Jerry Kleczka

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague for yielding time to me. When the rule was before the body to bring up this continuing resolution, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] was very lengthy and eloquent in his support of a provision that was in the resolution but was struck by adoption of the rule. That provision had to deal with the resolve for a problem we are facing with the savings and loan insurance fund, which is the SAIF fund. It was kind of surprising to me that the gentleman from California spoke in strong support of it even though the Committee on Rules that he served on did pull it out of the product that we are ready to vote on the floor. I would like the chairman of the committee, Mr. Livingston, to possibly yield for a question, because I am aware that he also supported this provision. Is it possible that the long-term continuing resolution that we should be seeing hopefully tomorrow would contain a fix for that very knotty problem?

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

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 159. This constitutional change is unnecessary and misguided, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. This initiative strikes at the very heart of our constitutional democracy, eroding the principle of majority rule. The Constitution requires a supermajority only in extraordinary circumstances, such as a veto override or impeachment of a President. This resolution would give a small minority of this House the power to block critical bills--even responsible legislation designed to balance the Federal budget--if you contain a tax increase. If Congress can declare war by a simple majority vote, surely we can pass a tax bill by the same margin. I also foresee difficulties defining a tax increase. Earlier this year, the Republican House majority passed a bill reducing the earned income tax credit, a tax credit for our Nation's working poor. That measure effectively increased low-income Americans' taxes by reducing their credit. However, the GOP did not consider that bill a tax increase. It is likely we will see similar controversies. If Congress eliminates an unjustified tax deduction, thereby resulting in a tax bracket change for an individual or a corporation, does that constitute a tax increase? Would it require a supermajority to right this hypothetical wrong? The answer is uncertain as this legislation is currently written. The resolution's provision waiving the two-thirds requirement for de minimis tax increases is also troublesome. By failing to define a de minimis increase, the resolution abdicates responsibility for developing this guideline and turns if over to the Federal courts. The courts will undoubtedly spend many years and thousands of taxpayers dollars delineating precisely what is meant by this term. There are other technical difficulties with the measure. It does not define the time period over which a tax increase must be estimated in order to trigger the two-thirds requirement. Similarly, this amendment does not address situations where bills projected to decrease tax revenues actually increase taxes. Closing loopholes in the Tax Code could also be almost impossible if these efforts were subject to a two- thirds vote on the House. Mr. Speaker, I would also note that the Republican-controlled House has not even been able to live under its own rule that income tax increases must be passed by a three-fifths vote. This rule has been waived three times in this Congress, allowing income tax bills to pass by a simple majority. If the GOP violates the spirit of its own rules, what will prohibit it from circumventing a constitutional amendment in a similar way? House Joint Resolution 159 is the fourth attempt by this Republican Congress to amend the ``Constitution--the most ever since the post- civil war period. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a group of students from Heritage Christian High School in West Allis, WI, and their teacher, Mr. Tim Moore, on being judged this year's State of Wisconsin ``We the People'' champions. The ``We the People'' program, funded by the U.S. Department of Education by an act of Congress, promotes the study of our Nation's Constitution. Mr. Moore's students have displayed an exceptional foundation of knowledge of its history, as well as the constitutional issues of today. The Heritage Christian High School group has been given the honor of representing the State of Wisconsin in the national ``We the People'' competition to be held here in Washington, DC. I am very proud that these students come from Wisconsin's Fourth Congressional District and commend their hard work and dedication. Once again, I congratulate Mr. Moore and his students and wish them the very best of luck in the upcoming competition.