Jerry Kleczka

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I think we have had what I would call a spirited debate today, but one has to wonder why this proposal comes up every April. Congress comes in session in January. We stay around until October. Why do we not have a vote on this particular issue in July or February? For the last 5 years it has always come up in April. But when in April? Well, they try to schedule it April 15. Well, my gosh, why April 15? Well, that is the day that we have to file our taxes, the last day we have to file our taxes. Why did they do it this date this year? They got snookered. April 15 is on a Saturday, and they cannot keep Members of Congress here on a Saturday. So this is more for show, my friends, than for goal, as evidenced by the vote we are going to have very shortly, which will provide that this constitutional amendment will not pass, nor should it. Nor should it. If, in fact, a majority in Congress can send our young men and women to war; if a majority in Congress can cut benefits for education, Social Security, Medicare; if a majority can do all these things, then why not also deal with tax policy in the same manner? My colleagues on the other side know that is correct. And if this were a secret ballot, this thing would go down to the person, it would fail 435-0. But that is not the case. It is April 15. We have to make a statement about taxes. And tomorrow we have a better one for my colleagues. Tomorrow we are going to repeal the entire Tax Code. We are going to repeal the Tax Code tomorrow. And what are we going to replace it with? I do not know. We do not have a plan for that yet. That is how phoney this business is. We had a hearing before the Committee on Ways and Means on a bill sponsored by one of their Members and one on our side. It provided for a national sales tax. The thing got worse as we questioned the witnesses. It started out with a 30-percent sales tax on every good and service, including clothes, prescription drugs. And by the time we got done talking to the Joint Committee on Taxation, to be revenue neutral, that national sales tax would be 60 percent. So we are going to trust them with tax policy around here to tax my constituents 60 percent on their drug costs, when now they are going to Canada to get a break? This constitutional amendment, Mr. Speaker, is not necessary, and I urge my colleagues to not support it.

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. Mr. Speaker, the question I was going to ask of my colleague from the Republican side of the aisle was in here is a provision to reinstate the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund excise tax. Evidently he is for oil spills. We want to clean them up. There is one going on right now in Maryland.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I am just standing here saying nothing.

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

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the vice chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), for giving me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have been in Congress a couple of years now, and I fought like the devil to get on the Committee on Ways and Means because I wanted to be in a position so I could hopefully shape the tax laws of this country. The committee also deals with Social Security, trade policy, Medicare, but it seems that service on the committee is to be taken for granted today because bills like this just pop up out of nowhere. This bill was introduced yesterday. So for you folks who are watching this thinking that Members have public hearings on bills, read bills, that is nonsense. It was popped in yesterday, we have to come to the floor today to defend it or to argue against it. As I speak today, the Committee on Ways and Means, the real committee, is meeting across the road here in the Longworth Office Building and before us is a proposal to incept a national sales tax, to pull the tax code out by its roots, throw it away in the garbage can and in lieu you folks will pay a 30 percent sales tax on every good and service that you need or purchase. But instead of being there to listen to that weighty debate, we are here talking about a bill that just was popped before us yesterday; but it is not new, because it was before us last year. One of my Republican colleagues indicated that this is the President's budget we are voting on. My friends, it is not the President's budget, so do not be led astray. What it is, and I will read the first paragraph, ``Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the tax and user fee increases proposed by the Clinton-Gore administration in their fiscal year 2001 budget should be adopted.'' So the author of the bill says these things should be adopted. So in a short while we are going to have a vote on this, and we are all going to vote no. Remember when we were growing up there used to be this Shmoo balloon. We blew up the Shmoo and put it in a knot and put it in these little shoes, and the game was to hit the Shmoo, the Shmoo would