Jerry Kleczka

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to figure out what the previous speaker said. He is the one supporting the Republican drug bill, and as I recall, he said it is irresponsible for us to provide a drug benefit at this time. Nevertheless, he signs on to the Republican drug benefit bill. That tells me, and he is a pretty honest guy, that their bill does not provide a drug benefit at all. I agree with that. Mr. Speaker, the Republican drug bill is a cruel hoax and an empty promise to our senior citizens. We are going to end up passing their bill today, and we are going to go home for the 4th of July break. I challenge the senior citizens in their districts to ask a few questions. My friends here is a copy of the bill, I challenge constituents to say, Mr. Republican Congressman, where in the bill is the premium that I am going to be charged? They are going to say well, it is not in there. I will be darned. Mr. Republican Congressman, what are the drugs covered? Where is the listing of the drugs? It is not in here. Well, Mr. Republican Congressman, how about the deductibles and copays; is that in there? No, that is not in there either. The constituent will say, what kind of bill is this? They will say we are going to hire a new bureaucrat for $140,000 a year who will work with the insurance companies to make those decisions. Our bill is voluntary, defines a premium of $25 a month. In the Republican bill insurance companies will decide that with this new bureaucrat. That is a drug benefit? That is a farce. This bill does not provide a universal program, where doctors coverage for Medicare is the same in this part of the country as in that part. This bill hopes and prays that the insurance companies will offer it. Mr. Speaker, if this type of policy was profitable for insurance companies, they would offer it today. They are not going to do this. This bill is going to fail.

Mr. KLECZKA. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. KLECZKA

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

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor). Part of the dialogue this morning is on the Capitol Police purchasing American-made motorcycles. We went through this some years back. In fact, they did get the use of a Harley-Davidson to use on the Capitol Grounds. The upshot was that the officers involved in the trial period really love the new cycle. It would be equipped so they could use it for traffic stops and other type of police functions. However, before the order actually went through, there was a row with the company and the equipment and the deal, and I think it was for eight cycles at that point, fell through. But I think it is time that we revisit the issue. For visitors coming to the Nation's Capitol to see our Capitol Police on Kawasakis and Hondas is quite embarrassing, at least to this Member. I think that we do have American-made cycles that will fit the bill and the subcommittee; and the language that is being inserted in the bill will at least have the Chief of the Capitol Police look at it and possibly buy American and have our Capitol Police persons ride on a new, decent, operative motorcycle.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on Flag Day, to remind all Americans to pause and pay their respects to the banner that has come to symbolize the freedom and liberty that we hold so dear. June 14, 2000, marks the 223rd birthday of the U.S. Flag. In 1777, less than a year after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and more than a decade before the Constitution was finalized, the Continental Congress adopted the Stars and Stripes pattern for the national flag. Flag Day was first celebrated in the year of the flag's centennial, 1877. After that, many citizens and organizations advocated the adoption of a national day of commemoration for the U.S. Flag. However, it was not until 1949 that President Harry Truman signed legislation officially making Flag Day a day for us to remember what the Stars and Stripes stand for, and honor those who gave their lives for them. The brother of one such brave soldier from my district contacted me recently to relate to me the great patriotism and love for his country of his fallen family member, Joseph G. Serketich, who was killed in a World War II battle in Metz, France, on November 17, 1944. During his basic training at Camp Swift, TX, he sent a letter to the Father of his church back home in Wisconsin that exemplifies how those soldiers felt about their flag, and reminds all of us of its true meaning. On July 31, 1942, Pvt. Serketich wrote of what he felt was the army's most moving ceremony, the end of the day retreat. His words ring as true today as they did when they were written: There the men all stand in formation, facing the flag of our country. While the colors are being lowered the men stand at attention and present arms. . . The thrill comes when one stares at the flag there high in the sky, he wonders what is it there for. What does it mean? Liberty, freedom, happiness and freedom of religion. . . I will fight to defend it whenever an enemy tries to take it from us. I will die for it as Christ died for me. . . . All America should be proud of its flag, not of its material beauty, but for what it stands--life, liberty and happiness--to be also proud of its soldiers who fought to make it, and who fight to preserve it. The Serketich family also sent me a poem entitled ``I Am Your Flag''. These excerpts eloquently remind us all of what this hallowed national symbol really stands for: I was born on June 14, 1777. I am more than just a cloth shaped into a design. I have led your sons into battle from Valley Forge to the bloody jungles in Vietnam. I walk in silence with each of your honored dead to their resting place My red stripes symbolize the blood spilled in defense of this glorious nation. My White stripes signify the burning tears shed by Americans who lost their sons. My blue field is indicative of God's heaven under which I fly. My stars are clustered together, unifying 50 states as one, for God and country. Keep alight the fires of patriotism, strive earnestly for the spirit of democracy. Worship eternal God and keep His commandments, And I shall remain the bulwark of peace and freedom for all mankind. --Author Unknown. I would like to thank Paul Serketich for bringing these tributes to my attention. Each day as the flag is raised in front of our government buildings, schools, and businesses, and as we put our right hands over our hearts and pledge our allegiance, we will be reminded not only of those who fought and died for all that our flag represents, but of the freedom that they bought with their lives.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Democratic alternative which does three important things to ease the estate tax burden on individuals and family businesses. First of all, the substitute would nearly double, effective immediately, the estate and gift taxes exemption for individuals to $1,100,000, from the current level of $675,000. This means a husband and wife can exempt $2.2 million of their assets from estate taxes. Secondly, the Democratic proposal significantly raises the estate tax exclusion for small businesses. Under current law, there is a $1.3 million exclusion from the estate tax for interests in farms and closely held businesses. The Democratic substitute would effectively create a $4 million exclusion per family for farms and closely held businesses. It would accomplish this by increasing the limit on the small business exclusion from $1.3 to $2 million and by providing that the portion of the exclusion not used in the estate of the first spouse to die will be allowed to the estate of the other spouse. Finally, the substitute would provide a 20 percent across-the-board reduction to the estate and gift tax rates. I support the Democratic substitute because it provides needed estate tax relief to small business and individuals without breaking the bank. My Republican colleagues have offered a plan to totally eliminate the estate tax, that when fully phased in, will cost $50 billion a year. Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to sacrifice our chance to pay down the national debt, ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security, and modernize the Medicare program by passing the Republican bill which will benefit only 2% of the population--those with the wealthiest estates. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic proposal, a common- sense and affordable way to give Americans estate tax relief and still provide funds to meet our responsibility to reduce the national debt so this burden will not continue to be placed on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4241, legislation which will rename the post office in Janesville, Wisconsin, as the ``Les Aspin Post Office Building.'' One of Wisconsin's favorite son's Les Aspin served his home state with distinction during his eleven terms as Congressman from the First District. He went on to serve the Clinton Administration as its first Secretary of Defense. He served his home state and his country with great honor. Les began and ended his professional career as a professor at Marquette University in Milwaukee. The university's Washington program, which brings students to our Nation's capitol to experience firsthand the way our government works, was renamed in 1996 the Les Aspin Center for Government in his honor. I know Les would be proud to know that the institute which bears his name is building upon his legacy by teaching future generations of leaders about the values of civic involvement and public service. Madam Speaker, throughout Les' service to his country, his love and commitment to his home state remained deep and unwavering. Today we have the opportunity to further recognize the outstanding achievements of one of our former colleagues who left us far too soon. Renaming the post office in Janesville as the Les Aspin Post Office Building is a fitting tribute to a man who served Wisconsin so well.

