassas. But what the Republicans are not telling Debbie and Bill and other Americans is about a provision in this bill which will have a devastating impact on workers, men and women alike, and their benefits. The provision I am about to talk to is disguised in this legislation as tax bill clarification. What I am talking about is the independent contractor language inserted by the Republicans on the committee, and let us use Bill from Manassas as the example. Let us say Bill is a plumber. If this provision passes into law, Bill could go to his company on Monday of next week, ABC Plumbing Company, and the employer is going to say, ``Under a provision passed by the Republicans I don't have to call you, and I don't have to treat you as an employee anymore. I'm going to call you and treat you as an independent person, an independent contractor.'' Bill is going to say: ``Well, why?'' He says, ``Well, you have your education for being a plumber, you have your own tools, for the most part you work off the employer's premises; that's a definition of independent. So, Bill, you're not my employee anymore; we're going to pay you by the job, and if you go to Christine Place to replace a hot water heater on Monday or Tuesday, I'll give you a hundred bucks, you do the job, you keep the money.'' But what happens to Bill and what happens to Debbie and their family and their kids is that under this provision Bill has no retirement plan. For years he has been paying part of it, the employer has been paying part of it. ``Being independent now, Bill, I, the employer, don't have to offer you a retirement.'' ``Well, how about health insurance?'' ``It's a split. I pay 20 percent, you pay a portion. I have family health coverage. Sorry, Debbie and Bill. As an independent, get your own. Take that hundred bucks I gave you to replace the water heater, get your own coverage.'' Well, let us say Bill is injured seriously on the job, loses an arm. Under the current practice and under Bill's current condition, he gets workers compensation, which will take care of him should something like that occur. ``Under this provision, Bill, you're independent. You don't get workers' comp from us, get it yourself if you can.'' And how about the slow period in the fall? Bill is off for a couple of weeks. Right now the employer gives him unemployment compensation, and it helps feed the family. Under this provision Bill does not get any workers' compensation or unemployment compensation. Also, currently under the current situation, Bill pays one-half of his Social Security and Medicare hospital tax, 7.65, the employer pays the other half. Under this provision, ``Bill, you pay the entire 15 percent. I, the employer, pay nothing.'' That is what is in this bill. That is the beginning of the end for employee benefits and protections as we know them today. And know full well I view this as the biggest gift to employers, and if I were dedicating this bill to anyone, Bill and Debbie from Manassas, I would not dedicate it to them because they are going to lose, they are going to lose under this provision. I will dedicate it to the ABC Plumbing Companies of the world and other people who are going to treat their employees in this manner. And know full well it is not only plumbers that are covered. Under this provision it could be the airline pilots, it could be teachers, it could be police officers, plumbers, electricians. This is a new way to do business. This is a gift, a dangerous gift to employers who choose to treat their employees this way. And I am saying, and I have talked to the administration, they will not sign this bill with that provision in it. But I challenge the Republicans, if they are going to dedicate this bill to working families, talk about this provision, talk about how this is going to harm them, how dangerous this is. And I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill if for no other reason than this provision. I can put up with the harassment on union dues because unions happened to help Democrats in the last election. So it is a provision. Go and stick it to the unions. But this one is the harmful one. This is the one that forces me to vote against this legislation, and I ask my colleagues on behalf of Debbie and Bill and all other Americans to oppose this particular legislation.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice two major concerns regarding H.R. 2014, the reconciliation tax legislation before the House today. I understand that section 1053 of this bill is Republican payback against the unions who mainly supported Democrats in the last election. I object to use of the Tax Code to punish political adversaries, but that is not even among the two main reasons I will cast my vote against this bill today. To begin with, I believe we should give the American people capital gains tax relief, but this bill clearly provides more than is reasonable. It both cuts the capital gains rates as well as indexes the values of assets for inflation. I am all for providing relief, but considering the huge potential revenue loss of these combined provisions 10, 15, or 20 years from now, we should pare down the capital gains cuts to a more reasonable size. After all, as the bill stands today, the capital gains cuts lead to a loss of $36 billion in 2003 through 2007 alone. This bill should either cut the capital gains rate or index assets, but not both. But, Mr. Chairman, I rise