Jerry Kleczka

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important resolution expressing our continued commitment to the fight against diabetes. Diabetes is one of the most costly health problems in America. More than 1 out of every 10 health care dollars in the United States, and about 1 out of every 4 Medicare dollars is spent on care for people with diabetes. The devastation caused by diabetes, however, goes far beyond the financial costs. Over 16 million Americans suffer from this chronic disease for which there is no cure. Diabetes is the seventh leading cause of death in the United States. While over 10 million Americans know that they are living with diabetes, another 5.4 million people are not even aware that they have the disease. Many people only realize that they have diabetes when they develop a life-threatening complication like blindness, kidney disease, nerve damage, heart disease or stroke. Early diagnosis and treatment can help reduce the risk of these terrible complications. I am pleased to note that constituents in my district have access to a number of outstanding diabetes education programs, including those at the Children's Hospital of Wisconsin, Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center, Columbia Hospital, Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital, St. Francis Hospital, St. Luke's Medical Center, Waukesha Memorial Hospital, and West Allis Memorial Hospital. The resolution before us today recognizes the important role that these dedicated health professionals and volunteers play in the fight against diabetes. Mr. Speaker, these health providers and their patients need our help. Improvements in technology and the general growth in scientific knowledge have created unprecedented opportunities for advances that might lead to better treatments, prevention, and ultimately a cure. Congress has a responsibility to support this critical, life-saving research. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and affirm their commitment to find a cure for diabetes.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, we have apparently not learned from history. The Omnibus Appropriations bill the House is considering today is very similar to the budget-busting, catch-all bill that Congress passed last year. This time the bill, which was filed at 3:00 a.m. this morning in the cloak of darkness, measures one foot tall. It is impossible for Members to know all the details included in this massive measure, including the type and amounts of pet projects inserted without debate. Sadly, this omnibus bill comes to us after we heard the Republican Leadership maintain their commitment to make the trains run on time and send the President 13 separate appropriations bills. Although this bill contains many favorable provisions, such as increased nursing home funding for the most vulnerable seniors in the Medicare program and an agreement to permit satellite TV carriers to transmit the signals of local broadcast stations back to subscribers in the same local market, the negative aspects out-weigh the good and therefore I must oppose this legislation. The Republican Leadership made a hand-shake agreement that they would not include dairy legislation on any appropriations bill. They have gone back on their word by attaching language that will maintain the depression-era milk pricing system and stop the Department of Agriculture's modest milk market dairy reforms. This provision will hurt Wisconsin dairy farmers and consumers nationwide. I am also concerned that this bill does not go far enough to prevent the implementation of the Department of Health and Human Services organ allocation rule. The HHS proposal will take much-needed organs away from Wisconsin and threatens the very existence of our nation's smaller transplant centers. While I welcome any delay of this ill-conceived policy, I am extremely disappointed that Congress was unwilling to postpone the restructuring of the organ allocation system until we can address this issue in a more comprehensive manner. Perhaps the most egregious parts of this bill are the accounting gimmicks used to ``pay for'' the programs within the bill. The .38% across-the-board spending cut allows the individual agencies and departments to determine which programs and accounts shall be subject to the spending reduction. However, no project can be cut by more that 15%. This means that wasteful and inappropriate pork-barrel spending projects, such as Naval ships not even requested by the Navy, cannot be targeted for elimination. Another troubling gimmick is the bill's use of forward funding. Delaying payments for defense contractors, delaying veterans medical care obligations, and rescinding Section 8 housing program funds are just a few of these accounting gimmicks which add up to over $4 billion. Further so-called ``savings'' are achieved by delaying the paychecks of our military personnel and payments made to recipients of social services block grants. Furthermore, roughly one-third of all education funding being spent this fiscal year is counted against next year's spending caps. This will spend nearly $12.4 billion that will not be counted until next year, subverting the budget caps. Even though this spending is within the Budget Caps, it still results in a Fiscal Year 