Jerry Kleczka

Mr. KLECZKA

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

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I also come to the floor this morning to talk about a provision passed by this House which will have the effect of raiding workers' pensions to the tune of $40 billion. Mr. Speaker, this House passed legislation to do just that. When this item was before the committee, I introduced an amendment to strike it, knowing full well that workers' pensions are their retirement, not to be used by corporations for any purpose. That amendment failed on a party-line vote. Mr. Speaker, I then introduced an amendment to have corporations inform workers when they are going to reduce the pension plans. That failed on a party-line vote. We could not even inform the workers what the corporation is doing to their pension guarantee. That item came before us under the guise of corporate welfare. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues know full well that the pension plans might be overfunded today because of a strong stock market, but a downturn in the stock market by at least 1 or 2 percent would have those pensions in default. So, Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, and especially Newt Gingrich, keep your paws off of worker pensions.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I do not serve on the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. When I saw the rule coming forth on this amendment, I had to make a special point to come down here and to listen firsthand to the arguments from those who supported the justification of this change. My colleague from Louisiana who just spoke indicated that here is a group that comes to this office asking for support on this issue, that issue. Well, I will tell Members, if we went to the Federal tax code and deleted the tax exemption of every organization that lobbied us, from defense contractors to the Chamber, you name it, we would raise billions of dollars and we would never see anyone in the Halls of Congress or in our offices. But as Americans, as the delegate from the District said, there is a Constitution. There is a Constitution that talks about freedom of speech. And I think we want people to do that. We want people to come forward and talk to us about the issues of the day. But I view this amendment as probably the most vindictive that I have seen in my tenure here before this body. Many, in fact all the years except this year, I was in the majority party. There were groups that we did not like who opposed our candidates, who opposed our position on issues. Did my colleagues see the majority party, the Democrats at that point, come forth with amendments to repeal their tax exempt status? No. That would not be right. We might disagree with them, but they have a right to say what they want to say. But here we go, the first time you folks have had the majority in years, using the majority muscle that you have to punish one group in this country that you disagree with. I think that is a shame. If you look at the other organizations that are not touched by the gentleman's amendment, as the chairman, said, they are not charities. They are not charitable organizations. I am looking at one here, the Medical Society of the District of Columbia. Is that a charitable organization? I doubt it. But I do not think and I would not support taking away their exempt status because they endorsed your Medicare cuts. Shame on you. Shame on you.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] for yielding me the time. We have heard a lot of talk today about deficit reduction and, clearly, this bill is intended to do that. But as we talk about, like the former speaker, about reducing the deficit, very few of my Republican colleagues tell us how they are doing this. We spent 1 day of debate last week talking about the Medicare cuts that are embodied in this bill. Also embodied in this bill are substantial tax cuts. Now, my friends, if we are trying to resolve a budget deficit and we have no money, where, I ask my colleagues, are the dollars coming from to fund a tax cut, one which, I have to tell Members, is purportedly going to the middle class. Well, my Republican friends have a new definition of Republican middle class. I will share that with Members. Here is a quote from one of the Republican Members of the House, and he indicates ``When I see someone who is making anywhere from $300,000 a year to $750,000 a year, that is middle class. When I see anyone above that, that is upper middle class.'' I think this indicates to us where the tax cuts are going and where this whole deficit reduction bill is going. Mr. Chairman, I specifically want to address an issue which I think is very, very important to the working men and women of this country. My friend, the gentleman from California, Bob Matsui, talked about this before. In this bill there is a provision which will permit corporations to raid their pension plans to the tune of $40 billion. Corporations under this bill can take out of their pension plans, which is put there by workers, reserved for their workers' pension. This bill says they can take up to about $40 billion out of that nationwide. The problem with that policy, Mr. Chairman, is who will pick up the tab if these pension plans cannot meet their obligations? We have an answer. It is called the Pension Guaranty Corporation, a Federal agency ensuring pension plans. But they have their financial problems on their own even without this. So I say, and my other colleagues will say to Members, this will end up another savings and loan bailout. Because if the Pension Guaranty Corporation does not have the money after the corporation is skimmed $40 billion, it is the taxpayers who will have to shell out the money.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Bill Crivello, of Cudahy, WI, who was recently named 1995 Veteran of the Year by the Allied Veterans Council of Cudahy. Bill will be honored Saturday, November 4, at the Polish Legion of American Veterans Memorial Hall, In Cudahy. I want to take this opportunity to tell you, and my distinguished colleagues, a little about Bill and his efforts on behalf of America's veterans. Enlisting in the Air Force when he was just 17 years old, Bill served with distinction in both the Korean and Vietnam wars. His military service obviously had a profound affect on Bill, now an active member of the Polish Legion of American Veterans [PLAV], the Disabled American Veterans [DAV], the Veterans of Foreign Wars [VFW], the American Legion, the American Veterans, and the Air Force Sergeants Association [ASA]. The veterans of southeastern Wisconsin are proud of Bill Crivello as a volunteer for parades and other patriotic events, to ensure that today's generation, and many generations yet unborn, appreciate the sacrifices made by the men and women of the U.S. military over the years. And, in recognizing these sacrifices, that all Americans today to exercise their democratic rights, including free speech, and the right to vote. The Allied Veterans Council of Cudahy has made a wise choice naming Bill Crivello Veteran of the Year. Bill, his wife, Gertrude, and their children and grandchildren should all feel a sense of pride in receiving this honor. Bill, on behalf of our area's veterans, and your friends and neighbors, I encourage you to keep up the great work. As you are proud of our veterans, they, too, are quite proud of you.