fall on the ground and it would pop back up. These folks introduced this bill, and the only reason is they want to knock it down. Well, one would seem to think that after the debate from our Republican colleagues that in here there is an increase for the income tax, an increase for the corporate tax. None of that. These are fees and user taxes for people who use various services. If the user uses the service, they should pay; and if you do not use it, you do not pay. Some are good, some are bad. Some I support; some I do not support. All right, let me challenge my Republican colleagues to respond to some of these suggested changes in the tax law. Under the corporate tax provision, prevent serial liquidation of U.S. subsidies of foreign corporations. Foreign corporations. What is wrong with that? There is not a one of them who knows what the heck that does. Another one, require cash method banks to accrue interest on short- term obligations. Sounds like fair tax policy. I bet the author of the bill does not even know what the heck that does. Here is another one. Prohibit tax deferral on contributions of appreciated property to swap funds. Closing a tax loophole. What is wrong with that? How many of you guys and ladies are going to pay that? Zero. A tax loophole. But we are asked here to say no to all of these, even though in the entire context of the budget they make some sense. But the President's budget is not here. This is a little silly game we are playing today, and I want everyone to stay tuned, because we have got a sillier one coming on Thursday, and that is to repeal the income tax code, effective year 2002, and replace it with, we have not thought of that yet. So they are going to repeal the income tax and one day maybe the Committee on Ways and Means I serve on, maybe not, will come up with an alternative, an alternative. But that alternative is not here today. This is shenanigans. Let us play the game. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

Mr. KLECZKA

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

Mr. KLECZKA. Madam Speaker, the only reason I rise is to ask if the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) would respond to a question.

Mr. KLECZKA. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), the previous speaker, indicated that there was no initiative coming from this administration on this proposal. I believe the gentleman from California served during the Bush administration and Reagan administration. Does he recall similar legislation coming down from either President Reagan or President Bush asking Congress to repeal the earnings limit?

Mr. KLECZKA. Okay, Madam Speaker.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the New Berlin West High School Boys' Basketball team, which won the Division II State Championship on March 18, 2000. These impressive young men brought home the first state title in school history, and were only the 27th school in tournament history to win a championship in their first try. With an outstanding 26-0 record, the Vikings swept their way to the Woodland Conference title, State title, and a Number One ranking in state polls. I would like to offer my heartfelt congratulations to the entire team, including Head Coach Jeff Lewiston and All-State Honorable Mentions John and Jason Chappell, for a job well done. The students, faculty and staff of New Berlin West High School, as well as the greater communities of New Berlin, Waukesha County, and the 4th Congressional District, have reason to be proud.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I have an inquiry of the Chair. Is the Chair prepared to allot some time for this side of the aisle to be heard on this issue?

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, since I was the one who asked Father Tim O'Brien to seek the chaplaincy, I would ask the courtesy of 2 or 3 minutes to make a few comments.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I join with all of you in welcoming our new Chaplain, Father Coughlin, to the House of Representatives. What I would like to do is spend a few moments not reopening the wounds of this, what I would term a sorry chapter in the House of Representatives, but I take the floor today to defend a family friend, a person who I asked to think about running for the post of Chaplain of the House of Representatives, Father Tim O'Brien, who I have known for over 30 years. Father Tim O'Brien comes from the State of Wisconsin, born on a family dairy farm in Eden, Wisconsin. His ordination was from St. Francis Seminary in my district in Milwaukee. He was an associate pastor in a parish in my district. He went on to complete his education and received a doctorate, and he is a professor at Marquette University. Because of his love of politics and this House and teaching young minds, he started on his own the Les Aspin Institute named after our former colleague Les Aspin. His intention in starting this program was to bring students from Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, here to Washington, DC, to work in our offices, to