Jerry Kleczka

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 975, legislation to limit and monitor foreign steel imports. H.R. 975 would impose quotas on foreign steel imports equal to their July 1997 import levels. Imposing quotas is a dramatic step. However, it is a step that must be taken. Over the past 2 years, our Nation's steel industry has been decimated by the flood of cheap foreign imports. Between 1996 and 1998, steel imports increased from 26.4 million tons to more than 37 million tons-- an increase of 42 percent. As a result of the surge, steel prices plummeted from $512 per ton to $40 per ton. As a result of the price drop the domestic steel industry has been put into a state of crisis. Since the surge of foreign steel imports began 2 years ago, more than 10,000 steelworkers have been laid off from their jobs and more than 20,000 steelworkers have worked shorter hours. Even more disturbing, three steel mills have been forced into bankruptcy. Even if steel prices return to their previous levels, those mills may never open again. The jobs in the steel industry are high- skill, high-paying jobs. When a steel plant closes down, a community struggles for years, even decades. Congress cannot idly stand by and watch thousand of quality jobs and our nation's communities vanish. The crisis in the steel industry was caused by the global economic slowdown. In an effort to prop up their flagging economies, steel- producing nations such as Japan, Korea, and Russia exported an unprecedented amount of steel to the United States. Unfortunately, our Nation's trade laws did nothing to stem the tide of steel imports until it was too late. Mr. speaker, I have opposed many of our nation's recent trade agreements because of the potential for problems just like the one we now have in the steel industry. Congress cannot stand by and watch foreign nations take advantage of our weak and often ineffective trade laws. Despite the pleas for action by the steel industry, its workers, and many in Congress since the summer of 1998, it was not until February 1999 that the administration announced it would begin imposing duties on steel imports in order to address the matter. Those months of delay and inaction cost thousands of steelworkers their jobs. This bill takes the decisive steps to save our domestic steel industry from extinction. However, one point needs to be made clear. H.R. 975 is not designed to protect an outdated and inefficient industry. Over the past twenty years, the domestic steel industry has invested over $50 billion in modern plants and equipment. The American steel industry and its workers have produced the highest quality, lowest cost per ton steel in the world. H.R. 975 simply levels the playing field. It does not ban all steel imports into the United States. Quite the contrary. H.R. 975 simply limits foreign steel imports to their July 1997 levels. In the years leading up to the crisis, the volume of steel imported into the U.S. averaged slightly more than 25 million tons per year. However, in 1998 more than 37 million tons of foreign steel entered the United States. It is clear that the surge in imports had a dramatic effect on the production of the American steel industry. For example, the production capacity of the American mills was 90 percent--nearly full capacity-- before the surge of imports. By November 1998, the production capacity of the mills had dropped to 74 percent. No wonder that three mills filed for bankruptcy, 10,000 workers were laid off, and thousands more were idled or had to take a pay cut. H.R. 975 realizes that imported steel is good for the American economy. Many American businesses import steel products because similar products are not made domestically. Furthermore, the competition makes the American industry more productive and efficient. However, a flood of imports at prices below which the market demands is not healthy for anyone, and it must be stopped. H.R. 975 also establishes an import monitoring program to ensure the government and the domestic steel industry are better able to track the volume and price of steel imports. Furthermore, the information gained through this program will be made available in a timely manner so all parties will be better able to respond to future problems in the steel industry. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 975 and call upon the Senate to pass companion legislation so all steel products will be given fair treatment.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, Today I rise to pay tribute to Hernando Pinzon, of Milwaukee, who will retire March 31, 1999, after 15 years of dedicated service on my District Office Staff. Hernando was one of my very first hires when I was elected to Congress in a special election in the spring 1984. He has tirelessly served the residents of Wisconsin's 4th Congressional District ever since. Hernando has a sign on his Milwaukee office door which reads ``I put veterans first. May I help you?'' That statement sums up Hernando's dedication to the men and women who have served, or who are currently serving, in our nation's armed forces. As my constituent liaison for veterans and military issues, Hernando works daily to ensure that these individuals receive the benefits and honors they deserve. From handling insurance and retirement matters for military families, to obtaining well-deserved military medals for service men and women that were overdue many years ago, Hernando certainly puts veterans first. As my District Office liaison for Hispanic issues, Hernando has attended countless Hispanic Chamber of Commerce meetings and events on Milwaukee's south side. He has truly been my ``eyes and ears'' at Hispanic events, bringing numerous issues to my attention and making it known to the community that I am ready and willing to help. But Hernando's first priority is of course his family. His wife Maria and his two children Carla and Hernando are the real joys of his life. I know that he is looking forward to spending more time at home. In fact I understand that Maria has enough remodeling projects lined up to keep him busy around the house for quite some time! Best wishes, Hernando, on your well-deserved retirement. We will miss your dedication, your patience, and your quiet humor. May you and your children enjoy the years to come by bicycling, hiking and fishing as you have enjoyed many Milwaukee summertimes in the past. God Bless.