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I have just heard through the grapevine here that there is a meeting going on with Newt Gingrich and Governor Wittman from New Jersey and a side deal is being cut for the New Jersey Delegation. However, prior to that old rumor, the old rumor was that the Republicans from New Jersey were voting against the plan, so we will see whether or not this compromise works. Mr. Chairman, if in fact my Republican friends think it is a cut, why are the New Jersey Republicans voting against it because their hospitals, they contend, are cut too much? Something is inconsistent here. Maybe they should take the floor and explain their stand.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, today the new Republican majority has demonstrated that their position on Medicare has not changed in 30 years. In 1965, Democrats enacted the Medicare Program amidst Republican opposition. and today, despite the overwhelming success of this program, Republicans have voted to undermine it. I am not surprised that the GPO has voted to make unprecedented cuts in this critical health care program, after all, they have never consistently supported Medicare. But to take $270 billion out of a program that protects senior citizens in order to pay for tax cuts and to balance the budget--this is simply extreme. Republicans claim these cuts are to strengthen the trust fund, which according to the Medicare trustees is expected to become insolvent 7 years from now, in 2002. But in the last 20 years the trustees have projected that the fund would be insolvent in 7 years or less at least nine times. In fact, just last year, the trust fund was projected to become insolvent in the year 2001--7 years out. Yet my Republican colleagues said nothing. In fact, the only provision proposed to date by the Republican majority that has a measurable impact on the trust fund actually takes more than $87 billion out of the fund over the next 10 years! For 30 years it has been up to the Democrats to protect and preserve Medicare. It looks as if it will be up to us for the next 30 as well. In their new found concern about the Medicare trust fund, the GOP plan cuts the program by $270 billion over 7 years. And their plan does extend the life of the trust fund to the year 2006. However, what they don't tell you is that the Medicare actuaries estimate that only $90 billion is needed to extend the trust fund to that year. What are they doing [[Page H 10383]] with the balance of the money? They are using it to pay for tax cuts and deficit reduction. In contrast, the Democrats have introduced alternative plans that achieve the same level of solvency that the Republican plan achieves, but at only a third of the cost. These proposals reduce Medicare expenditures by only $90 billion over 7 years and still assure that the trust fund remains solvent for the next 10 years. Because every penny of this $90 billion is targeted to the trust fund, we are able to strengthen the fund without weakening the program for current beneficiaries. The Democratic substitute contains a series of responsible reforms combined with modest improvements that put beneficiaries first. This alternative does not increase premiums, copayments or deductibles. In fact, the plan even eliminates excessive copayments that beneficiaries currently pay for hospital outpatient services. Moreover, Medicare's current limits on balance billing are retained, essential protections for Medicare beneficiaries in nursing homes are preserved, and tough laws against fraud and abuse remain on the books. The Democratic bill updates Medicare benefits to prevent cancer and complications from diabetes including colorectal screening, pap smears, pelvic examinations, and increased coverage of breast cancer screening. Also, payment would be authorized for diabetes outpatient self- management services and for blood-testing strips for individuals with diabetes. Our plan also offers expanded choice of providers and plans, permitting beneficiaries to enroll in preferred provider organizations [PPO], point-of-service [POS] plans and provider service organizations in addition to the current fee-for-service and HMO options. But unlike the Republican bill, our reform proposal also ensures that these new options are real choices. Plans must honor limits on balanced billing and they are paid adequately in order to shield beneficiaries from additional out-of-pocket costs. Certainly, efforts to control spending require that some limits be places on reimbursements to all providers, including physicians. Since the American Medical Association has been so supportive of the GOP plan, the Democratic alternative largely mirrors the Republican proposal with respect to payment reforms. Special caution is taken with reductions in payments to hospitals. Excessive cuts in hospitals, like those proposed by the majority, could be counter productive, negatively affecting the quality of care, reducing access to care and resulting in higher costs for the private sector. The alternative plans includes reasonable reductions in hospital payments but also safeguards hospitals that serve the uninsured in rural and urban areas. I urge my Republican colleagues to stop marching blindly for just one moment to consider this worthy, thoughtful alternative. If your goal is to preserve the trust fund, this alternative plan accomplishes that goal. If you want to strengthen the Medicare program and bring it into the twentieth century, this plan gets there. If instead, you wish to pursue this scorched earth policy in order to balance the budget and pay for tax cuts, then you have that option before you today. But at least stop long enough to think about what it is that you want to achieve. It dismays me that we have come this far in the process and are left with a Republican plan or the Democratic alternative. It did not have to come down to this. Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee and on the Commerce Committee attempted to work with Republicans to add these protections included in the Democratic alternative to the Republican plan and to improve the GOP proposal. Ways and Means Democrats offered more than 35 constructive amendments to the Republican bill. Of these, only four were accepted by the Republican majority. Today we will not have the opportunity to present constructive amendments because the rule is closed. But they cannot hide from their agenda. Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee voted in lockstep to reject an amendment to extend basic consumer protections to Medicare beneficiaries who choose managed care plans. They opposed an amendment, offered by myself, to safeguard beneficiaries from a practice called balance billing in which the patient is expected to pay the difference between what the doctor charges and what Medicare pays. Republican members voted against an amendment that would have restored funding for inner city and rural hospitals who serve the uninsured, and rejected an amendment to retain the current standards for nursing homes. They also voted against amendments to increase screening for breast and cervical cancer, rejected amendments to provide coverage for colorectal and prostate cancer screening, and turned back an amendment to provide better coverage for diabetics. These are just some of the proposals on which the Republicans have gone on record. But today is the day to keep score. Today we each have a choice--to support senior citizens or to support tax cuts for wealthy Americans. I urge my colleagues to not take lightly this decision.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker indicated we are going to be giving all of this cash to senior citizens under the Republican plan. What he did not tell the seniors that are watching today is we are going to double your premiums in part B; all right. The Senate provisions provides more copays, more out-of-pocket-expenses. Seniors, this is what you are getting: Nothing.