today mainly to express my concerns about another provision in the tax bill before us today that could have a devastating impact on workers and their benefits. The measure is not only bad policy, but it does not belong in this bill in the first place. It is an attack on working men and women disguised as a Tax Code clarification. It could lead to the end of employee benefits and workplace protections as we know it. The provision, innocently labeled as a safe harbor for independent contractors, would permit many employers to reclassify their workers as independent contractors and thus deny those workers employee benefits and worker protections. Much of the social safety net enjoyed by workers in this country depends on employment status. Workers classified as independent contractors are not eligible for employer-provided health insurance or pensions. Independent contractors are not eligible for unemployment compensation. Independent contractors also have to pay the employer side of the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, an additional 7.65 percent. In addition, although this provision purports to be limited to classification for tax purposes, it is likely that employers will also treat workers as independent contractors for other purposes. Worker compensation laws, minimum wage and hour laws, occupational safety laws, and age discrimination laws do not apply in the case of workers classified as independent contractors. Reclassification is already being used against workers and this bill would make it even easier for employers to drop worker wages, benefits, and protections. The potential for abuse of this provision is real. Last year the Department of Labor found that 134 workers in Ohio were improperly classified as independent contractors and were receiving as little as $1.50 per hour. In October of last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Microsoft must pay benefits to a group of workers that the company had intentionally misclassified as independent contractors. Reclassification has been regularly employed by some in the construction industry with respect to laborers and other workers such as supervised carpenters, masons, plumbers, and electricians. This practice is being carried out across this country by both large and small employers. This provision--identical to H.R. 1972 of last Congress--too easily allows an employee to be reclassified as an independent contractor. The measure establishes a test which is too easy to meet, and therefore many workers could be reclassified if it were to become law. First, the worker must sign a written agreement providing that he or she will not be treated as an employee. This is not voluntary in any sense of the word: if a worker wants the job, he is going to have to sign that agreement or he returns home without work. Under the measure, once the written agreement has been signed, a worker can be classified as an independent contractor if the worker meets one criteria in test 1 and one criteria in test 2. Test 1: The worker--has a significant investment in assets or training; or incurs significant unreimbursed expenses; or agrees to perform services for a particular time or to complete a specific result; or is paid primarily on a commission basis; or purchases products for resale. Test 2: The worker--has a principal place of business; or does not primarily provide the service at the employer's place of business; or pays fair market rent for use of the employer's place of business; or is not required to perform services exclusively for the employer, and in the current, preceding, or subsequent year has: performed a significant amount of services for others, or offered to perform services for others through advertising, solicitations, or listing with referral agencies, or provided services under a registered business name. Let me give an example to illustrate my point. Bill is a plumber who is an employee for a plumbing construction and repair company. If this provision were to pass into law, Bill would meet the criteria under this provision because he has his own tools and has paid for his own training and performs his work on-site at residences and businesses throughout the metropolitan area. Therefore he could be reclassified as an independent contractor. He would now have to pay double--about 15 percent--his previous payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare while his former employer would pay nothing. He could lose the ability to participate in the company pension plan. If either Bill or his wife, Debbie, needed to see a doctor, they might be surprised to find that they no longer had employer health coverage through Bill's work. If Bill was badly injured on the job, he might be disappointed to find that he could no longer collect workers compensation to help put food on the table and pay the mortgage while laid up. If he was laid off during a slow period, he might show up at his State labor office to collect unemployment, but would no longer qualify for unemployment insurance through his employer. Similar reclassifications could occur not just for other tradespeople like electricians and carpenters, but also delivery people, policemen, reporters, and others. It is not only workers who are concerned about this provision, but conscientious firms who are wary of unfair competition by unscrupulous employers. A group of construction industry employers testified before