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to honor the men and women of St. Joseph's Parish, West Allis, Wisconsin, as they celebrate the church's proud heritage and its 90th anniversary with a special Mass and dinner on March 21st. Shortly after the turn of the century, the steady expansion of farm and industrial machinery firms led many immigrants to the rolling fields and wide-open spaces of the city of West Allis. Satisfied with a sense of security and prosperity offered by West Allis, many Polish immigrants settled in the city. These men and women soon approached the Milwaukee Archdiocese for permission to erect a church and school in their own new neighborhood, one which would praise God in their native tongue and further teach and strengthen them and their growing families. In 1906, the Archbishop agreed to send the new parish a Polish speaking priest for their church and Polish speaking nuns for their school. At a November meeting the name Saint Joseph was chosen as Patron of this new church. A temporary pastor was appointed and the beginnings of St. Joseph's parish were slow. However, once a definite site for the parish church and school were agreed upon, things moved quickly. Twenty lots on Mitchell Street, between 64th and 65th Street, the present site of St. Joseph's, were purchased at a cost of $2,200. The first resident pastor, Father Anton Kierzek, was appointed in the fall of 1908. The building's cornerstone was laid in March of 1909 and the wooden two- story structure, built for $7,500, was dedicated in May. Thus, the works and deeds of a small group of Polish immigrants were successful in erecting a temple for worship and a school to train and rear their offspring. The city of West Allis grew rapidly; local industries flourished. More Polish families built homes near the parish. In 1924, plans for a new parish building, both chapel and school, were completed. This structure, built of block and brick, has become a familiar landmark in the city to the present. A roll call of the parish leaders over the years reveals traditional Polish names: Szukalski, Lipinski, Iglinski, Barczak, Makowski, Bieniewski, and Barszczewski. The names of the parish priests since the early 1960s continues that Polish tradition: Fathers Peksa, Piechowski and the current priest, Father James Posanski. Congratulations to the men, women and families of St. Joseph's Parish on your proud heritage and 90 years of service and worship. May God continue to bless each and every one of the parish members as they face new challenges.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing the Medicare Preservation and Restoration Act, which will repeal the Medicare private contracting provision of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and clarify that private contracts are prohibited under Medicare for Medicare-covered services. The legislation is simple. First, it requires that providers submit a Medicare claim whenever Medicare-covered services are provided to a beneficiary. Second, it requires that a provider, when treating a Medicare beneficiary, charge no more than Medicare's balance billing limits allow. My legislation will settle the issue of private contracting once and for all. It will explicitly prohibit providers from circumventing the Medicare system, preserve beneficiary billing protections, and restore the promise of quality and affordable health care for every American senior citizen. My legislation has been endorsed by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and the National Council of Senior Citizens. The Medicare Rights Center also has spoken out in opposition to Medicare private contracts. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is the only way we can continue to guarantee every senior citizen in America the right to affordable health care under Medicare. The private contracts allowed under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 represent a dangerous first-step towards dismantling the Medicare program as a whole. They are ill-conceived and unnecessary. These contracts will allow doctors to disregard Medicare's most important protection--balanced billing limits. These limits guarantee that all seniors regardless of their income or their health status will have access to affordable health care. Private contracts destroy these protections and allow doctors the ability to decide patient-by-patient which senior will be forced to pay more than Medicare's set rates for needed medical care. During debate on the budget bill in 1997, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona included this private contracting provision to allow any doctor to treat Medicare patients outside of the program and bill the patient privately at any rate the doctor sets. During negotiations on the final package, the provision was altered to protect beneficiaries and to prevent physicians from moving back and forth between billing some patients privately and others through the Medicare program. The final bill stated that if the doctor wanted to treat seniors under private contract, then the doctor had to forgo Medicare participation entirely for two years. This two-year restriction was designed to protect the program against fraud, guard against a massive exit of physicians from the Medicare program, and ensure that doctors would not create a two-tiered Medicare system--one waiting room for private pay patients who are served first, and one for non-private Medicare beneficiaries who are served last. In the 105th Congress, attempts were made to remove this two-year limitation and give doctors the right to decide not only patient-by- patient, but procedure-by-procedure, which services will be billed through Medicare and which will be billed privately. Fortunately, we have been successful so far in thwarting these efforts, but the campaign of misinformation continues. Many of you have probably seen the mailings certain interest groups have been sending to our senior constituents in an attempt to distort the facts about private contracts. These mailings are falsely scaring seniors and attempting to trick them into giving up Medicare's balanced billing protections. Let's retain Medicare's balanced billing limits for all Medicare beneficiaries by eliminating these dangerous private contracts. These billing limits are the only way we can guarantee that all seniors receive the health care they need at reasonable and fair prices. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Medicare Preservation and Restoration Act--a sensible and responsible proposal which will guarantee Medicare for all elderly Americans.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, let me reclaim my time and ask the gentleman, are all those filings the initial filing upon hiring the employee, or is that the filings an employer would go through after an employee has been with him or her for a period of years?