2000 outlay that taps into Social Security funds. To top it off, $4.5 billion of the Census funding is classified as emergency spending and thus does not count against the spending caps. This too, spends funds from the Social Security Trust Fund--for an activity the government has performed like clockwork for every ten years for over 200 years! Not only is the Census called an ``emergency,'' but also included in the long list of surprise spending by the government are funds for the Head Start program and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program. Finally, even though this bill contains everything but the kitchen sink, it does nothing to extend the life of Social Security or to modernize the Medicare Program. This budget bill also does not offer a plan to allow seniors to buy prescription drugs at an affordable cost, nor does it contain legislation to allow patients and doctors to make medical decisions instead of HOMO bureaucrats. For these reasons Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this bill.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Timothy E. Hoeksema, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Midwest Express Airlines, Inc., who is the recipient of the 1999 Institute of Human Relations Award from the American Jewish Committee. Mr. Hoeksema is a leading figure in the community and an example of the values of his hometown, Milwaukee, which esteems hard work, honesty and a genuine love of people. Under his leadership the company has distinguished itself as a dynamic and innovative force in the airline industry. Mr. Hoeksema's support of community groups and functions seemingly knows no boundaries and includes Betty Brinn Children's Museum, Midwest Athletes Against Childhood Cancer, Next Door Foundation, Milwaukee Art Museum, Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Milwaukee, Eastown and Westown Associations, Habitat for Humanity, Esperanza Unida, Project Equality, American Cancer Society, Florentine Opera, Circus Parade, Skylight Opera Theater, First Stage, Greater Milwaukee Open, Marcus Center for the Performing Arts, Make-A-Wish Foundation, and Riversplash. Mr. Hoeksema is duly recognized by the American Jewish Committee, which has worked toward intergroup understanding to strengthen a community in which diverse cultures and traditions can flourish. In that regard, he is a fitting recipient of the Institute of Human Relations Award, which is presented to leaders of the business and civic community whose distinguished leadership demonstrates their profound commitment to preserving our democratic heritage. Each year the American Jewish Committee's Institute of Human Relations honors an outstanding corporate citizen, and it is a fitting tribute, Mr. Speaker, that Timothy A. Hoeksema, who has done so much to support the diverse social fabric of the community, should receive this outstanding recognition.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, the Medicare Trust Fund was projected to become insolvent by year 2001. To address this problem, as we were told, Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. In March of this year, it was estimated that the Medicare Trust Fund would be solvent until year 2015. This dramatic improvement is largely due to changes in reimbursements paid to health care providers made by the BBA. While the BBA can be credited with increasing the solvency of the trust fund, providers have expressed concern that the cuts had hurt that ability to care for patients. We have all heard about stroke victims unable to get rehabilitation services they need. We have all heard about hospitals unable to find nursing homes to care for ventilator patients. Some of the most vulnerable patients in the Medicare program have been the hardest hit by these changes. The legislation before us today takes important steps to address these problems. It provides more money for therapy services. It increases reimbursement to nursing homes who care for medically complex patients. It also includes funds for hospitals, home health agencies, and Medicare health maintenance organizations. These changes help ensure that the Medicare program will continue to meet the commitment and provide quality care to our Nation's seniors. The Medicare Refinements Act before us today maintains the delicate balance between the fiscal concerns of the providers and the long-term stability of the Medicare program for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this necessary legislation.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of this body an organization that is leading the fight against a disease that debilitates and claims the lives of millions of Americans each year. The statistics regarding diabetes are appalling. On average, the disease kills one American every three minutes. Sixteen million Americans suffer from the disease; of those, 5.4 million are undiagnosed. And, it should be known that taking insulin does not cure the disease or prevent the development of complications. Tragically, diabetes strikes people of all ages. And it is a costly medical and financial burden. The average lifetime cost of diabetes care for a person diagnosed at age 3 is calculated at $600,000. In this regard, we look to groups such as the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International (JDF), a non-profit, non-governmental organization founded in 1970 by parents of children with diabetes. JDF's mission is to find a cure for diabetes and its complications through the support of research. Since its founding, JDF has spent more resources on diabetes research than any other non-profit, non-governmental agency in the world. Volunteers help define research priorities, select grant recipients, lead advocacy efforts, and provide guidance to overall operations. At least 80 cents of every dollar goes directly to research and education. The Wall Street Journal's Smart Money Magazine name JDF one of the Nation's top 10 charities ``you can trust'' and one of only two charities in the health field. This year alone, more than 200 research grants and over 110 fellowship and career development awards were granted to scientists in 17 countries throughout the world. In 28 years, JDF has been instrumental in encouraging the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to increase diabetes research funding from $18 million to $415 million annually. Mr. Speaker, as we recognize November as National Diabetes Awareness Month, I would like to commemorate the outstanding and selfless work of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Daniel Konkol, named Man of the Year by the Southside Business Club. We celebrate his recognition because it is an affirmation of the American Dream, the story of a hardworking, first generation Polish-American who, by dint of hard work and perseverance, became one of the most respected jurists and community leaders in the Milwaukee area. Daniel Lee Konkol attended DeSales Prep Seminary High School and graduated in 1969. Later he attended Marquette University where he received his B.A. degree in 1973 and his J.D. degree in 1976. Dan worked his way through high school and college holding many jobs, from a maintenance worker at various schools--and even a convent--to a short order cook at a drive-in run by his neighbor. It didn't take long for Dan's talent and commitment to catch the eye of those in the legal community. Following graduation from law school, Dan was hired as an assistant district attorney for Racine County. He worked there for eight years under three district attorneys, gaining experience in prosecuting all types of criminal matters including homicides, armed robberies, burglaries, domestic violence, and welfare fraud. In 1985, Dan was appointed an assistant Milwaukee County court commissioner by Circuit Court Chief Judge Victor Manian. While a commissioner in 1988, Dan published in the Milwaukee Lawyer an article titled ``The New Paternity Law: Law and Procedures.'' In 1990, he received a Wisconsin State Bar Commendation for an article he published in the Wisconsin Lawyer titled ``Civil Restraining Orders, Distinguishing Domestic Abuse and Harassment.'' In 1992, with extensive help from many friends and relatives, Dan ran a low-budget election campaign and was selected by voters as judge of the newly created Milwaukee County Circuit Court Branch 44. In 1998 he was re-elected without opposition. He is known for his signature sky blue judicial robes, his excellent judicial record and his involvement in numerous fraternal, business, and civic organizations. Mr. Speaker, I proudly commend Judge Daniel Konkol, named Man of the Year by the Southside Business Club.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the greatest baseball players in history--Henry ``Hank'' Aaron. During his major league career--a career which spanned nearly a quarter century--Hank Aaron broke more batting records than any other player in Major League baseball. Twenty-five years ago, on April 8, 1974, Hank Aaron hit his 715th home run--breaking the Major League Record for career home runs held previously by Babe Ruth. Hank Aaron still holds a place in the heart of every baseball fan. Along with Ruth, Willie Mays, and Ted Williams, Aaron was recently elected by the fans to the MasterCard All-Century Team. But Hank Aaron was more than just batting titles, All-Star games and home run records. He was an important part of my childhood, and the childhood of anyone growing up in Milwaukee in the 1950's. I remember going to Milwaukee County Stadium to watch the great Milwaukee Braves teams of the 1950s. The Stadium was always packed--even though Milwaukee was the second smallest city in the Major Leagues, the Milwaukee Braves were the first National League team to draw two million fans in a season. Hank Aaron was the reason so many people came to watch the Braves. He began his career with Milwaukee in 1952, when a scout recruited him for a Braves farm team. Two years later, Aaron made his first major league appearance. He went on to spend 13 years with the Milwaukee Braves, hitting a total of 398 home runs and leading the Braves to two league pennants and a World Series victory in 1957. On September 20, 1965, Aaron became the last Milwaukee player to hit a home run in Milwaukee County Stadium. Nearly a decade later, after a brilliant career in Atlanta, Aaron returned to Milwaukee--this time for the Milwaukee Brewers. He ended his career there, retiring in 1976. Hank Aaron is an integral part of the history of baseball and the history of Milwaukee. I am pleased to join my colleagues in honoring Hammerin' Hank Aaron.