the Senate Finance Committee on June 5 of this year opposing a similar proposal. The Mechanical/Electrical/Sheet Metal Alliance consists of the Mechanical Contractors Association, the National Electrical Contractors Association, and the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association. They testified that: ``the Alliance does not support the proposals under consideration today because we are gravely concerned that the proposed classification criteria--when applied to the skilled construction workforce--would jeopardize the entire structure of training, health and welfare, pension and other workforce development and retention benefits.'' Citing a Bureau of Labor Statistics study showing independent contractors disproportionately represented in construction, the construction industry alliance witness alleged that: ``The rise of worker misclassification in construction has nothing to do with career enhancement and everything to do with unfair low-wage competition.'' The alliance alleged that this provision represents a threat to those conscientious construction businesses that undertake to pay, at the very least, the legally obligated minimum employer overhead taxes that are a legitimate cost of doing business. He concluded by stating that ``businesses that cannot afford to pay for the social policy objectives of unemployment insurance, social security and workers compensation should not per permitted greater leeway to avoid paying for these established social responsibility programs and shifting even greater costs on their employees, fair employers and the government, as well.'' This is a dangerous provision that will result in a race to the bottom where working men and women will lose workplace benefits and protections as we know them while legitimate employers will be forced to reduce benefits and worker protections to compete with unscrupulous employers taking advantage of the Republican independent contractor provision. Mr. Chairman, because of the presence of this ill-conceived provision and the combination of both a capital gains rate cut in addition to capital gains indexing, I must vote against the bill before us today. I am hopeful that during conference my concerns will be addressed and I will be able to support the final version of this legislation.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentleman from Nebraska on the independent contractor, the provision that employees lose their benefits. First of all, the White House conference did meet made up of small business people. As part of that group there were no working men and women who could object to this provision, and the question of whether or not it is voluntary. If someone's employer calls them on Monday and says, ``Sign on the dotted line or you have no job, you have no income,'' they are going to sign. And that is exactly what happened at Microsoft, where the employees were forced to sign the statement that they are independent contractors. So do not tell me this was voluntary; this was forced, and any employee who does not sign on the dotted line goes home with no pay.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a budget reconciliation bill that contains a Medical Savings Account, or MSA, demonstration project. We have seen this Medical Savings Account demonstration project debated on this floor before. Last Congress, we passed a law establishing MSA's for the under 65 population. This budget bill takes the MSA idea one dangerous step further by opening up an MSA option for 500,000 seniors enrolled in the Medicare Program. Mr. Speaker, MSAs may sound like a good thing, but in reality they are very risky. Countless health care policy experts have concluded that MSA's will create extra costs for the Medicare Program and weaken the already compromised trust fund. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Republican demonstration included in this bill will cost the Federal Government over 5 years--$2.2 billion. In these times of budgetary austerity, when the Medicare trust fund is on the verge of collapse, I ask my colleagues: is this really where we ought to be targeting our precious resources? Supporters of the MSA demonstration project argue that MSA's will enable seniors to take responsibility for their own health care because they will be more aware of what their health care choices really cost. In reality, Mr. Speaker, MSA's will give the bank accounts of wealthier and healthier people, who now cost Medicare very little, Federal money every year to spend as they see fit. MSA's will allow these individuals to leave the larger insurance pool and the shared risk that the large insurance pool provides. And, as a result, the Medicare Program will be left with only the poorer and the sicker individuals who are more costly to treat. Mr. Speaker, MSA's will undermine the very purpose of insurance--shared risk. A shared risk that spreads the high medical costs of the few, among the many other individuals who have low medical costs. Mr. Speaker, adding MSA's to the Medicare Program is a terrible mistake. While we all support expanding seniors choices, we simply cannot afford the risks that the MSA's in this bill pose to the long- term financial stability of the Medicare Program.