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think the intended purpose of the legislation before us is quite laudable. Although I have yet to hear any real cogent arguments against the amendment pending before the House, we are told by the author of the bill that it is going to gut the bill. I do not think that is sufficient enough for any of us in this Chamber to not support the amendment before us, which I think is a reasonable correction to the bill, because in its current form I do not think the bill is passable. One can only look to last session, where early on in the session the House passed the legislation, it went over to the Senate, and they did not even take the time to take it up and debate it, even though there was a Senate counterpart also introduced in the Senate. If in fact the authors of the legislation are serious about getting this bill signed into law, I think it is imperative that they work with not only this side of the aisle but the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) to see if there is some kind of accommodation that can be had to address some serious flaws in the legislation. We have heard from the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) about a problem that is contained, should this bill become law. We have heard from the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) about nursing home regulations. We have heard about various other problems that could arise, and know full well that there is a reason this government asks business people, large and small, to submit the various filings. Let me point out that years back I was a small business person, also. We had between eight and 12 employees in the business. As I look at that stack of paper that is bounced around all the time, I cannot for the life of me figure out what filings the gentleman from Indiana is talking about, because we covered our employees with workmans comp, unemployment comp, we filed the FICA tax, we filed the quarterly Federal income tax, the State, and never did I see all those forms. So unless in the past few years those forms have multiplied like rabbits, I think that stack of paper, at least with this Member, is to be questioned. Nevertheless, if the gentleman is serious about passing this legislation, let us look seriously at the Kucinich amendment. The Labor Department requires every employer once a year to file a form 5500. The form itself indicates what the health of the pension plan for the employer is, whether or not there may be actual contributions on behalf of the employee. Under this legislation, an employer would not have to file that, regardless that it is important, in a timely manner. Nevertheless, the reason for having that filed once a year is to let all the employees know whether or not that employer has submitted those funds into the various pension plans, be they 401(k) or whatever they might be. We had a situation recently in my district where a company by the name of Louis Allis that subsequently went bankrupt, but prior to that withheld the contributions for the employees for their 401(k) plan, but never submitted them on to the plan managers. The effect of that was that the employees of that particular company have lost out on about $200,000 of contributions the employer should have made. Again, the reason for the law and for the form to be filed is to let the employees know that those dollars have been deposited in their name in their accounts. So I think all of us have a particular problem that can be cited with the bill as originally introduced. I think the Kucinich amendment would provide some reasonable relief from those problems ever occurring, yet give the small business people in the country some relief from the paperwork and from forfeitures where basically the error on the employer's part was just an oversight. Again, I have a story on that side of the equation also, wherein a hotel owner in my district was fined by OSHA because on the closet door he did not post the chemicals that were contained inside, even though the chemicals were basically household chemicals. Under the bill and under the Kucinich amendment, that particular employer, that business owner, would get relief. So what the bill tries to do in one fell swoop, in one-size-fits-all, which that side always accuses Democrats of attempting to do, but under their one-size-fits-all plan, I think they have some very unintended purposes. Again, if the authors of the legislation really want to see this bill become law, I think we should look at the Kucinich amendment. I ask the Members on both sides of the aisle to give the amendment support when it comes to a vote.

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

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

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Charitable Integrity Restoration Act. This legislation addresses most of the sophisticated and shameful tax schemes that I have seen. Recently, The Wall Street Journal has run a series of articles on the so-called charitable split-dollar insurance plans where wealthy individuals are taking improper tax deductions in an effort to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. The legislation would prohibit the use of charitable split-dollar insurance plans where wealthy individuals give a substantial ``gift'' to the charity and subsequently take a tax deduction for that contribution. The charity, in turn, invests a portion of that money in a life insurance policy for the heirs of the donor or in an annuity contract in the name of the donor. The charity retains the right to a small portion of the policy's proceeds. In other words, the donors get the benefit of purchasing a life insurance or annuity policy using the charitable contribution deduction--something all other taxpayers would pay for directly out of their own pocket. I would like to point out there is no provision in the Tax Code that gives investors even the remote impression that charitable split-dollar investment policies are legal. Instead, this is a mythical creation of those who are trying to find ways for their clients to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. This scheme also violates the principle of charitable giving. Charitable contributions are tax deductible because they are supposed to benefit an organization dedicated to a worthy cause. Under this abuse, the charities simply become a conduit for a tax avoidance scheme. The Charitable Integrity Restoration Act would end the abuse of charitable split-dollar investment policies. The donors face the prospect of having their investment returned to them and losing their tax deduction for the so-called charitable contribution. Furthermore, any charitable organization engaging in split-dollar insurance plans would lose their tax-exempt status. Anticipating such action, the National Committee on Planned Giving, a professional association based in Indianapolis, has called the scheme ``a high-risk venture'' exposing participating charities to considerable financial risk, which ``may endanger the tax-exempt status of charities that participate.'' Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the House will pass the Charitable Integrity Restoration Act and put an end to this abusive tax practice and restore charitable contributions to their original intent--helping people in need