work for the agencies, to possibly work for some lobby firms, to get a hands-on feel for what the government is all about, so when they graduate and start their livelihood, in no matter what job it might be, they will understand what goes on here, and hopefully they will be a better citizen, hopefully they will be a better voter, or a voter, and possibly they might run for office. Mr. Speaker, one of those interns who was in my office who has graduated from Marquette was the first Hispanic elected to the State legislature in Wisconsin who hales from my district. So I think the program is working. So I said to Father O'Brien, ``Because of your love of the institution and government, consider becoming our Chaplain,'' and he did. He put his nomination and his application in, and in every step of the process he came out on top. Oh, I tracked this process like a hawk. I talked to every member of that screening committee. How did Father O'Brien do? And you know what I heard repeatedly, time after time? Home run. A triple. Best of the lot. And, in the final analysis, he was the top pick of the committee. Now, was that related to the leaders who made the choice of someone other than him? Yes. The gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) admitted that even though the formal paper did not have the ranking, he verbalized it, and so did the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley). So to say that we did not know who was the top candidate is not accurate. One of the Republican leaders said, My gosh, I did not know the denominations of the candidates. That is not accurate. I personally talked to that leader on at least two occasions on the floor. I am just so hesitant to go and try to correct all the misstatements, because I think that opens up the issue again. I want closure, like you. But here we have this Catholic priest, who just thought he would like to be the Chaplain. He thought he could do well for all of us in the House. And, since that time, he has been greatly maligned. In Roll Call last week we read, Well, he does not have enough counseling experience. Well, he can weather that, because we all know as a colonel in the Army Reserves he counsels enlisted and officers every day he is on duty. As a faculty member, he counsels students and other faculty. He has counseled me and continues to do so. So it is not the idea of counseling. But to go after this Catholic priest, who did nothing but want to be the Chaplain. There were rumors leaked, and I cannot point fingers because I do not know where they came from, that his home in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, was purchased with some Federal funds. Naturally, the reporters descend on the poor guy like locusts. Is that true? Is it true? Is that true? Actually, it was not true. He absconded with some money from a drug and alcohol program, one which he has never run, and the reporters again called him and descended. Is it true? It is not, because I never was involved in such a program. I never got any funding. So I know full well that throughout the process this individual and his reputation have suffered also. So, today, Mr. Speaker, we close the book on this sad chapter. But I ask my Republican colleagues not to rewrite history, because that we should not do. But I think there are some in this body that owe Father Tim O'Brien an apology. As we go on from today, I think I can be confident that not only Father Tim O'Brien has been vindicated, but a lot of us, with the appointment of our new Chaplain.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Wisconsin Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, which I'm proud to say is located in my district, for the outstanding job it has done to help Milwaukee's Hispanic community thrive. I would like to especially note the work of one of its leaders, Maria Monreal-Cameron, President of the Chamber. Her ceaseless energy and countless efforts on behalf of the Hispanic community in Milwaukee serve as a model to all those concerned with the improvement of civil life. The following is an article extolling Ms. Monreal-Cameron's efforts from the March 16th issue of The Wall Street Journal that I would like to submit for inclusion in the Record. [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 16, 2000] In the Land of Bratwurst, a New Hispanic Boom In a Big Population Shift, Latino Immigrants Flock To Towns in the Midwest (By Paulette Thomas) Milwaukee--Better known for beer and bratwurst, this city has dozens of Mexican restaurants and watering holes stretching block after block of low-slung buildings on the Hispanic south side. Groceries distribute not one but three local Hispanic newspapers. A Yellow Pages for Hispanic businesses runs to 300 pages. Last year, Hispanic magazine rated Milwaukee the seventh-best city in America for Hispanics. Milwaukee? Hispanic immigrants and their descendants are fanning out and settling into Midwestern towns, far from the border regions and metropolitan centers more renowned as Latino hubs. ``Vision Latina'' began publishing last year for