Mr. KLECZKA

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

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] for accepting this ironclad amendment.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] and ask if he also concurs?

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, a short time ago the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], chairman of the committee, indicated that the time has come that we have to stop earmarking, and in an effort to continue the ware against earmarking, this amendment does exactly that. I direct the attention of the Members to page 90 of the authorization bill before us where we do authorize funds for various programs in the fossil fuel energy program. If the Members look down to the coal technology, up pops off the page one big fat earmark, and if I might read the portion that deals with the authorization for oil technology, it indicates an amount of $43,234,000 for operating; however, it adds including maintaining programs of the National Institute of Petroleum and Energy Research. Mr. Chairman, the reason I raise this point is because the House spoke a few months ago on the appropriations bill whereby a vote of 251 to 160 this earmark was deleted. My information is that the committee will accept this amendment and I will yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, a lot of talk has been had today on Medicare. Let me make two quick points. No. 1, there is a solvency problem of Part A, the hospital trust fund, and we are told to extend the solvency to the year 2006 it will take $90 billion. In about 10 minutes the Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means will produce their bill to save the Medicare trust fund, but although it takes $90 billion to save the trust fund, the Republicans are cutting $270 billion. I ask, why are they cutting three times as much as necessary, and after they cut $270 billion, they resolve the trust fund to the year 2006 also? Because the balance is going for tax cuts. We had a committee meeting marking up the Medicare bill yesterday. There was an amendment to provide [[Page H 9796]] for mammography screening for women 65 and over. The amendment was defeated, with all Republicans voting against it, and the reason they say we could not provide this screening for women: We do not have the money. At the same time, the Speaker is sitting with the AMA giving them $3 billion in a payoff so they would come out and support the bill. Let us get real.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Leonard Ziolkowski on being named 1995 Man of the Year by Milwaukee's South Side Business Club. In naming Mr. Ziolkowski as Man of the Year, the South Side Business Club honors a man who has dedicated his career to community service. Mr. Ziolkowski's 45 years of service to the people of Milwaukee began in 1950 when he joined the Milwaukee Police Department. Mr. Ziolkowski's outstanding abilities and sense of dedication served him well as he rose through department ranks from patrolman to inspector of police at the Police Academy. After retiring from the police department, he went on to share his considerable knowledge and experience by assuming the position of supervisor of the Milwaukee Area Technical College's Police Science Program. Len continues to guide the direction of law enforcement in our community through his current service as chairman of Milwaukee's Police and Fire Commission. In addition to his outstanding achievements in the field of law enforcement, Leonard Ziolkowski has been active in numerous charitable and civic organizations, and is also a proud and active member of Milwaukee's Polish-American community. Through his involvement in groups such as the St. Joseph's Foundation, St. Jude's League, the Polish National Alliance, and the South Side Business Club, Mr. Ziolkowski has done much to improve the lives of others in our community. Mr. Speaker, I commend Leonard Ziolkowski on his years of service to our community and I congratulate him on being named 1995 Man of the Year.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my friend Sheriff Richard E. Artison on his retirement. At the time he was appointed Milwaukee County sheriff in 1983, Richard Artison had already shown himself to be a multitalented law enforcement professional. Prior to his appointment, he had served as a special agent for the U.S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps, a patrolman and detective for the Omaha Police Department, a criminal investigator for the U.S. Treasury, a special agent for the Secret Service, and a community relations specialist for the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission. As the chief law enforcement officer for Milwaukee County, Sheriff Artison faced a difficult and challenging job. He has consistently and effectively risen to the demands of his office and has done so with grace and style. Following his appointment, Sheriff Artison quickly earned the respect of his coworkers and the general public. The esteem in which Sheriff Artison was held is evidenced by the fact that the voters of Milwaukee County reelected him to five terms as sheriff. Mr. Speaker, I commend Sheriff Artison on his years of outstanding service and dedication to the people of Milwaukee County. I wish him happiness and health in his retirement.