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce legislation to require seat belts on school buses. My bill would prohibit the manufacture, sale, delivery, or importation of school buses that do not have seat belts, and impose civil penalties for those that do not comply. The children of this country deserve safe transportation to and from school, and their parents deserve peace of mind. My fellow colleagues, we have the responsibility to do all we can to give it to them. Since 1985, nearly 1,500 people have died in school bus-related crashes. School bus occupants accounted for 11 percent of these deaths. Every year, approximately 394,000 public school buses travel about 4.3 billion miles to transport 23.5 million children to and from school-related activities. These numbers argue for the highest level of safety we can provide. I believe my bill is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to also support this important legislation, which has been endorsed by the American Medical Association and the American College of Emergency Physicians. New Jersey and New York are the only two states that have school bus seat belt laws, but only New Jersey makes their use mandatory and enforces the law statewide. A New Jersey study concluded that despite the relative safety of school buses, they could be made safer. I agree, and so did the AMA when it wrote me, ``We believe that, if enacted, your bill would provide millions of American school children with the same basic safeguard which has long been mandatory in all automobiles.'' We must work together, at the local, State, and Federal level to prevent school bus injuries.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, like all my colleagues I spent a great deal of time carefully reviewing the Judiciary Committee testimony and evidence. Let me make it absolutely clear I do not in any way condone the President's behavior. But the framers made clear that the constitutional act of impeachment is not meant to punish a President for deplorable behavior, but to protect our Nation from acts which jeopardize our democratic system. What the President did was wrong, both personally and morally. But his acts did not threaten our democracy and thus do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses as defined by our Founding Fathers in our Constitution. I do believe that the President should be held accountable for his actions, and support an alternative to impeachment that will both condemn his actions and fine him. The Committee on the Judiciary considered a censure resolution which we in the full House are being denied the opportunity to debate and vote on today. Our Founding Fathers designed impeachment specifically to protect the Nation from grave harm from a Chief Executive who clearly endangers our constitutional democracy. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the President's actions meet this test. The penalty for his misconduct should not be exacted through impeachment, but through indictment in our criminal court system and a stern censure by this Congress. Mr. Speaker, like all my colleagues, I have spent a great deal of time carefully reviewing the Judiciary Committee testimony and evidence. Let me make absolutely clear that I do not in any way condone the President's behavior. But the Framers made clear that the constitutional act of impeachment is not meant to punish a president for deplorable behavior but to protect our nation from acts which jeopardize our decmoratic system. What the President did was wrong, both personally and morally, but his acts did not threaten our democracy and thus do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses as defined by our founding fathers in the Constitution. As Mr. Burce Ackerman, a constitutional law and impeachment expert at Yale University, testified before the Judiciary Committee, ``Once we lower the impeachment standard to include conduct that does not amount to a clear and present danger to our constitutional order, we will do grevious damage to the independence of the Presidency. [T]here can be little doubt that the present case falls short of the standard set by the Framers when they insisted on `high crimes and misdemeanors against the state.' '' I do believe that the President should be held accountable for his actions, and support an alternative to impeachment that would both condemn his actions and fine him. The Judiciary Committee considered a censure resolution which we in the full House are being denied the opportunity to debate and vote on today. Many of my constituents have called and been resolute in their belief that the President should be held accountable for his actions, and I could not agree more. President Clinton is not above the law and is still subject to indictment, trial, and sentencing in the same manner as all other citizens who do wrong. He will be fully subject to criminal prosecution for his wrongful acts when he leaves office. Our founding fathers designed impeachment specifically to protect the nation from grave harm from a Chief Executive who clearly endangers our constitutional democracy. I do not believe the President's actions meet this test. The penalty for his misconduct should not be exacted through impeachment, but through indictment in our criminal court system and a stern censure by the Congress.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the articles of impeachment. Mr. Speaker, like all my colleagues, I have spent a great deal of time carefully reviewing the Judiciary Committee testimony and evidence. Let me make absolutely clear that I do not in any way condone the President's behavior. He lied to his family, his Cabinet, and the American people. But the Framers made clear that the constitutional act of impeachment is not meant to punish a president for deplorable behavior but to protect our Nation from acts which jeopardize our democratic system. What the President did was wrong, both personally and morally, but his acts did not threaten our democracy and thus do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses as defined by our founding fathers in the Constitution. As Mr. Bruce Ackerman, a constitutional law and impeachment expert at Yale University, testified before the Judiciary Committee, ``Once we lower the impeachment standard to include conduct that does not amount to a clear and present danger to our constitutional order, we will do grievous damage to the independence of the Presidency. [T]here can be little doubt that the present case falls short of the standard set by the Framers when they insisted on `high crimes and misdemeanors against the state.' '' I do believe that the President should be held accountable for his actions, and support an alternative to impeachment that would both condemn his actions and fine him. The Judiciary Committee considered a censure resolution which we in the full House are being denied the opportunity to debate and vote on. Many of my constituents have called and been resolute in their belief that the President should be held accountable for his actions, and I could not agree more. President Clinton is not above the law and is still subject to indictment, trial, and sentencing in the same manner as all other citizens who do wrong. He will be fully subject to criminal prosecution for his wrongful acts when he leaves office. Our founding fathers designed impeachment specifically to protect the nation from grave harm from a Chief Executive who clearly endangers our constitutional democracy. I do not believe the President's actions meet this test. The penalty for his misconduct should be exacted not through impeachment, but through indictment in our criminal court system and a stern censure by the Congress.