Nebraska Hispanics. Kansas City, Mo., and Cleveland have thriving Hispanic communities. While about 60% of the U.S. Hispanic population, 18 million people, live in 10 major metropolitan areas, about 13 million Hispanics reside in second-tier cities across the U.S. Though little noticed, ``that dispersal is one of the big stories of the 1990s,'' says Michael Fix, director of immigration studies for the Urban Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank. Many immigrants find second-tier cities more hospitable to newcomers than bigger cities, with affordable homes, decent public schools and job opportunities, particularly in Midwestern meatpacking plants, factories and foundries. Once a family gets a foothold, others follow. That migration, dating back to the 1930s, has created a pool of Hispanics that represents about 4% of the Milwaukee population, leaving a deep imprint on the shores of Lake Michigan. Across Wisconsin, the Hispanic population has tripled since 1980, to 185,000. ``Milwaukee feels like home,'' says Gianfranco Tessaro, who moved from Peru to Milwaukee in 1981, following a brother, who met him at the airport with a pair of thick-soled shoes for the snow. Like most of the new Hispanic arrivals, Mr. Tessaro quickly found a low-skilled job. He started in a sheet-metal factory, cleaning and doing odd jobs. Since then, he married a Midwesterner, raised two sons, and now owns his own business, Inspired Artisans Ltd., which sells liturgical art and renovates churches. Isolation of the first Hispanic Midwesterners has turned into community: ``When I grew up in Boulder, there was one other Hispanic family,'' says Loren Aragon, who is 33. Today, Mr. Aragon lives in Milwaukee and works for his brother's thriving firm, Site Temporaries Inc., which places temporary workers, nearly all Puerto Rican immigrants, in light industrial jobs. About 600 a week pile into buses, along with translators on staff, who help pave the way. He supplies companies with lists of Spanish translations for words such as ``breakroom'' or ``restroom,'' if they like. With Wisconsin unemployment hovering around 3%, the foundries and factories of Milwaukee--home of Harley-Davidson Inc., Quad Graphics and a large J.C. Penney Co. distribution center--have given an especially warm welcome to the Hispanic workers. When Allen Edmonds Shoe Corp. couldn't fill jobs at its factory in northern Ozaukee County, it moved some of its operations to a facility on the south side of Milwaukee. Now, nearly all of its employees there are Hispanic, and most walk to their jobs. Strolling out after Friday's regular short shift, manager Sue Samson describes turnover at the facility in one word: ``None.'' A wariness of government has kept many Hispanics underground and without political voice. Hispanic leaders believe the census bureau has woefully undercounted the number of Hispanics in Milwaukee. Only 7% of the registered Hispanics voted in the past general election. Milwaukee has elected only two Hispanics to public office, Circuit Judge Elsa Lamelas and State Rep. Pedro Colon. Without a unified voice, Mr. Colon warned in a recent speech, ``The south side will continue to decay.'' Often a community is galvanized by a single energetic force, and in Milwaukee's Hispanic quarters it is 54-year-old Maria Monreal-Cameron. Presiding from a cluttered office in an incubator of mostly Hispanic businesses, a floor below Allen Edmonds, she is nominally the president of the Wisconsin Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, but her mission is to advance Hispanic people through every means she knows. As a child in Wisconsin, Ms. Monreal-Cameron often woke up to find strangers huddled under blankets on her living room floor. They were families from Mexico and Puerto Rico, journeying for work in the factories of Milwaukee. Her parents, Mexican immigrants themselves, never turned away the new arrivals. As an adult, she began joining local community boards when her youngest of six children was grown. She now is active on 18, often the first Hispanic representative. She plays matchmaker with banks and businesses, acts as informal adviser to local entrepreneurs, and presses her political contacts for improvements on the south side. She successfully took on the political establishment in a fight to upgrade the Sixth Street Viaduct, a ratty-looking 99-year- old bridge over the channel and industrial section that separates the Hispanic south side from Milwaukee's downtown. ``It's the gateway to our community,'' she says. She also helped secure government grants for the incubator, the Milwaukee Enterprise Center, with 25 small firms, mostly Hispanic. Their numbers include people like Roberto Fuentez, a former migrant worker who now has a small machine tooling shop. ``This is something that doesn't take a lot of education, but you need some training,'' he says, sauntering past his machines. Adalberto Olivares, a local Vietnam veteran, wanted to start a trucking business on a small loan from a former employer. ``Al was leasing one truck,'' she says. ``I said, `You know