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my friends Susan and Robert Friebert on receiving the American Jewish Committee's 1996 Human Relations Award. Susan and Bob Friebert, together and as individuals, have left a lasting mark on their community and have touched the lives of literally thousands of people in the Milwaukee area. Susan Friebert, through her involvement in organizations such as the Quality Education Commission, the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families, and the White House Commission on Presidential Scholars, has made the education and well-being of Wisconsin's children a top priority. She is also very proud of her Jewish faith and heritage and has assumed leadership positions in the National Council of Jewish Women, the Wisconsin Jewish Conference, the Milwaukee Jewish Council for Community Relations, and the Milwaukee Jewish Federation. Susan's involvement in these outstanding organizations has helped to ensure that Milwaukee's Jewish community remains an active and vital voice in Milwaukee's civic life. Through his involvement in Wisconsin's legal community and the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, Bob Friebert has helped to shape our State's legal and political landscape. Bob was instrumental in organizing Wisconsin's State Public Defender's Office and also served as State chair of the Wisconsin Civil Liberties Union. While serving as chairman of the Wisconsin Jewish Conference, Bob helped to author and secure passage of Wisconsin's hate crimes law. He is also a leading Democrat and through the years, has played key roles in numerous local, State, and national political campaigns. Like his wife, Bob is also very proud of his Jewish heritage and has assumed leadership positions with organizations such as the Wisconsin Jewish council, the National Jewish Democratic Council, and the Milwaukee Jewish Council on Community Relations. I commend Susan and Bob Friebert on receiving the 1996 Human Relations Award and on their outstanding service to our community.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, 8 years ago, the first ``Taxpayer Bill of Rights'' passed which created a more level playing field between citizens and the IRS with safeguards to protect taxpayers. The legislation gave taxpayers the right to sue the IRS for actions taken by its agents, provided financially troubled taxpayers the right to seek an installment tax payment plan, and enabled taxpayers who prevail over the IRS in court to seek reimbursement for part of their attorney fees in some circumstances. Although this 1988 legislation was a step in the right direction, more can be done to help taxpayers. The ``Taxpayer Bill of Rights II,'' which I strongly supported in the Ways and Means Committee, contains over two dozen provisions to give taxpayers further protection. This bill will expand the power of the IRS Taxpayer Ombudsman to issue protective orders to help taxpayers, mandate that the IRS take reasonable steps to corroborate third-party information disputed by a taxpayer, and give the IRS the authority to waive the interest on late tax payments in cases where there is a valid reason for such payment. Additionally, the bill would increase to $1 million the civil damages for which a taxpayer could sue the IRS in cases of unauthorized collections. The vast majority of citizens are responsible taxpayers who deserve the additional rights and safeguards that the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II will provide. I hope that Congress will quickly pass, and the President sign this meaningful bill. I urge a ``yea'' vote.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on H.R. 956, product liability reform. Last March, I voted in favor of this legislation because I believed there were problems in our product liability system which needed to be addressed. We have all heard stories of excessive awards, or juries granting vastly different awards for similar injuries. However, the conference report before us today and recent congressional action radically shift the balance against the consumers. To get a better understanding how this new version of product liability reform would affect the buying public, I met with Mary Griffin from Consumers Union. She discussed with me a number of the conference report's provisions which would adversely impact consumers, including the 15-year statute of repose, pre-emption of State laws more favorable to plaintiffs, the combined effect of the bill and other deregulatory efforts, and the 2-year statute of limitations on filing lawsuits. This legislation contains a number of provisions which, in my judgment, would place unreasonable restrictions on individuals' ability to receive compensation for injuries caused by faulty products. Taken together, these provisions cause the product liability system to tilt dramatically against consumers. The bill establishes a false and unfair distinction between individuals and corporations by limiting the ability of the individual to collect damages in product liability cases. For example, the statute of repose is set at 15 years for durable products like heavy machinery and elevators. If a defective product is more than 15 years old, an individual may not sue the manufacturer for injuries the product caused. Companies, however, could still go to court to recover damages. As a result, if a 16-year-old defective furnace explodes in a factory and kills a worker, that individual's family cannot sue the furnace manufacturer. The employer, however, is still permitted to take the furnace company to court to collect compensation for lost production, repairs, and so on. The State pre-emption provisions of the conference report also trouble me deeply. State laws more favorable to consumers, such as higher or unlimited punitive damages, are pre-empted by this bill. At the same time, if the State standards are stricter, they are allowed to stand. This position is ironic to me given the current mood of Congress in returning authority to the States. Evidently, the congressional leadership