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the men and women of our military participating in Operation Desert Fox. Their willingness to risk their lives defending our Constitution and freedom is the highest form of patriotism. Saddam Hussein has stood in the way of allowing the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to conduct their inspections that were mandated in the 1991 cease-fire one-too-many times. He has continued to break promises and put the people of Iraq in harm's way. On November 14, Saddam was given his last chance to resume full cooperation as a condition of the 1991 cease-fire. Nonetheless, Iraq has blocked the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) from inspecting suspect sites and restricted its ability to obtain necessary evidence. Iraq has failed to cooperate. His actions have jeopardized the security and stability of the Persian Gulf that our troops fought so hard for in 1991. This is simply unacceptable. Saddam has now run out of chances. The President is completely justified in his use of force. The leaders he depends on to advise him on national security matters, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of State, and the National Security Advisor, have unanimously endorsed not only the use of force, but the timing of the attack as well. Furthermore, this attack was in coordination with the British military. The credibility of the United Nations as a peace-keeping organization is predicated on the ability of its members to enforce its mandates. But let's not lose sight of the most important reason we are on the floor today: to recognize the bravery of our soldiers. What our troops are doing is very dangerous and extremely important. It is not us who honor them with this resolution, it is they who honor us with their service. Their readiness, skill, and courage that they have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate are a credit to the great military tradition of this nation. It is that tradition that we are supporting. I want to express my most heartfelt appreciation to the troops and their families for their tremendous sacrifice and my most sincere hope that this conflict will be over soon so our men and women serving in the Persian Gulf will celebrate safe and blessed holidays at home.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to my Administrative Assistant, Janet Brown. In a few short weeks Janet will be leaving my office for the greener, or perhaps whiter, pastures of Minnesota. Janet and her fiance, Don Kitson, are planning a wedding next year and will soon start the construction of their own airplane. I am certain that Don and Janet have a wonderful future ahead of them--if she can survive five years of working for me, she can survive at least fifty-five years of marriage with Don. We all recognize the importance of congressional staff. Unfortunately, far too many of them come and go on short notice. Fortunately for my office and the constituents of the Fourth Congressional District of Wisconsin, Janet has not simply come and gone. Instead, she has sacrificed herself for all of us, be it through long hours at the office, helpful advice to a colleague, or timely service for a constituent. Janet has been a model of perseverance and dedication. In 1993, Janet came to work for me as a Staff Assistant and she leaves as my Administrative Assistant. In those five years, Janet has held nearly every position in my office. I am sure there were many times Janet went home, frustrated after a long day at the office, determined to move on to another job. To her credit, Janet always returned the next day with a smile on her face, eager to work. Janet is also a breast cancer survivor. Instead of succumbing to this awful disease, Janet conquered it. She never doubted her ability to persevere, and she is stronger person for it. More important, Janet now lends her time to help other women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. Because so many of our staff come and go, we get into a habit of thinking that staff are interchangeable parts--if someone leaves, another will step in and take their place. Some staffers do not stay in one place long enough to make an impression, others are harder to replace because of their special qualities. And there are a select few like Janet Brown who are never truly replaced. Because Janet has held nearly every position in my office and has faced such difficult challenges, the other members of my staff constantly turn to her in times of need. Persons new to the office look to her for advice, and veterans appreciate her unique ability to be both a colleague and friend. When Janet departs my staff in a few weeks, she will be leaving behind an office that is stronger because of her years of service. Janet has also become a close friend of my family. Just as the other staff members rely on her for help, so do we. Our dog and office mascot Colby will miss the hours of undivided attention he received from Janet. My wife and I truly appreciate all the times Janet has helped us through the last-minute emergencies and scheduling changes that are inherent to a career in Congress. Because of those times Janet will always have a special place in my heart and on my auto insurance record. Mr. Speaker, I and the entire staff are saying goodbye not only to a truly great professional, but a truly great friend as well. Janet, we wish you the best of luck and our deepest and most heartfelt thanks.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Thomas E. Sharrard, this year's recipient of the American Jewish Committee's Institute for Human Relations Award. The American Jewish Committee, which was formed in 1906, promotes research and programs which combat all forms of bigotry and discrimination. The group also works to promote human rights and advocates public policy positions rooted in American democratic values. The Institute for Human Relations Award is being given to Tom Sharrard in recognition of his outstanding contributions to our community. Tom is probably best known as the hard working and innovative president of Time Warner Cable's Milwaukee Division. But equally impressive are his civic and philanthropic accomplishments and activities. Despite his busy schedule, Tom finds time to be involved with a number of community organizations, such as the Greater Milwaukee Committee, the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee, the Milwaukee Public Library Foundation, and the Betty Brinn Childrens Museum. He also serves on the advisory committee for the Artist Series at the Pabst and the Alliance for Future Transit, and is a member of both the Wisconsin Cable Association and the National Cable Television Association. In the true spirit of the Institute for Human Relations Award, Tom Sharrard has regularly crusaded for opportunities for women and other under-represented groups in the cable television industry. In fact, Tom was recently awarded the Wisconsin Governor's Glass Ceiling Award, which recognizes efforts to achieve equity and fairness in the workplace. And so it is with great pleasure that I join with Tom Sharrard's many business associates, family and friends in congratulating him on receiving the 1998 Institute for Human Relations Award, deserved honor. May our community continue to reap the benefits of Tom's compassion and commitment for many years to come.