what? Let's get going here, let's make it happen.' '' She persuaded him to move his business into the incubator, and helped him get financing. He now has a fleet of 23 trucks, 12 of which are owner-operated. Ms. Monreal-Cameron rolls her eyes at the inevitable stereotyping she encounters. A human-resources person from a local hotel called Ms. Monreal-Cameron blurting, ``I need housemaids.'' Ms. Monreal-Cameron responded that the chamber isn't a placement service, but she knew several executives who would be fine human-resource candidates. ``She hung up on me,'' Ms. Monreal-Cameron says. The New Melting Pot--Ranked by percentage increase of immigrants from 1995 to 1999 \1\ State Growth 1. North Carolina....................................................73 2. Nevada............................................................60 3. Kansas............................................................54 4. Indiana...........................................................50 5. Minnesota.........................................................43 6. Virginia..........................................................40 7. Maryland..........................................................39 8. Arizona...........................................................35 9. Utah..............................................................31 10. Oregon...........................................................26 \1\ For states with a foreign-born population of at least 50,000 in 1995. Source: Urban Institute

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I recently received a copy of a letter to the editor of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel written by Mr. Steve Cywinski, one of my constituents from South Milwaukee. I submit this letter to be included in the Record. New Tests for Public Servants I was very impressed with the article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Sen. William Proxmire (``Proxmire honored for sharp eye on money,'' Dec. 8). He served from 1957-'89. His mission was to cut wasteful spending. He was credited with 168 Golden Fleece awards. My question: Is Bill Proxmire the only one of some 500 politicians in Washington, DC, who had his eyes and ears open? I would propose hearing and eye tests for politicians before being sworn into office. Steve Cywinski, South Milwaukee.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Broken Promises Retiree Health Act. This legislation would help retirees obtain health insurance if their coverage is canceled and would ensure that retirees are given fair warning before their employers terminate their health coverage. The need for this legislation is clear. Far too many companies are breaking their promises to retired workers by eliminating retiree health benefits. A recent report by Mercer/Foster-Higgins found that in 1999, only 35 percent of large employers offered health benefits to their early retirees. This is a decline of six percent in the past five years alone. As a result, thousands of retirees have been stranded without health care--health care they were promised, and health care they earned through their long years of service. This national trend hit home in my district on August 5, 1996 when the Pabst Brewing Company announced that they were eliminating the health benefits plans for almost 750 retirees and their families. Seniors in my district and throughout the country rely on their employers' commitment to provide health insurance in their golden years. When a company revokes that coverage, many older Americans are trapped in the limbo between employee health benefits and Medicare coverage. Retirees should not be faced with the vulnerability of being uninsured when irresponsible employers break their promise to provide retiree health coverage. The legislation I am introducing today would establish a critical safety-net for these retirees. Through this bill, retirees who were over the age of 55 when their health benefits were terminated can choose between two new health coverage options. First, for a monthly premium of approximately $400 per month, retirees would be allowed to buy into the Medicare program. Or, if the employer is continuing to offer health benefits to its current employees, retirees could choose to buy the same health coverage for themselves and their families that the company offers current employees. Both options ensure that health coverage would be available to retirees until they turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare. In addition, this legislation would require employers to give 6 months notice to retirees of any reduction in their health benefits and would also require the Labor Department to certify that these changes meet the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement. Legislation cannot heal the pain of employer betrayal after a lifetime of service, but it can renew the promise of retiree health coverage. Mr. Speaker, we must act now. I ask my colleagues to show their support for retired workers and their families by cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), asked