is not confident that States will protect big business sufficiently. Under this legislation, companies would not have to go to the trouble of venue-shopping; Congress simply guarantees them the best possible deal. These pre-emption provisions have earned the bill the opposition of the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Conference of Chief Justices, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and many other groups. I am troubled by the apparent link between this product liability reform bill and the current congressional efforts toward deregulation. Congress is cutting the budgets of agencies like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which are responsible for overseeing the safety of products in the workplace and the home. It simply does not make sense to cut government safety oversight and, at the same time, slam the courthouse door on consumers who are injured by defective products. Finally, I must object to the 2-year statute of limitations inserted by the conference committee. Under this provision, a person must file a lawsuit within 2 years of discovering their injury. Mr. Speaker, many of the ailments caused by these injuries are progressive in nature, developing over time. A person cannot possibly file a lawsuit when they have no idea how their condition may progress and what sort of medical treatment they may require in the future. For these reasons, I cannot support the conference report on H.R. 956. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, Americans will today witness firsthand an overt effort by the Republican leadership to sink a much-needed piece of legislation for the sake of preserving their cozy relationship with special-interests. A perfectly good insurance reform bill introduced by Senators Kennedy and Kassebaum and Representative Roukema in the House has been loaded with extra, controversial provisions that will make it difficult, if not impossible, to pass into law. While modest, the original bill could help 21 million Americans by waiving the pre-existing condition exclusions for individuals who have had continuous health coverage. As many as 4 million people who are currently ``locked'' into their jobs for fear of losing needed health coverage for themselves or their family would benefit from the bill's national portability standards. Yet, despite the fact that this bill will benefit 25 million Americans, Republicans in the House do not support it. In the Ways and Means Committee, the Kennedy-Kassebaum-Roukema bill did not receive one Republican vote. Apparently, 25 million hard-working Americans are not enough to convince the GOP that we need this legislation. Evidently, unless it has the blessing of the Health Insurance Association of America it is not worth voting for. Why else would these Members condition their support for insurance reform on adding ``sweeteners'' like medical liability provisions that limit the legal rights of malpractice victims? Why do we need to permit insurance companies to sell Medicare beneficiaries unnecessary and costly policies that duplicate benefits they already have? The Republican bill (H.R. 3103) includes other items that will likely meet strong opposition in the Senate, namely, controversial provisions that effectively limit the ability of States to enact health care reforms by pre-empting existing state regulations on multi-employer health plans. Already, a large percentage of employers are exempt from state reforms under the ERISA. With this provision, Congress takes even more health plans out of states' reach. This add-on is especially puzzling since it flies in the face of the States' rights argument we have been hearing over and over from the Republicans. They want to block grant Medicaid, welfare, public housing, senior employment programs and other Federal initiatives and let the states administer and regulate them. Why not health care reform? Their own argument that the states can do things better and more efficiently than the Federal Government is contradicts this new policy. As one of only four Democrats that cast their vote in favor of the Ways and Means insurance reform legislation, I strongly support providing my constituents with health coverage they can take from job to job. But, I differ from my Republican colleagues in one important respect. Not only do I support it--I also want it to pass. This final version of the bill bends over backwards so far to please so many special interests that it severs the spine that holds it together and paralyzes the legislative process. Mr. Speaker, I support the clean Democratic substitute, which is identical to the original Kennedy-Kassebaum-Roukema bill and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I am offering an amendment to H.R. 2202, the Immigration in the National Interest Act, as part of this en bloc amendment to correct an injustice done to the Polish community during the 1995 diversity visa process. During the visa lottery, the State Department committed an error which resulted in 49,895 Poles being notified that they were eligible for visas. These individuals were not told that a maximum of 3,850 visas were available, or how many of their countrymen they were competing against. Thousands sent in the $130 fee, only to be denied a visa. For all other nationalities, approximately two to four times as many applicants were notified as there were visas distributed. More than 12 times as many Poles were notified than the quantity of visas designated for this nationality. The State Department's error was completely preventable and never should have occurred. Therefore, my amendment would require the Department of State to refund the $130 fee paid by the thousands of Polish applicants who did not receive a visa. In addition, the Department would be required to review and revise its procedures to ensure that this type of situation does not happen again--to Poles or anyone else. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in pursuing justice for the thousands of Poles who were the victims of this bureaucratic bungle. I urge a vote in support of this en bloc amendment.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend, Mr. Joel Vattendahl, who retired from the United Steelworkers of America in December 1995. Throughout his career, Joel worked tirelessly on behalf of the working men and women of Wisconsin. Joel's career in the labor movement began in 1965 when he was appointed staff representative with the United Steelworkers. In 1981, he was elected to the position of director of United Steelworkers District 32. Joel effectively served in this position until June 1995. He announced his retirement in December 1995. In addition to his outstanding work with the Steelworkers, Joel has played a crucial role in directing the course of Wisconsin's labor movement and has also been very active in a variety of local and community affairs. From 1981 until his retirement, Joel served as a member of the executive board of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO. He also was a member of the Worker's Compensation Advisory Council and the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents. His outstanding efforts with these and many other organizations have helped to improve and maintain the quality of life for people throughout our State. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the working men and women of the State of Wisconsin, I would like to thank Joel Vattendahl for his three decades of service and dedication. I wish him a happy and healthy retirement.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to Jim Elliott of Milwaukee, who after 39 years in the labor movement, 22 of them as president of the Milwaukee Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, recently retired. After serving his country in the Air Force, Jim returned to Milwaukee and began working at Otis Elevator, where he joined the Elevator Constructors Local 15. Five years later, while still at Otis, following his parent's examples of union activism and involvement, he was elected full-time business manager for the union, a post he held for 18 years. In 1974, Jim put his years of union experience to work once again and was elected president of the Milwaukee Building and Construction Trades Council, the post he held until his retirement just last month. During his distinguished career, Jim has served his union brothers and sisters well in various capacities, including the United Way of Greater Milwaukee; the Greater Milwaukee Committee; the Wisconsin Board of Vocational, Technical and Adult Education; the Milwaukee County Labor Council, AFL-CIO; and the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents. Best wishes, Jim, to you and Sandy, and to your children and grandchildren. Enjoy your well-deserved retirement and thanks for everything over the years. God bless.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a lifelong friend and resident of Milwaukee, my hometown, Mr. Gerard Klupp, as he is honored as Person of the Year by the South Side Advancement Association at the 49th annual Lincoln Day banquet. Jerry Klupp is devoted to his family, his God, and his Nation. He is the proud father of two children and grandfather of five and has served his parish, St. Adalbert's, in many capacities. Enlisting in the Air National Guard in 1949, Jerry was activated into the Air Force in 1951, and was honorably discharged in 1953 as a sergeant. He is currently active in his American Legion Post and the AMVETS. Jerry Klupp is also a successful businessman. Working in his father's business, Frank J. Klupp & Sons, a construction firm, Jerry has had a personal, hands-on influence to many public and private projects, both big and small, in the Milwaukee area. Many Milwaukee civic organizations have also been graced with Jerry's service over the years. Beneficiaries of Jerry's gifts of time and talents include the South Side Business Club, the Milwaukee Society-- Polish National Alliance, the South Side Advancement Association, and Polish Fest. Mr. Speaker, Jerry Klupp's dedication to his community should serve as an example to us all. With all of this in mind, I am pleased to present Jerry Klupp with an American flag which has proudly flown over our Nation's Capitol. Keep up the good work, God Bless, and thanks for being a model citizen, Jerry.