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Vernon Reformed Presbyterian Church, a Waukesha County landmark and symbol of religious freedom and Wisconsin's pioneering spirit. On October 18, the church will celebrate its founding 150 years ago in 1848, the same year Wisconsin achieved statehood. Formed in a rural farmhouse on October 18, 1848, members of the church attended to their spiritual needs while the church structure was built. The result was a church society that was to construct the holy Covenanter church ever to exist in Wisconsin. The Covenanters were part of a movement in Scotland during the late 16th Century that strove to defend the Presbyterian Church, a stance that brought them persecution by the Church of England and the British Crown. Many left Scotland and during the ensuing centuries carried their faith to new countries. Founders of the church in the Town of Vernon were of Scottish and Irish descent. An active local congregation supported the church for more than 65 years, but the members could not sustain its regular operations. In recent decades, an annual service has been held at the church each fall conducted by a visiting Presbyterian minister. The church building, completed in 1854, and an adjacent buggy shed and its grounds have been maintained by the church's cemetery association to preserve their appearance. Directors of the association are exploring the possibility of placing the church on the National Register of Historic Places. This Sunday, October 18th, the church will celebrate its sesquicentennial with a special service. Descendants of church pioneers now live as far away as New England, Florida, Hawaii and Canada. Mr. Speaker it is my privilege to recognize and commend the Vernon Reformed Presbyterian Church, a house of worship carved from the wilderness 150 years ago, through the courage and dedication of our Wisconsin pioneers.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker. It's been called the crime that isn't a crime. How can that be? Ask Jessica Grant, a Wisconsin woman whose identity was stolen through use of her Social Security number. Her name was used by a thief to buy two cars and a mobile home. Under her name, the thief racked up $60,000 in fraudulent charges. Yet, there was no federal law to protect her. Or, ask the thousands of consumers across the country whose names, Social Security numbers, and personal credit information are pilfered every day. This ``crime that isn't a crime'' cost consumers $745 million in 1997, according to a recent GAO report I requested. While Jessica Grant and thousands of individuals have indeed been violated, current federal law provides protections only for lenders and credit card companies. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this legislation. Today, there is no standard definition of identity theft. There are no fines. No prison penalties. No protections for people like Jessica Grant. In short, ID theft is not a crime. Passage of this legislation addresses two critical aspects of identity theft. First the bill would authorize the FTC to acknowledge and log reports of this new--and rapidly expanding--category of crime. At last, we will learn about the real impact identity theft. Second, the bill clearly defines ID theft. People like Jessica Grant and prosecutors across the country can pursue these thieves and lock `em up. While HR 4151 is a positive step there is much more work to be done to thwart this growth industry in crime. Under my bill, HR 1813, the Personal Information Privacy Act, the sale or purchase of a person's personal credit information without the express written consent of the owner would be explicitly prohibited. My bill, which I will re-introduce in the 106th Congress, also prohibits the use of Social Security numbers as a condition of doing business. Mr. Speaker, with these two bills we at long last will have the one- two punch needed to strike back at identity thieves.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in honor of the Woodrow Wilson Post No. 11, Polish Legion of American Veterans, USA, which this year is celebrating its 75th anniversary. At the conclusion of World War I, various groups of American veterans of Polish descent formed organizations for the purpose of preserving the spirit of patriotism and American ideals, which arose from their service in the United States Armed Forces. Woodrow Wilson Post No. 11 carries the distinction of being the first such organization in the State of Wisconsin. Formed on September 28, 1923, Woodrow Wilson Post No. 11 was founded by Walter Lewandowski, who moved from Chicago and patterned the Wisconsin post after the Alliance of American Veterans of Polish Extract, later changed in 1932 to the Polish Legion of American Veterans. The first administration of the Woodrow Wilson Post No. 11 was Walter Lewandowski, Commander; Mathew Lewandowski, Vice Commander; Chester Zaremski, Adjutant; Stephen Czerniejewski, Treasurer; John Czulinski, John Ignacczak and Louis Bryl, Board of Directors. Three years after the Post was established, a Ladies Legion was formed, which changed its name to Auxiliary in 1947. The ladies enriched the organization by performing voluntary work for the organization which was dedicated to Americanism and American Veterans of Polish Descent. Members of the Woodrow Wilson Post were instrumental in organizing Posts Cudahy, Racine, Kenosha, and South Milwaukee. The Post has sponsored six national conventions of the Polish Legion of American Veterans and yearly sponsors activities to foster and promote Polish- American heritage in the greater Milwaukee area. Mr. Speaker, the Woodrow Wilson Post No. 11 represents the best of the best. The freedom and strength of America are in large part due to their actions both at home and abroad. I wish to commemorate and congratulate the past and present members of Woodrow Wilson Post No. 11 on their sacrifice and devotion to our country and community.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Milwaukee County's chief circuit judge Michael J. Skwierawski for his outstanding accomplishments, service to the community and his contributions to further the heritage of Polish-Americans. A native of West Allis, Judge Skwierawski graduated from Georgetown University Law School in 1967. After 11 years in private practice and in the district attorney's office, he was appointed a circuit judge in 1978 and elected in 1979 serving the court for two decades, earning a reputation as a keen legal mind and able administrator. Rated among the best by the Milwaukee Bar Association, Judge Skwierawski has served as presiding judge of civil court, presiding judge for court operations, and deputy chief judge among other leadership roles. In light of this record of accomplishment, the Wisconsin Supreme Court this year appointed Judge Skwierawski chief judge of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court. Judge Skwierawski's accomplishments don't stop at the courthouse doors. His influence and service are known throughout the community, most notably as one of the guiding influences behind Polish Fest. Starting as a volunteer at the fest's inception, Judge Skwierawski again demonstrated leadership as president of Polish Fest. In addition to numerous memberships in civic groups, Judge Skwierawski has coached basketball and baseball at St. Sebastian's School for girls and boys. He is married to Gloria Skwierawski and they are parents to four children. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize Judge Michael J. Skwierawski, a great citizen and friend to the Polish-American community, and recipient this year of the Polish-American Heritage's Appreciation Award for his many years of devoted voluntary service to the Polish National Alliance, Polish Fest and the local community.