a rhetorical question, and I want to answer it. He asked why are we spending an additional $100 billion in this bill that does not go to anyone who is in a marriage penalty? Well, I say to the gentleman from Maryland and my other colleagues, because it is payback time. Those dollars go to the wealthiest in this country who are contributors to my fellow Republicans, who are supporters. They are the exact people who gave $70 million to George W. Bush in his effort to be President of the United States. That is what this is all about. We have had over 20 Republican speakers today talk about this H.R. 6 marriage penalty bill, but only one, one, had the honesty to come forward in his remarks and state that, yes, there is a bulk of benefits for the most wealthy in this country. Let me refer my colleagues to this chart. I have taken the liberty of retitling the bill to what it really and actually is, and that is the Tax Fraud Act of Year 2000. Mr. Speaker, when the bill was before the committee we asked some very pointed questions to the Republican staff. And, surprisingly, we found out that over 50 percent of the benefits in this bill go to people who do not even pay a marriage penalty. So to Patty and Pat in the Speaker's district who just got married, I think it is incumbent on the Speaker and the rest of us to tell Patty and Pat that half of this is going to be who are not suffering the marriage penalty. Where does all this money go? The Republicans in this bill increase the size of the 15 percent tax bracket. And, surprisingly, 84.1 percent of those benefits go to those taxpayers in this country who are earning over $75,000. On this particular chart we show the 10-year cost of the bill: $182 billion. In the blue shows the dollars that are going for the marriage tax penalty. That is what we are being told the bill is all about. But I have to tell my colleagues a little deep dirty secret the Republicans do not want us to learn about, and that is that 105 go to other than marriage tax penalty payers. In fact, here again, 84.1 percent of the increase goes to those who earn over $75,000 a year. So let us be honest in this portrayal. Later in the debate we will have the opportunity to vote for a real, a real live marriage penalty bill, and that is one that goes to those who pay the penalty, not the 50 percent who do not pay the penalty who today earn a marriage bonus. And, yes, Patty and Pat from the Speaker's district, along with 61,582 of my constituents will get relief from the Democratic substitute and the marriage penalty, but it also recognizes that constituents in my district, like Sid and Doris, 99,234 other seniors, will have a shooting shot later in this session to make sure there are some dollars left to resolve problems like modernizing Medicare, providing a meaningful drug benefit, and saving Social Security. I challenge my colleagues to address this question.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, for the last 3 hours we have been extolling the virtues of eliminating the marriage tax penalty. The most amazing part of the debate is, we all agree. I agree with the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). In fact, I have introduced legislation that does just that. So that is not in question before us today. The President supports it. The Vice President, Al Gore, supports it. What is the problem with the bill we have before us today? Mr. Speaker, look at this chart. The problem with the bill, and I have taken the liberty of renaming it, I think it should be really called the tax fraud act of the year 2000, because Republican after Republican has stood up and said the bill provides marriage penalty tax relief. When the bill was before the Committee on Ways and Means last week, we asked the Republican staffers, where do the benefits go? Ms. Paulls, their main staffer, conceded to all of us that over 50 percent of the benefits in this bill go to people who do not pay a marriage penalty. They are in a marriage bonus situation. They are rewarded for being married. So what is all this rhetoric we are hearing about? Why will not any of my Republican colleagues respond to this? If they do not have a decent answer, just say, Because we wanted to do it, that is why. Well, where does this inequity come from? What the Republicans have done in this bill, they have added a change in the lowest tax bracket, the 15 percent tax bracket. By doing that, we found from the Citizens for Tax Justice that 84 percent of those benefits go to those earning $75,000 a year or more. Well, wait a minute. I just heard this is for the poor and moderate, the couple that just got married, the Hallihans from Illinois who, by the way, that chart was before the committee last week. Last week their total income is $50,000. Today it is $61,000. God bless them for the big increase over the weekend. Eleven grand. Wow, are they on a roll. Well, Mr. Speaker, the entire bill before us costs $182 billion. The Democratic substitute resolves the marriage penalty. That costs this much right here, $76 billion, $77 billion. Plus we also correct another problem that is going to be upon us, and that is putting people in the alternative minimum tax. We correct that at this point. My colleagues do not. But where does the vast benefit go if it is not going to those who pay a marriage penalty? It goes to the high income, those making over $75,000 a year. As the red portion of the chart shows us, of the total bill before us, $105 billion goes for increasing the 15 percent bracket. Of this slice of the pie, of this slice of the pie, 84.1 percent go to the poor, moderate-income Republicans, making more than $75,000 a year. I challenge my colleagues in the next hour of debate, respond to this. Tell the American people why half the benefits go to those who do not even pay a marriage penalty today.