Mr. KLECZKA

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

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat older than my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), although I attended those games at County State, and I sat in the bleachers. We could recite the entire team from Vel Crandel to Joe Adcock, Billy Bruton, and naturally Hank Aaron. I was disturbed like the gentleman was when the team sort of left one evening and ended up in another State, but nevertheless the background and the things that Hank Aaron stood for are still alive in all the hearts of those who watched those games from not only Milwaukee but Wisconsin. In my office here in Rayburn I have a ball that is signed by Hank Aaron that he gave to me a couple of years ago at one of our bratwurst days or hot dog days or whatever it was. So, Hank, thanks for all the memories.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to an exemplary act of community spirit and corporate citizenship. A company located in Wisconsin's Fourth Congressional District, Payne & Dolan, Incorporated, a Waukesha, Wisconsin-based highway construction company, has been named a 1999 recipient of the prestigious Exemplary Volunteer Efforts (EVE) Award from the U.S. Department of Labor. The Department of Labor has recognized Payne & Dolan for an innovative minority hiring, training and development program that has provided outstanding opportunities for more than 160 minorities and women and invested more than $3 million into Milwaukee's central city. Payne & Dolan is the first highway construction company ever to receive this award. The company's comprehensive equal opportunity program includes proactive hiring efforts in Milwaukee's central city, community involvement and partnerships, scholarships, employee training and development, minority business mentoring and more. The company has worked with the YWCA of Greater Milwaukee, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and other community partners to develop a pilot program called Transportation Alliance for New Solutions, or TrANS. This program recruits and raises awareness of industry opportunities among minorities and women. In addition, Payne & Dolan helped spearhead development of the Central City Workers' Center (CCWC), a centralized ``one-stop shop'' to link highway contractors with potential employees. This one-of-a-kind collaboration among unions, government, industry and community-based organizations seeks to provide family-sustaining incomes to a minimum of 150 central city residents over the next two years. Payne & Dolan's success stories are the life stories of people like Sean McDowell, who began working for Payne & Dolan in 1993 and today, with the company's guidance and support, owns his own asphalt company. People like Roger Carson, who was hired as a laborer in 1991 and has been a foreman for two years. And people like Wendy Young, who was hired as an unskilled laborer in 1994 and is now an apprentice operating engineer. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the contributions and commitment of Payne & Dolan and its CEO, Ned Bechthold, as well as salute the employees who have worked hard to make this equal opportunity program succeed and to make the EVE award possible. It is clear that Payne & Dolan is building much more than highways--it is also building a direct path to opportunity. I commend Payne & Dolan, and I commend the United States Department of Labor for its recognition of this outstanding corporate citizen.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, the need for managed care reform is clear. According to a study by the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation, nearly nine in 10 doctors say their patients had experienced denial of coverage by a health maintenance organization (HMO) over the past two years. The same study found that as many as two in three of those doctors believe that the denial resulted in a serious decline in health for their patients. To address this problem, the bill before us today, the Managed Care Patients' Bill of Rights, will establish critical patient protections to ensure that consumers get the health care they've been promised and have paid for. The Patients' Bill of Rights would: prohibit plans from gagging doctors who wish to talk about treatment options; ban arrangements in which doctors receive incentives to limit medically necessary service; prevent plans from retaliating against health care workers who advocated on behalf of their patients; allow women to see their OB/GYN without prior approval; allow patients to select pediatricians as the primary care provider for children; allow patients with special needs to get