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 150th anniversary of the founding of the city of Milwaukee. I am proud to be among those who call this beautiful city home. Milwaukee has long been graced with a natural environment that is second to none. Our city is blessed with beautiful parks, a preserved and protected lakefront, and architecture that preserves the richness of our past while looking toward the future. Long recognized as the workshop of the world, Milwaukee is home to shops and factories that are known worldwide for their craftsmanship and quality. The pride and skill of Milwaukee's working men and women proudly shines through in products which are shipped and sold throughout the world. Known as much for clean government as for its clean streets, Milwaukee has maintained a tradition of progressive civic leadership throughout its history. With a commitment to a superb quality of life for all citizens, Milwaukee's city government has consistently worked to create and maintain a thriving local economy, safe streets and neighborhoods, and decent and affordable housing for all. Milwaukee is also rightfully proud of its outstanding institutions of higher learning and of its vibrant and diverse cultural activities. Our city is clearly a great place to live. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing the citizens of Milwaukee a happy 150th anniversary.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Elmer and Mary Simonis in celebrating their golden wedding anniversary. For 50 years, Elmer and Mary have demonstrated true devotion and commitment to each other, their family, and their community. Throughout his career, Elmer's work with the space program led to his involvement in producing the guidance systems for our moon shots. He also spent time assembling the moon buggy. Mary kept busy with the children's Parent-Teacher Association, Brownies, and Girl Scouts. And, she still found time to work as a nurse's aid in a local hospital. Together they have resided for 21 years on Grove Street in Muskego, WI. Here they raised three lovely daughters, Mary, Donna, and Annette. Growing up, the girls had wonderful role models in parents who were active in various school and church functions. Now, the Simonis' love extends further to their nine beautiful grandchildren. As we begin 1996, it is with great pleasure that I extend my warmest wishes for a wonderful 50th anniversary and many more happy returns to Elmer and Mary Simonis.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the conference report on H.R. 4, welfare reform legislation. While this bill is not perfect, it represents a reasonable resolve toward addressing a complex problem. Congress must act now to overhaul our troubled welfare system before another generation enters a culture of dependency. Though well- intentioned, our current welfare system encourages a cycle of poverty, hopelessness, and despair. At the same time, it discourages family cohesiveness and self-reliance. I have found it unrealistic to hold out for a perfect welfare reform bill, especially in light of the partisan markup of Congress today. More importantly, it is likely that changes will need to be made as States begin to implement their programs and fine-tuning becomes necessary. This welfare reform package contains a number of provisions critical to transforming the welfare system. Welfare recipients must work in exchange for benefits. Education and job training will be required, with the emphasis on building a work record. This is a key requirement in helping people become self-sufficient. A 5-year lifetime limit on assistance is put in place, unless States, due to their circumstances, decide to do otherwise. The compromise agreement maintains the safety net for child nutrition. Last March, I voted against the House welfare reform bill because it would have block granted child nutrition programs, eliminating the assurance that every poor child has at least one nutritious meal per day. In my judgment, good nutrition is essential for all American children, and this investment is extremely important. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Security Income [SSI] program are also necessary. Over 2 years ago, I began receiving reports from my constituents of abuse taking place in SSI. There were cases where children with mild behavioral problems qualified for SSI cash benefits. One family then used the money to take a vacation to Florida. Taxpayers have a right to expect an end to fraud and abuse in this program. We must reform SSI to ensure the program serves the truly disabled. This welfare bill makes strides in the right direction. One of the most important changes is in the definition of disabled. No longer will Individualized Functional Assessments [IFA] be used. The IFA is a subjective gauge to determine whether or not children can engage in ``age-appropriate'' activities effectively. This left a lot of room for potential abuse. While tightening eligibility criteria, it is important to note that this compromise ensures that those children who most need assistance will receive it. For example, children with cystic fibrosis, cerebral palsy, or Down Syndrome requiring full-time care will get the same payment they do now. Those with conditions that are less severe and that do not demand round-the-clock attention will be eligible for 75 percent of benefits. However, I am concerned that the resources for States to put welfare recipients to work may be inadequate. Many people will require services before they are able to enter the workplace. States will also have to make reasonable exceptions for cases where people are willing to work, but no jobs are available. By most estimates, several thousand entry- level jobs will have to be created in Wisconsin to accommodate welfare beneficiaries entering the job market. States must have the flexibility to support welfare recipients who are willing to work, but unable to do so. Another of my major concerns is that the bill ends the obligation