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), for yielding time to me. Like the gentleman from Michigan, I also am a product of the Catholic schools, having attended St. Helen's Grade School, taught by the good Felician Sisters, and then on to high school, attending Don Bosco High School, which was taught by the Brothers of Mary. So, I rise to support this resolution, but I would like to further the congratulatory portion of the resolution by including all the Catholic clergy in the country and all the good sisters who devoted their lives to teaching young students in the Catholic schools. I extend this honor to the Catholic clergy, and wish that the Republican leadership would have done the same, when they had their chance to honor a Catholic clergyman by selecting the first choice of the bipartisan Chaplain Selection Committee, a Catholic priest, Father Tim O'Brien, who was passed over. In checking back with the Committee on Education and the Workforce and with the Catholic Conference, I am told that this is the first time the House of Representatives has ever brought to the floor a resolution specifically congratulating Catholic schools. I guess one could be suspicious of the timing. Here we are in the second session of the Congress, and one of the first items brought forward is a resolution congratulating Catholic schools. This naturally will make Catholics around the country very happy. However, one could ask, why is this being done? We have had Catholic School Week celebrated in this country for years and years. One could ask, is this a way that some can clear their conscience? Is this resolution before us because maybe it is an attempt to repair some of the damage done to the Catholic vote in this country? Mr. Speaker, I make a prediction. I would say after the debate on this resolution, a roll call vote will be requested. And later this afternoon when the vote is called, my Republican colleagues will stream to the floor and cast an aye vote for the resolution to show the entire world how pro-Catholic they are. Mr. Speaker, I hope that same level of pro-Catholicism exists when the House later this month has before it the appointment of a chaplain for the House of Representatives, and when we will have the opportunity at that time to vote on naming the first Catholic priest in the history of this country to be chaplain of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer). When he was speaking and basically chastising me for introducing the entire chaplain issue, I asked him to yield for one question. That question was: Where was this resolution last year? Where was the resolution the year before? Mr. Speaker, this is the first time ever that I can find where we have had a resolution praising the Catholic schools of the country. Maybe one could say, and I agree, that it is about time we did so. However, we have to know the background. There was a bipartisan chaplain selection committee appointed, nine Democrats, nine Republicans, who went on a very exhaustive search, over 35 candidates, to choose a new chaplain of the House. After their voting was completed, and I do not really understand the point system, but the person who received the highest number of votes for chaplain was Father Tim O'Brien, a Catholic priest who received 14. The next received 10.5 the third received 9.5. The third one, the minister who received 9.5 points, was the one selected by the Speaker of the House and Majority Leader to be the next chaplain. We have not taken that issue up yet. That is coming up, I believe, in a couple of weeks. So some of my colleagues have indicated that we have missed an opportunity in the House. No, that opportunity has not come before the House. I think we can right the wrong of the leadership in passing over Father Tim O'Brien, a Catholic priest. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I have to question the timing of this first ever pro-Catholic resolution. And I think it is totally appropriate to bring it to the debate, the fact that if the people who are bringing this resolution forward are so pro-Catholic, let us see if that pro- Catholic feeling continues to exist when the House has before it the issue on electing, for the first time ever in the history of the House, the first Catholic chaplain. announcement by the speaker pro tempore