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Thomas More High School of Milwaukee, a 1997-98 recipient of the U.S. Department of Education's Blue Ribbon School award. This award honors some of the nation's most exemplary schools for their challenging curricular, excellent teachers, family and community partnerships, and high student performance. Thomas More has a long tradition of excellence in education. Beginning with the school's predecessors, Pio Nono High School, Don Bosco High, and the St. Francis Minor Seminary, Thomas More has consistently provided academic excellence grounded in a faith based education. As an alumnus of Don Bosco, I am proud of this very special recognition. Thomas More is the only high school in the State of Wisconsin to be selected as a 1997-98 winner and one of only nine high schools in Wisconsin to receive this prestigious award in this decade. The students, teachers, and staff at Thomas More are rightfully proud of this accomplishment. But this award is also for the parents, alumni and members of the community who have tirelessly given their time and support to help make Thomas More a very special place. To the students, faculty and friends of Thomas More, my sincere congratulations on being named a National Blue Ribbon School of Excellence. It is an honor that is well deserved.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this irresponsible election year tax bill. An $80 billion tax cut that is not paid for with spending reductions and coming just 40 days before the election is a very transparent election year gimmick. While I certainly do not object to prudent reductions in taxes, I am opposed to tax cuts that are paid for with the projected budget surplus. In 1991, Congress and the Administration came together in a bipartisan manner to enact a set of tough, but fair, rules in order to bring the government's finances in order. Simply put, these rules require that any reduction in taxes must be paid for by an equal reduction in spending or increase in taxes. In an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote in last year's balanced budget legislation, Congress re-affirmed those rules. I supported the rules then, and I support them now. The bill before us today completely ignores those rules. Instead of making the tough choices by cutting wasteful spending or closing inappropriate loopholes in the tax code to pay for the tax cut, the Republican leadership has brought before us a bill that would recklessly spend a portion of the projected budget surplus on tax cuts. But first let me remind my colleagues that the surplus does not yet exist. The surplus is simply a result of complex economic assumptions that could change without notice. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a recession similar to the one our nation endured in 1990 and 1991 would wipe out the projected surplus for years to come. A recession, combined with tax cuts that were not paid for, could very easily return our nation to a period of crippling deficits just when our government finances have been brought into order. Moreover, the projected budget surplus is almost completely a result of the surplus in Social Security. If the surplus in Social Security was excluded from the federal budget, our government would still have a deficit of $40 billion this year and would not have a period of prolonged surpluses until 2005. This fact was recently pointed out by the non-partisan budget watchdog group, the Concord Coalition, when they said, ``Without dipping into funds earmarked for Social Security, there is no budget surplus to spend.'' By spending 10 percent of the projected surplus on tax cuts, this legislation increases the amount of revenue we will need to ensure the solvency of Social Security. Before we rush to fritter away the projected surplus, it should be our top priority to ensure the long-term financial health of our nation's Social Security program. The alternative, which I support, would provide the very same tax cuts in the Republican bill. However, there is an important distinction in the alternative--the tax cuts would not go into effect until a long-term solution to Social Security is enacted. That is a reasonable solution. It is my hope that Congress and the Administration will act in a bipartisan manner early next year to ensure that Social Security is able to honor its obligations for future generations. If we can do that, Americans will have the best of both worlds--a secure financial future and tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, to enact a tax cut bill that is paid for with the projected surplus is a reckless and desperate election year gimmick by the Republican leadership. Our senior citizens know the value of Social Security--they have been through the Great Depression and they know the importance of saving for the future. The American public will see through this thinly-veiled election year sham. Let's save Social Security first!

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition to giving fast track trade negotiating authority to the president. Not only is this bill a bad deal for working men and women, but it prevents Congress from doing its job. Let me start out by saying that I am very concerned that we are even having this debate today. The Republican leadership has brought this bill to the floor with little interest in promoting a sensible trade policy for our nation. Instead, the bill before us today has the sole intent of embarrassing President Clinton and forcing Democrats to cast a tough political vote before an election. Last year, fast track was pulled from the House calendar because there were not enough votes for passage. Since that time, no effort has been made to address the concerns of those who opposed fast track. The Republican leadership tinkered around the edges to add a few more provisions to make the vote even more difficult for some members, but nothing of substance. No protections for our environment. No protections for workplace safety. No protections for hardworking Americans and their families. I must remind my colleagues that the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Since 1974, however, the House and Senate have abdicated this responsibility by giving the president trade negotiating authority that limits congressional input. This culminated in the failed North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The legacy of NAFTA is the growing number of American companies heading south of the border to take advantage of low wages and non- existent workplace safety and environmental standards. Two years ago, Johnson Controls, located in my congressional district, said they were closing a valve plant and taking 200 jobs with them to Mexico. Companies such as Fruit of the Loom and Sara Lee have joined Johnson Controls in abandoning thousands of their workers in search of lower costs in Mexico. Even worse, companies are using the threat of relocating in Mexico in order to force their loyal employees to accept cuts in pay and benefits. To top it off, many workers are being required to work longer hours in order to meet the production demands of corporate CEOs. A commission created under a side agreement of NAFTA conducted a study that showed these threats were carried out three times more often under NAFTA than in the past. This lack of bargaining power has prevented American workers from