to provide health care benefits to families on welfare. Without this guarantee, thousands of children and adults could be denied medical care unless the States continue services using Medicaid block grant funds provided under separate legislation. In my estimation, H.R. 4 would be a much stronger bill if this linkage has been left intact. If States are unable or unwilling to provide adequate health care to needy families, this issue will have to be revisited. I am voting for welfare reform today, trusting the word of State governors who sought control of welfare. The Republican Governors Association pledged its support for this agreement, saying, ``We can do better, and for our children's sake, we must do better.'' They must live up to their promises and do the right thing. Members of Congress, including myself, will be watching them closely to ensure that this is indeed the case.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, there is not a Member of this House that does not hope the Dayton peace agreement ends the bloodshed in Bosnia and Hercegovina. Three-and-a-half years of war and destruction must end, so that thousands more innocent lives are spared. However, I do not believe that the United States must or should send ground troops to continue to be a leader in implementing this agreement. Thus far, we have provided essential air, naval, and logistic support activities to our NATO allies. We could continue to operate in this capacity in order to make sure the peace is kept. Only a few months ago, we led the NATO air strikes against the Bosnian Serbs. How can our troops now be seen as neutral peacekeepers? Being viewed as partisans is a major threat to their safety, and already there is dissension among the parties to the peace agreement. The first bill considered today, offered by Mr. Dornan, expresses the position I have held on this issue from the beginning. This is the view that hundreds of my constituents have voiced, as well. They believe that there is no compelling argument for sending ground troops. This conflict is replete with many ethnic and historical issues which will not be resolved by deploying our service members. As a Member of Congress, I could never turn my back on the men and women who so bravely serve our country. Preceding the gulf war, I voted against similar resolutions to send in American troops. After they were sent, however, they needed and deserved the support of Congress. That is why the resolutions offered by Messrs. Skelton and Hamilton will also receive my vote today. We have a responsibility to give these brave and dedicated men and women our unqualified backing in their mission and these two resolutions accomplish that purpose.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be withdrawn as a cosponsor of H.R. 1963.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I really hate to be the skunk at the Republican picnic this afternoon, but in my previous remarks I indicated that this bill is basically noncontroversial. But, also, one of the bad things that this bill that we are going to be voting on does is delink the earnings test for the blind. Mr. Speaker, we have 17,000 people, it is not a heck of a lot, but we have 17,000 blind Americans who qualify for this program today and they are being delinked. Yet after I made those comments, not one Republican would stand up and defend that law change. That is sad. The Speaker of this House, when he addressed the National Federation of the Blind, back in February of this year, indicated that removing the linkage for the blind was a major mistake and that he would make sure that was taken out. That is all we have heard for the last half hour is this gushing, gushing for our senior citizens. We have heard that through this measure we are going to salute our senior citizens. This is the same party, my friends, that is cutting Medicare for the senior citizens by $270 billion. Doubling their premiums, cutting $185 or $182 billion out of Medicaid, which provides nursing home care. Where were the salutes then? Where was the support and all the gushing then? Through this bill, the seniors are going to have to work to pick up what they are losing in their health care program. This is ridiculous.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is not very controversial. The base bill does provide for an increase in the earnings limit for senior citizens. I guess we could debate, and possibly the Senate will debate, whether or not it should go to $30,000 over a period of 7 years. But the point I want to raise with the body today is, No. 1, the process on how the bill got before us today, and then two of the components which are very troublesome to me. We were notified, I believe last week, that this bill would be coming before the Committee on Rules today at 2:30, at which time Members who were interested could approach the Committee on Rules and ask for various amendments to be made in order. That is the usual process when we are amending bills and debating bills. However, for whatever reason, unbeknownst to this speaker, the Committee on Rules canceled that hearing on this particular bill and it was rushed to the House under a procedure we call suspension of the rules. The suspension of the rules procedure does not permit any amendments to be offered to the legislation being debated. So essentially what the Republican majority has done is cut some of us off, some of us who wanted to propose some