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations and best wishes to the people of Christ Church, a congregation of the United Church of Christ, on the celebration of their 100th anniversary of ministry on Milwaukee's south side. Formally organized in September of 1895 with nine charter members, Christ Church has risen to every challenge of the past 100 years--and today continues to be a vibrant, committed congregation of 629 members. I suspect that when they look back over that century of ministry, they may be quite surprised at the remarkable things they have accomplished as a people of faith. But, in fact, they are living proof of the old saying, ``What faith makes possible, love makes easy.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the members of Christ Church for their 100 years of dedicated service to God and Country. May God continue to bless their labor.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, passage of the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments is the culmination of more than 20 years of untiring work by the HIV/AIDS community not only to reauthorize this landmark legislation, but to make it stronger. In a time when divisive politics has become the norm, the Ryan White CARE Act is a rare example of the good work that can be accomplished when individuals, despite different socioeconomic status, locales, and politics, come together in a strong partnership to work for a common goal. This past Sunday I had the wonderful opportunity to join over ten thousand supporters of the Ryan White CARE Act at the Wisconsin AIDS Walk. Some walked to remember a loved one or coworker that had died of the disease; some walked in the hope they could raise money for research to help find a cure; some walked to promote awareness, or to show their support for the HIV/AIDS community. But they all walked together. And together they raised over $700,000 for the cause. Similarly, because we all worked together, Republicans and Democrats, Members from urban areas and those from rural districts, the Ryan White CARE Act is even stronger than the original legislation. For example, the new funding formulas that were so carefully fashioned will increase Federal AIDS funding in Wisconsin by over $3 million. It is through the commitment of the Ryan White CARE Act, that the Federal Government joins State and local governments in an inclusive partnership with health care providers, religious organizations, people afflicted with the AIDS epidemic, and members of the Wisconsin community who came out on Sunday to walk for a good cause. This partnership has afforded people with the HIV disease access to a comprehensive support structure that includes housing, medical care, legal and social services, and most importantly, hope. I am proud to have been a part of this important bipartisan effort to reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act. It is truly gratifying to see this bill pass overwhelmingly in both Houses. But on this important day, let us remember that we could not have reached this important goal if we had not all worked together.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Felician Order of Sisters who have been named ``Polish Americans of the Year'' by The Milwaukee Society, an affiliate of the Polish National Alliance. In 1855, the Felician Order was established in Poland by Mary Angela Truszkowska. Nineteen years later, in 1874, five Felician Sisters came to the United States and opened a parochial school in Polonia, WI. As time went on and their numbers increased, they also established orphanages, homes for the elderly, hospitals, and day care centers, in addition to teaching. Today, St. Francis Hospital, Villa St. Francis, the Terrace at St. Francis, and St. Joseph Day Care Center for Children are all examples of their continued ministry on Milwaukee's South Side. When I attended St. Helen's Grade School, the Felicians staffed the facility and I know full well of their dedication and impact on educating young minds. I warmly remember the discipline and understanding and warmth--although for some reason, I remember the discipline the most! I wonder why? I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Felician Sisters' remarkable contribution to the citizens of Milwaukee, WI, and to the United States. They are a shining example of the commitment and dedication which is representative of Polish immigrants throughout our nation's history. Mr. Speaker, I offer best wishes and congratulations to the Felician Sisters as this year's Milwaukee Society's ``Polish Americans of the Year.''