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, included in this budget package is a provision which severely threatens every American who seeks medical treatment. Under the Ways and Means Medicare Title we are considering today, noneconomic damages in medical malpractice suits will be limited to $250,000 per case--regardless of the number of persons or the number of actions brought. This, Mr. Speaker, is a terrible mistake. Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot afford to weaken our current medical malpractice laws. In this age of managed care, the financial incentives of medicine have been completely turned around. In today's managed care world, doctors make more money by ``managing care'', by not practicing good medicine, by not ordering tests, by not doing surgeries. The Republicans argue that the threat of malpractice suits is driving up medical costs unnecessarily. They argue that physicians are being forced to practice defensive medicine--forced to order additional unnecessary tests and procedures to cover themselves in case they might be sued. Mr. Speaker, this simply is not the case. In fact, a study conducted by the Office of Technology Assessment concluded that less than 8 percent of all diagnostic procedures are likely to be caused by conscious concern about malpractice. The Office of Technology Assessment and the Congressional Budget Office who have thoroughly studied this issue have never found any evidence that defensive medicine is a significant health care cost. In fact, many times this so-called defensive medicine is, in reality, medically appropriate. Even the most liberal estimate of the cost of defensive medicine amounts to only 0.07 percent of total annual health care costs. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, a Harvard University Study indicated that of the 40 million hospital admission each year, 400,000 patients or 1% suffer preventable injuries from substandard care. 50,000 of these patients die from that care. The other 350,000 suffer non-fatal injuries resulting in 30 days disability or longer. Only 2 percent of these incidents--or, 8000 cases--actually make it to a malpractice trial. Clearly, malpractice, itself, is the true cost in today's health care system, not malpractice suits. By weakening malpractice laws we are likely to encourage more careless--not more careful--medical care. Let's not take this dangerous step. The real victims in the medical malpractice debate are not the physicians--the real victims are the thousands of patients who are killed or injured each year due to medical negligence. We absolutely cannot afford to abandon the protections provided by our judicial system. Let's maintain the protections that our current malpractice laws provide.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution before us today. I think this annual debate on trade with China is healthy, for through our voicing our dissatisfaction with not only human rights but other activities in that country, I think we make them aware of our posture as a nation. However, I think it is important to restate that this is not a special privilege to China. This is the same type of trade relations that we give to 184 other nations around the world. Let us set that out and it should be repeated over and over again. This is not privileged trade for that country. Know full well that in the last decade, we have had some $12 billion in exports to China and the author of the resolution indicates that this might not be accurate but, yes, there are 170,000-plus jobs, American jobs, connected to those exports. In my State of Wisconsin, major companies like ABB Drives and Rockwell--Allen-Bradley--have penetrated the Chinese market and over the last year we have seen a 29-percent increase in exports to China. Our colleagues in support of the resolution indicate that going it alone will work, and I say to them, it will not and it has never worked on behalf of this country. I cite the grain embargo against Russia because of their activities in Afghanistan. Know full well that there were countries waiting at the door to pick up those grain sales, grain sales that to this day we have not gotten back. The same is true for any and every export to China. The European Community is just waiting at the door. Japan is waiting at the door. Those trading items are lost. Those American jobs connected to that trade is lost forever. Let us continue the engagement like we have over the years. Let us keep the pressure on, but let us look to people on the ground in China like missionary groups which indicate that it would hinder the cause of human rights if we were to stop our trading activity. The China Service Coordinating Office, an organization serving over 100 Christian organizations in service and witness there, fear that ending MFN would close the doors to China through all sorts of educational and cultural reforms. Let us defeat the resolution. Let us continue normal trade with this country.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to point out how our children's privacy is being violated. Last week the Wall Street Journal told how a jelly bean manufacturer uses its Web site to pump kids for personal information. Lured by a free sample of jelly beans, children are asked to give this company their name, address, gender, age, and where they shop. The fine print disclaimer states that any information disclosed is the property of the candy maker to use any way it wants. Jelly bean makers are not the only ones taking advantage of our children on the Net. Other on-line sites frequently require children to fill out questionnaires about themselves, their friends, and their family. This practice of prodding children for information on the Web is not only unethical, it is also dangerous. Not only can marketers use this information to further prey on our children, but it also leaves children vulnerable to wrongdoers who can victimize them. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Bob Franks, and I have introduced H.R. 1813, the Personal Information Privacy Act, that would keep critical information about children and their families from becoming fodder for marketers and potential wrongdoers. I urge my colleagues to become a sponsor of H.R. 1813.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, last week the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Franks] and I introduced H.R. 1813, the Personal Information Privacy Act, a bipartisan bill to safeguard individual privacy. This legislation is a companion to the Feinstein-Grassley bill, S. 600. The Kleczka-Franks bill will prevent credit bureaus, Departments of Motor Vehicles and other commercial users, including those using the Internet, from giving out Social Security numbers and other personal information. A Social Security number alone gives a criminal access to one's medical, financial, credit, and educational records, as many of my constituents have found out the hard way. Thousands of people are victimized every year by identity fraud. In the first 6 months of this fiscal year, the Social Security Administration logged almost 4,900 allegations of Social Security number fraud. That is up from about 2,400 in the entire fiscal year 1996. I urge my colleagues to sign on as cosponsors of the Personal Information Privacy Act. We owe it to the citizens of this country to protect them from one of the fastest growing crimes in the country.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Personal Information Privacy Act, a bill to protect individual privacy. My legislation amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to make it illegal for credit bureaus to release or sell Social Security numbers, unlisted phone numbers, birth dates, and mothers' maiden names. It also revises the Social Security Act and the Drivers' Protection Act of 1994 to ban the commercial use of Social Security numbers. Under the bill, victims can sue willful violators for up to $50,000 for damages and attorneys' fees. Businesses have 2 years after the date of enactment to comply with the new provisions. This legislation is the House companion bill to the bi-partisan Personal Information Privacy Act, S. 600, introduced by Senators Feinstein and Grassley. It's no secret that it is easier than ever before to learn private details about your friends, neighbors, strangers and even Members of Congress, whether from the Internet, credit bureaus, governments, or a variety of other sources. Time magazine has a story about it in this week's issue--it's called ``No Privacy on the Web.'' Nor can we soon forget the public uproar that resulted when the Social Security Administration put its earnings data on the World Wide Web. Thousands of users flocked to the site, knowing they could access personal data by just a Social Security number, birth date, mother's maiden name, and a few other bits of information. I was among those in Congress who urged the agency to discontinue the practice, which, thankfully, it did. Few will dispute that the crime of identity fraud is on the rise. Criminals steal their victims' account numbers, run up debts and even rent apartments in their name, then leave the victims with bad credit reports and a lengthy battle to reclaim their good name. Polls show that the number of Americans who are concerned about privacy is at an all-time high. Unfortunately, this problem does not end with simple fraud. Stalkers can easily gain access to a person's unlisted phone number and home address. Before the passage of the 1994 Drivers Privacy Protection Act, there were no rules preventing any kind of personal information from being sold by State departments of motor vehicles. Now, over 40 States have laws preventing DMVs from selling this information. However, stalkers and other criminals can still access private information from DMVs in many States in order to find their victims much more easily. Robert John Bardo, an obsessed fan of actress Rebecca Schaeffer of the television show, ``My Sister Sam,'' wanted to find out her home address. When he got it, he went to her home and shot her to death. How did he get this unlisted address? From the California Department of Motor Vehicles, which included this information on its database. As the Time magazine article pointed out, a little effort and ingenuity is all that is needed to access personal information about Members of Congress. The reporter was able to quite easily obtain information about Senator Feinstein, including her driving record, lawsuits in which she is involved, her unlisted phone number, current and past addresses, campaign donations, and even her credit report. Mr. Speaker, the Personal Information Privacy Act transcends party lines. Democrats and Republicans are equally at risk of having their identities stolen on their lives threatened. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay heartfelt tribute to my long-time friend, Mr. Robert J. Blonski, of Milwaukee, who is leaving Lincoln Community Bank on July 1. After many years of dedicated service to Lincoln, Bob is moving on to new challenges as president of M&M Services, a subsidiary of Merchants and Manufacturers Bancorporation. Bob and his wife, Kathleen, are the proud parents of two wonderful boys. Bob has diligently served as a member of my academy selection board, helping with the difficult and all-important task of selecting which of our area's fine young men and women will receive a congressional nomination to our Nation's service academies. Professionally, Bob has contributed to the growth of Lincoln Community Bank for 30 years beginning on July 1, 1967. He has worked in various capacities during those years, serving as treasurer, secretary, senior vice president, executive vice president, and most recently as president. Under his leadership, Lincoln has truly been a bank of the community on Milwaukee's southside--helping families finance their first homes and send their children to college. Bob will be honored at an appreciation dinner May 21 where his many friends and colleagues will appropriately thank him for his leadership and hard work. I am confident that the skills and knowledge he has gained over the years will serve him well in his new position. Bet wishes, Bob.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association [NATCA], who will celebrate the 10th anniversary of its founding on June 19, 1997. On June 12, the NATCA local in Milwaukee will host a ceremony and public open house at Mitchell International Airport to commemorate this anniversary. Representing approximately 14,000 men and women nationwide, NATCA works to protect the rights of air traffic controllers in the workplace through advocating safe working conditions and fair benefits in nearly 400 facilities in the United States and its territories. NATCA also helps ensure and maintain a reliable and safe traveling environment for our citizens by working jointly with the Federal Aviation Administration, the White House, Members of Congress, and the media to promote safety. In today's computer age, there are more and more sophisticated devices in the complicated world of air travel. By skillfully reading and interpreting the information on the disks and screens, the dedicated men and women of NATCA safely get us home from our vacation destinations, back and forth to our home-State offices, and to our families for the holidays. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in wishing NATCA a very happy 10th birthday and great successes in the years ahead. Keep up the excellent work.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I regretfully missed rollcall No. 127 on May 14. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to indicate that I respectfully disagree with my colleague from Wisconsin, [Mr. Obey]. Never in my legislative career would I have thought that I would hear the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] making arguments, Republican arguments, against a good amendment. But, nevertheless, today we have heard that happen. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, we can continue pointing fingers as to who was to blame for the last shutdown. But the fact of the matter is, as the author, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], indicated, it cost the taxpayers $1 billion more, so we did not save a red cent. We heard our constituents who were part of this finger-pointing, who were part of this partisan debacle. Veterans who were ready to close on their homes got denied. Constituents of mine who were applying for a visa with nonrefundable flight tickets lost their money on those flights. So a shutdown serves no good purpose. Let me indicate to the membership that in Wisconsin we have a similar law, we have an automatic CR for the State of Wisconsin which precludes this from happening. In my legislative days, it kicked in once. It provided for uniformity.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to require seat belts on school buses. Since this is National SAFE KIDS Week, this is an appropriate time to introduce a bill to improve the safety of school bus travel for our Nation's children. My legislation would prohibit the manufacture, sale, delivery, or importation of school buses that do not have seat belts, and impose civil penalties for those that do not comply. Our Nation's schoolchildren deserve safe transportation to and from school, and their parents deserve peace of mind. We have a responsibility to provide both. National SAFE KIDS Week is dedicated to preventing unintentional childhood injury, the No. 1 killer of children ages 14 and younger. Since 1985, over 1,478 people have died in school bus-related crashes-- an average of 134 fatalities a year. School bus occupants accounted for 11 percent of these deaths. Just last year in my State of Wisconsin, there were more than 950 school buses involved in crashes and over 450 occupant injuries. Every year, approximately 394,000 public schoolbuses travel about 4.3 billion miles to transport 23.5 million children to and from school- related activities. These numbers argue for the highest level of safety we can provide. I believe my bill is a step in this direction. I urge my colleagues to also support this important legislation, which has been endorsed by the American Medical Association and the American College of Emergency Physicians. We must work together, at the local, State, and Federal level to prevent school bus injuries.