a standing referral to a specialist; require coverage of emergency care without prior approval; and allow patients with life- threatening conditions access to approved clinical trials. None of these provisions have any weight unless patients can hold health plans accountable for the medical decisions they make. This bill would allow patients to do so. Some insurance companies, business groups and their advocates in Congress claim that if you hold health plans accountable in the courts for their actions the whole health care system will collapse. They say there will be a rush to the courthouse and the cost of health care will shoot through the roof. This is just not so. For those who claim the sky is falling, let me point to an article that appeared in the Washington Post. As this article explains, two years ago, Texas became the first state to give patients the ability to sue their health plan. Since then, there have been only five lawsuits among the over 4 million Texans who belong to HMOs. Moreover, health care premiums have not increased more in Texas than in the rest of the country. The Dingell-Norwood bill would ensure that all Americans have the protections which have worked to promote better patient care in Texas. The bill would permit patients--or their survivors--to sue their health plans in state courts when they make negligent decisions that result in injury or death. H.R. 2723 is a responsible approach to make our nation's health plans accountable for their actions. As a cosponsor of the Dingell-Norwood Managed Care Patients' Bill of Rights, I stand in strong support of this needed reform which will finally put patient protections ahead of special interests.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 466, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening, September 27, I was unavoidably detained and thereby absent for votes on rollcall Nos. 448, 449, 450, 451, and 452. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 448, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 449, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 450, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 451, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 452.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, as the reading of the amendment indicates, this amendment would prevent the EPA from using fiscal year 2000 funds to promulgate a final rule regarding radium in drinking water. The EPA, I am told, intends to issue a rule later in the year 2000 using a five pico curies per liter standard, the smallest amount measurable. This issue has been addressed by Congress before. In 1996, Congress required EPA to delay a proposed standard for radon and radium until the National Research Council prepared a risk assessment on both substances. At that point, I should add, the level talked about by or discussed by the EPA was a 20 pico curies level in drinking water. The EPA finally did complete the study on radon but failed to study radium. The EPA cites the study on airborne radon as evidence that exceeding the level of radium in water beyond five pico curies per liter may result in adverse health effects. The EPA is moving ahead on radium even though the study's authors are careful to note in the findings that, and I quote, ``Whether these considerations also hold for other carcinogens such as X-rays was not an issue that was addressed by this committee.'' This rule will affect over 600 communities nationwide. A water utility in my district and the district of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) estimates that it would cost rate payers about $40 million to build a treatment facility that will enable them to comply with EPA's mandates. What we ask through adoption of this amendment is for the EPA to gather the scientific data on the health effects of radium in our water and to determine at what level the standard should be set. This can be done by conducting two studies: a bone cancer risk study, which is a population-based study that will assess the association of radium in drinking water with the occurrence of bone cancer; and a second study, a cellular biomarker study which will answer the question of whether drinking water exceeding the five pico curies per liter level will cause harmful effects in the blood cells of water drinkers. I urge support for this amendment, which will prohibit the EPA from formulating a rule about the effects of drinking water containing low levels of radium before our water utilities spend millions on what could be a nonexistent problem. Congress asked for a risk assessment before. Evidently we must insist on this study again. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment.