enjoying the benefits of the recent period of economic prosperity. Many say the recent economic expansion has been, in part, a result of the recent trade policies of our nation. While that may be true, it is a fact that American workers have not enjoyed the benefits that should come with economic prosperity. From 1993 to 1996, real median wages fell 4.1 percent. My state of Wisconsin has been hit particularly hard--recent Census data shows Wisconsin was only one of four states where household income did not grow over the past year. In fact, the median income in Wisconsin dropped almost $1,800--or 4.2 percent--last year. The reason: the quality of jobs, measured by wages, has deteriorated. America should also be concerned about what recent trade agreements have done to the environment. The proponents of fast track point out that we are in a global economy and need this authority to avoid being left out. But what they fail to realize that when we choose to ignore environmental standards in trade negotiations, we are putting our own health and safety at risk. Instead of debating this partisan sham of a trade bill, the House of Representatives should be doing its job. We must defeat this legislation and reassert our constitutional duty to debate, amend, and then approve trade proposals that are in the best interest of working families.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Milwaukee's Polka Queen, Barbara Lane, on her 35th anniversary as a polka artist, musician and band leader. Ms. Lane will be honored by her many fans and admirers from throughout the United States with a series of performances and other polka-related events Saturday October 10 and Sunday October 11 held at Milwaukee's south side unofficial polka headquarters, the Blue Canary. Barbara Lane was crowned Milwaukee's Polka Queen in 1972. She has kept that title every since. Barbara's greatest claim to fame has been her ability to break the gender barrier of the male-dominated polka fraternity. She became the first female polka band leader to perform to a nationwide audience. Her band, known as Barbara and the Karousels, regularly performs throughout the United States from Maryland to Arizona to Las Vegas and has also entertained fans in Europe. No other female-led polka band has performed to such a worldwide audience. Undoubtedly, a highlight of Barbara Lane's career was her 1997 performance at the Presidential Inaugural parade, Washington, D.C. Her band was the first ever polka band to participate in an inaugural. Over 33 million people watched the performance on worldwide television. While preparing for the Inaugural, Barbara wrote a tribute tune ``The White House Polka,'' which brought her additional nationwide recognition and accolades. Barbara's other accomplishments include induction into the Cleveland Hall of Fame in 1992 and the much sought-after European-American Heritage Music Award in 1993. She is currently a nominee for the Wisconsin Polka Hall of Fame Lifetime Achievement Award for 1998 and the 1998 Band of the Year Award. Best wishes, Barbara, as you are honored the weekend of October 10th. keep up the excellent work of entertaining the young and young at heart in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the nation and the world

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Honorable Francis T. Wasielewski, a circuit court judge, husband, father, and dedicated servant to the Polish community in the greater Milwaukee area. Mr. Wasielewski's roots in this community are deep. Judge Wasielewski's father, Thad, ably represented the 4th Congressional district, a district I am now honored to serve. Father and son served as past presidents of the Milwaukee Society, a fraternal Polish- American organization. Fran Wasielewski grew up in Milwaukee, attended Marquette High School and graduated from Marquette University with a degree in mathematics. After a year of piano study at Indiana University, he followed his father's path in law, enrolling at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. After graduating Fran practiced law with his father for several years before joining the staff of the Milwaukee City Attorney where he worked in ordinance prosecution, public works construction, eminent domain and general real estate. This experience afforded him the opportunity to appear several times before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In 1975, he returned to private practice until he was appointed in 1983 to the circuit court by Governor Anthony Earl. Fran Wasielewski has been active in a number of civic, arts, and professional organizations and is also active in his church, serving as a member of the Parish Council at St. John's Cathedral. He and his wife, Mary, have two adult children, Ann and Justin. Mr. Speaker, it is with pride and pleasure that I commend Mr. Fran Wasielewski, who will be honored October 10 as Polish American of the Year at the annual Pulaski Day Banquet, presented by the Milwaukee Society.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to St. Adalbert Church in South Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on the occasion of the congregation's 100th anniversary. I join with the Rev. Herbert B. Schubert and his parishioners in celebrating this very special event. The congregation was named in honor of St. Adalbert, a 10th Century patron saint of Bohemia and Poland. Its beginnings were rather humble, but with great determination and hard work, a small church was built in 1898, with a rectory built two years later. Rev. Ladislaus Mscisz was St. Adalbert's first pastor, and served until 1912. By 1905, Franciscan Sisters of St. Francis replaced lay teachers, and the church and school were enlarged. Rev. Bernard Burant succeeded Rev. Mscisz, but remained only nine months, after which Rev. Clement Zych was appointed as the congregation's third pastor. Rev. Zych faithfully served St. Adalbert's for 24 years, and during that time the congregation continued to grow. By 1927, a new church, school and convent was built. The years following the stock market crash of 1929 were difficult for St. Adalbert's, but the congregation was determined to survive. With the depression came some very trying times, with increasing debts. In 1937, Rev. Zych was transferred to St. Adalbert's in Milwaukee, and Rev. Ladislaus Bednarski became pastor. Druing Rev. Bednarski's tenure as pastor, the debt was refinanced, but problems remained. Rev. Theodore Lepak became pastor in 1950 after Rev. Bednarski was transferred to Blessed Sacrament in Milwaukee, but he became ill shortly thereafter and passed away in 1951. Rev. Michael Staczak was appointed pastor in 1951, and served until his retirement in 1975. During that time, due to the generosity of the congregation, the mounting parish debt was retired, and a new addition was added to the school. Unfortunately, shortly after completion, a gas explosion destroyed most of the new building. In 1968, the building was rebuilt and dedicated. In July of 1975, the present pastor, Rev. Herbert Schubert, was appointed by Archbishop William Cousins. Since then, St. Adalbert's has seen the addition of kindergarten and junior kindergarten classes, a new pipe organ, and a number of updates to the facilities. St. Adalbert Congregation has been truly blessed in 100 years of service to the Lord and to the community. Congratulations to St. Adalbert's and all its members on this very special anniversary. May the congregation continue to grow and prosper as it begins its second century of service.