constructive changes to the legislation we were debating. You ask what are those changes? What do you want to change about the bill? There are two major changes I think that have to be addressed. One was already spoken to by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], and it is something we did discuss before the committee and I am sad to say to no avail. But under current law and under an amendment back to 1977 that was proposed by my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the chairman of the committee, there was a linkage formed between the blind and the earnings test for Social Security recipients. However, although that linkage has proved very beneficial to the blind involved and it has been in the law since 1977, for some reason, unbeknownst to me, that linkage is ending with the passage of this bill. If you look at the plight of a blind person who has tried to struggle in a low paying job, to not permit them to earn more as we are doing for retired people I think is absurd. In fact, the example I used before the Committee on Ways and Means during markup was take the situation of a blind person who is not going to get better in his or her lifetime, unless a miracle would occur, a blind person who is trying to increase their stand in this country, and they try to get a job earning more money. But they know full well they are going to lose. A person who is blind who is trying to earn will lose Social Security benefits. However, a retired person who is, say, 66 years old, very, very healthy, not blind, will over a 7-year period be able to earn $30,000, and I think the unlinking of the two is totally unfair. However, because of the Republican procedure today, the blind people will not get a separate vote on their request to my office and many others to keep this linked. The other problem with the bill has nothing to do with the earnings test. However, under current law for attorneys who represent people in Social Security disability cases, they receive their reimbursement for the representation through a separate check from the Social Security Administration. That is being done away with. It does not save any money. We are told it might cost some money, but we are going to save some man-hours. We did want to offer before the Committee on Rules a proposal wherein we take the one disability check going to the beneficiary, have two payees listed on the check, and if in fact that did not cover the cost we would provide for a $20 fee. That was not permitted. That is sad.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to have this opportunity to commend the South Side's Milwaukee Christian Center Neighborhood Improvement Project [NIP] on its 20th anniversary. The South Side's NIP was founded in 1975 as a collaboration of South Side agencies seeking to provide summer jobs for youth under a community development block grant. The organization was formed to harness the considerable energy of area youth in an endeavor that would teach them valuable skills and contribute to the surrounding community. In 1994, the South Side NIP employed 44 young adults in housing rehabilitation projects. Participants remove unsightly graffiti, paint, provide carpentry services, and roof homes for low-income homeowners. South Side neighborhoods receive a facelift, while youth gain a work ethic and marketable skills. Sixty-seven homes benefited from no-cost renovations last year. Meanwhile, the 38 young offenders served their community service sentences as graffiti removal team members, cleaning up at over 2,300 dwellings throughout the year. Young people learn about the real work world through the NIP. They work on a timeclock and are responsible for their tools. Some programs operate based on piecework, which rewards higher productivity with higher pay. Many summer program participants have moved up through the program to become team supervisors. Mentors are drawn from local community centers to provide technical expertise and role models for the youth. Over the past two decades, the South Side NIP has provided invaluable services to local residents. It truly represents an exemplary investment of CDBG funds. The program benefits not only participants, but also homeowners and neighborhoods. I am pleased to congratulate the Milwaukee Christian Center Neighborhood Improvement Project on its 20th anniversary and wish it continued success in the future. [[Page E 2260]]

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. If the gentleman will yield further, I intend to support the dumb thing. I have to know whether these things are negotiable and on the table. I am not hearing ``yes.'' You said that is not part of the debate tonight.

Mr. KLECZKA. Are you saying to this House that the tax cut is going to be on the table, the $270 billion cut in Medicare is going to be on the table and negotiable, the doubling of the premium?

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

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. If I understand correctly, you indicated that the massive bill changing Medicare as we know it is currently being worked on by a group of legislators. Then why, in your estimation, would the Republicans want to put the increase in Medicare premiums for our seniors in this continuing bill to keep the Government running past midnight tonight? Why would they pull that section out and put in the simple bill to keep the Government running? What is the rationale there?