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

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I agree with both the chairman of the subcommittee and my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I do not know what the correct level of radium in the water should be. However, I should point out to the Members that at one point the EPA was saying that level should be 20 pico Curies, which is a measurement of radio activity in water. Now they are coming by to the various communities saying that level should be five. Well, Congress some years ago in 1996 asked them for a study and to give us some hard evidence. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) says we should have some hard evidence so we can make that decision. I agree totally with that statement. We already asked for that and the EPA has not been forthcoming. Yes, they did the study on radon and they linked the radium standard to a radon study, which is totally inappropriate. So I agree with the chairman that hopefully we can work on some report language. I was told just a few hours ago that now the EPA was not going to issue this regulation, this rule, in fiscal year 2000 anyway. My information coming to the debate on this was it was going to be later in the year 2000; and later in 2000, in my book, could be August, could be September, could be before the fiscal year. So if, in fact, it is true that this rule is not going to come down before the year 2001, I think the amendment can be withdrawn.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, if in fact the rule is not going to be promulgated until the year 2001, clearly that would give the EPA an opportunity to provide for a study, one of the two studies that I think I cited or any other study so they can come before Congress and say now the level should be five, 7\1/2\, 10, or whatever it ends up being and we will abide by that, but we do not have that before us. So hopefully between now and the conference committee on this bill we can at least ask, gently ask, the EPA would they please do the study that the Congress asked for in 1996, so the other communities involved can finally make a judgment. Mr. Chairman, with the understanding that we are going to work together on some type of language, I would withdraw the amendment.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, knowing full well I will be back next year.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to delete from the Record my remarks in debate on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2488 earlier today.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 387, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to some of the items that have been brought up in debate. Let me start out by saying I support the motion to instruct, and my Republican colleagues know full well that after their tax bill is vetoed, we are going to be back to precisely what we are talking about today, a tax cut which would give back about 25 percent of the projected, projected surplus. My good friend from Florida talks about funny money. The thing that is funny about the money is it is not here yet. I have heard this afternoon Members come up and say, give it back, it is not easy to balance the budget, but we did it. My friends and colleagues, as we close out this fiscal year, the budget is not in surplus, but in a $5 billion deficit, and for those who say, give it back, we do not have it. It is a projection over the next 10 years based on some very rosy assumptions, very low inflation. One economic downturn, Mr. Speaker, and those dollars will not be here. In fact, I said it before, and I will say it again. I have a better chance at winning the lottery than this government having a trillion dollars surplus over the next 10 years. We have had unheralded economic success over the last 4 years. To think it is going to continue for 14 and then for another 10 to make it 24 is totally absurd. The motion before us says, let us pay down the debt. The gentleman says already we are paying down the debt. If the Congress will go home for 2 years, that debt would be paid down because it is a double counting of the Social Security surplus. Do not kid a kidder. That is going to happen with or without the Congress doing anything. But what we are saying in our motion is let us take it down even further. It is in excess of $5 trillion. The Republican tax bill expands all the money and leaves no room for modernizing Medicare. What happens to the extra dollars that are there? We spend it on increase on the national debt. So to say that we are doing Social Security and Medicare is totally false. The bill will be vetoed. I ask my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit, vote for the motion to instruct because in October that is exactly what we are going to do any way.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 57, a motion disapproving of normal trade relations (NTR) with China. I support the continuation of normal trade relations with China because it is in the best interests of both the United States and China. We must realize that normal trade relations does not confer any special benefits upon the Chinese government. NTR status simply means that the United States will not impose prohibitive tariffs on Chinese products. In return, China must agree to extend NTR treatment to the United States. NTR is a well-established principal under international trade laws and the guidelines of the World Trade Organization. Nearly every American agrees that China has a long way to go in providing its people with greater political, social, and economic freedoms. Furthermore, concerns about China's development of weapons of mass destruction and espionage activities are troubling. If I believed revoking China's NTR status would address these concerns, I would oppose this extension. Instead of turning our back on China, a policy of continued engagement will allow the United States to continue to press the Chinese government to give its people greater freedoms and a better standard of living. Since the establishment of normal trade relations with China 20 years ago, living standards for average Chinese citizens has increased dramatically. The continued American presence in China has provided the people with access to more outside information and ideas than ever before. Finally, increased American trade and investment in China has provided a foundation for bilateral cooperation that has led to a more open forum to discuss sensitive topics such as foreign policy and international security matters. Trade with China is extremely important to the American economy. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, American businesses exported $14 billion of goods to China in the past year. These sales support roughly 400,000 high-skill and high-paying jobs in the United States. There is also the vast potential for further sales of American products to China. China has 1.2 billion people--one-fifth of the world's population. Its economy will only continue to expand as China spends more than $700 billion on infrastructure projects. To close the Chinese market to American businesses would have a devastating impact on our economy. Mr. Speaker, as I said, I support a continuation of normal trade relations with China because it is in the best interest of both nations. American trade and investment in China will afford the Chinese people with greater freedom and a better life. It will also preserve hundreds of thousands of high-skill, high-wage jobs for future generations of American workers.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to Brigadier General Paul R. Cooper, the commander of the Air Force Reserve Command's 440th Airlift Wing, since August 1995. General Cooper is leaving this post and on August 1 will assume his new duties as the Commander of the 445 Airlift Wing, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Milwaukee's loss is surely Ohio's gain. A native of Seattle, Washington, General Cooper graduated in 1967 from the University of Washington with a degree in chemistry and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Reserve Officer Training Corps. He has been a wing commander, group commander and installation commander at two Air Force Reserve bases. General Cooper was recalled to active duty during Operation Desert Storm, where he served as commander of a composite C-130 unit deployed to the Middle East for six months. He was selected to return to extended active duty from June to October 1996 to command the 4100th Group and serve as the installation commander of the NATO Air Base, Boznia-Herzegovina, as part of the implementation force under Operation Joint Endeavor. General Cooper is a command pilot with over 11,500 flight hours. General Cooper and his wife Kathy will be honored at a farewell dinner and reception July 30 in Milwaukee at which time the Coopers' many friends and colleagues will have an opportunity to show their appreciation for a job well done at the 440th. I'd like to take this opportunity to publicly thank General Cooper for all his assistance over the last four years when I have called on him to aide the members of the unit as well as the Milwaukee community. In fact, just last month General Cooper showed his commitment to our community by presiding over a military medals presentation in which I was proud to distribute well-deserved metals to World War II soldiers and their families. Again, on behalf of the men and women of the 440th and the entire southeastern Wisconsin community, thank you General Cooper for a job well done. God bless you and best wishes at your new post.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I think the debate tonight is a little more important than cartoons and bogey figures. We are going to hear time after time the per capita tax savings in the States. That is per capita. That is not per individual. So in Wisconsin, it might come out to $3,000 but the working person in my district will get on average, according to Joint Committee on Taxation, about $400, and the most wealthy individuals from Wisconsin, in Menomonee Falls, will get the balance. Do not give me this $3,000 per capita because that is not by individual. Let me respond for a moment to a couple of points that were made, one by my good friend, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer). He indicates that the Treasury is bursting with piles and piles of money. He knows and I know and we all know that is totally false. As we close out this fiscal year, the nonSocial Security surplus is actually a $5 billion deficit. There is no bursting of money here. What we are looking at is a possibility, a hope and a prayer that over the next 10 years we are going to have a trillion dollars available to provide for tax cuts. What does that assume? Fourteen years of unprecedented economic growth. I would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), I hope and pray that will occur, but chances are it will not. I have a better chance to win the lottery than that happening, but what they are proposing to do is give that away today. We did that once and it did not work. In 1981, we did the same thing. We bet it would come and we bet wrong. There is no way that we are going to have a trillion dollars over the next 10 years available. Clearly, it is not here today. So what are we doing? Oh, there has been a lot of criticism on rewarding the rich. Two years ago, we provided capital gains tax relief, an 8 percent cut to those who make money buying and selling stocks, a noble, nonsweating profession. I respect them, and those who make their earnings and millions in capital gains should pay at least as much as the worker in my district working 40 hours a week at Alan Bradley, but that is gone. That was 2 years ago. What are we doing today? We are knocking off another 5 percent, because it is unearned income and not earned income. That is not fair. That one tax policy change will cost the Treasury over the next 10 years $52 billion that we do not have tonight. Where do those dollars go? Eighty-eight percent of those $52 billion go to the wealthiest eighth percent of our population. I do not represent a wealthy district, and the chairman in all sincerity says let us return it to those who sent it here, but one half of this tax bill goes to everyone else: Oil and gas leases, forestry, ATM for corporations, a reduction of 10 percent in the capital gains for corporations. Wait a minute. I thought we were going to give it to the people who sent it here, the hard workers, the middle income families, the ones we wanted to have an extra buck to go buy a gallon of milk. This bill is so slanted, unfairly. Mr. Speaker, the only way I can term this is Christmas in July. We know the bill is going to be vetoed this fall. Let us do a more credible project, a more credible tax bill.