Mr. KLECZKA

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

Mr. KLECZKA. As I looked over the history of this tax, I thought I read that after the Spanish-American War this tax was repealed, and then at the start of World War I it was put back on; repealed after World War I; then it was put back on for World War II and then broadened to include the entire phone bill and that is where we are today. It is still around. Is that accurate?

Mr. KLECZKA. No. The point being that it is not 102 years old and around since the Spanish-American War. It was repealed after that war in 1902. So the gentleman is inaccurate on that point.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am really tickled pink to have the opportunity to come down here and talk about this repeal of the phone tax. As was indicated, this repeal will cost some $20 billion to the treasury, or putting it another way, Americans will be saving $20 billion over a 5- year period. To put that into perspective, the President has recommended this Congress pass a drug benefit for the senior citizens on Medicare. The 5-year cost of that is $40 billion. But my Republican colleagues do not support that so we probably will not do it for the seniors; but this phone repeal could fund one-half of that Medicare drug benefit for seniors, just to put it into perspective. Now, I guess people are going to ask, what is this worth to me? I have a copy of a phone bill here from the State of Virginia from the Bell Atlantic Phone Company. This is for the other services and charges. If I could direct Members' attention to number seven, it is tax and Federal, the savings to the consumer here, 97 cents. People ask me, where did this idea come from to repeal the tax? Clearly the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) introduced a bill, but we also had an advisory commission established by Congress to look at the Internet tax. It was headed up by the governor of the State of Virginia, Governor Gilmore. His colleagues not only wanted to put a moratorium on Internet tax, but they also had this real thing about the Federal phone tax. They pushed and shoved, and part of the recommendation to Congress was to repeal this 97 cent tax here. As I look at this bill, Governor Gilmore, my eyes dropped to the next line, and that is the State sales tax on your phone bill. That is $7.00, 700 percent more, and I do not recall the governor saying anything about knocking that down, but he is so gracious to help us out by eliminating this 97 cents on the phone bill. I just read in the Post today that Governor Gilmore wants the taxpayers of the country to give him another half a billion dollars to rebuild the Wilson Bridge, which is in part Virginia and in part Maryland. I say we could sure help him out if we had this $20 billion, but we have to give that back. But the point here is the consumers by our action today are going to save 97 cents on this phone bill, but we are not doing anything about the $7 tax going to Richmond. So this is a great day. We are really going to do something for the consumers. Massive tax relief. Great day. I have got some bad news. Bell Atlantic, same company, sent out a letter, and they sent out the letter to the phone people, to those who use their telephone, and they say, hey, important notice, folks. Optional wire maintenance price plan increase. What is that? Well, for the phone wire inside your house, these folks are currently paying $1.25 a month. The phone company is telling them, effective June 17 of this year, we are going to increase that almost 100 percent to $2.45, $1.20 a month. But, wait a minute. We just saved 97 cents, and the phone company took it away. Before we got the savings, this phone company took it away. So right now, as we stand here, we are 23 cents in the hole, because after we give you this phone tax relief, your bill is going to go up 23 percent anyway. So now I am thinking, my gosh, how are we going to help the consumer out? Well, I came up with a couple of ideas. It is going to cost some money to change the Tax Code. There will be some administrative costs once this bill is signed into law. I am thinking of producing an amendment today to amend the bill, and instead of sending the 97 cents back to the consumers, send the $20 billion to the phone company. My friends, they are going to get it anyway. The other idea is to move the previous question, which means cut off all the debate, because the longer we sit here today and talk about this, the less the consumers are going to save.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. KLECZKA. Could the Chairman inform the sides how much time is remaining.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)