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss several important issues surrounding H.R. 1555, the Communications Act of 1995. Today, the House is acting on a comprehensive telecommunications reform bill that some say is the most far-reaching legislation debated in recent memory. This bill would phaseout controls that inhibit open competition in the broadcast, local telephone, long-distance, cable, and cellular industries. The telecommunications industry is currently hampered by outdated restrictions and regulations that do not allow these innovative companies to enter each other's lines of business. Thus, consumers cannot benefit from increased competition and the companies are not fully able to develop new technologies that will benefit us all. This legislation is designed to allow companies to evolve while ensuring that consumers are not trampled in the process. Encouraging open and fair competition should be one of our highest priorities, and it is the best route to bringing the information superhighway up to speed. While I support the general direction of this bill and will vote for it on final passage, there are some important additions that will make this bill better. One such change is an amendment to protect consumers from cable rate increases by continuing regulation of existing cable systems until there is adequate competition. We must continue to protect consumers in this manner until true competition in the cable industry arrives. I also support an amendment that limits to 35 percent the percentage of households that may be reached by TV stations directly owned by a single network or ownership group. We must ensure that consumers will be able to receive a diversity of viewpoints from the media. The bill as currently written could threaten the independence of many local television stations across the country. In addition, I support an amendment to preserve the authority of local governments to be compensated for use of [[Page H 8502]] public rights-of-way by telecommunications providers. These changes to H.R. 1555 are of critical importance, and I sincerely hope that fair consideration will be given to them during floor debate of this bill. One of my Republican colleagues has been quoted as saying ``this bill is not perfect, but close enough for government work.'' I disagree, and believe that, with the changes I have suggested, this bill will usher in a new modern age in telecommunications. However, failure to adequately address my concerns, either during House consideration or in conference, might require me to vote to sustain a Presidential veto of this bill.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman does not mind, I will explain the amendment. Mr. Chairman, we will not use the 10 minutes. I would like to briefly explain what the amendment does and then yield briefly to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], my colleague and the coauthor of the amendment. Right now the Bureau of Labor Statistics is going through a very comprehensive revision of the CPI and they are looking at all the various components of market basket. In this bill we provide some $11 million for that exercise and some 60 people. We do not in this amendment impede that exercise. It is something that is done every 10 years. It is necessary to do. However, we anticipate some major changes are going to be made in the CPI, the index which drives many programs around here, especially the Social Security Program. Because of the fact that there is going to be a rather large impact, it is the desire of the authors of the amendment not to have some faceless bureaucrat make those downward changes in 1999, but have this Congress the Members of the House and Senate look at that, take it up, talk about it, and then pass on it. What brought this to my attention, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that in the budget resolution that we originally addressed in the House, there was a $22.8 billion reduction in Social Security benefits because this change was anticipated. Those dollars are being used in these budget resolutions for deficit reduction. Once it went to conference, the Senate modified that and they indicated that this reduction, which is currently being worked on, we do not know what it is going to be for sure, however, they guesstimate that it will entail some $7.6 to $8 billion cut in Social Security benefits. The reason that it is so important at this time is for us to sit idly by and let a bureaucrat reduce COLAs, reduce Social Security in this country for our senior citizens, while we know full well, and the gentleman from Wisconsin just addressed that, we are going to be looking at a $270 billion cut in Medicare. I happen to serve on the Subcommittee on Health in the Committee on Ways and Means, which will be addressing that massive cut. To think that there will be no effect on the seniors of this country is totally mistaken. There are going to be massive changes in out-of-pocket expenses, in deductibles being paid, so that, coupled with a decrease in COLA, is sure going to provide a real problem for our seniors.

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

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, let me indicate my gratitude to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], for accepting the amendment. I will not ask for a recorded vote. However, I will trust their good faith to take this to the conference and fight for it, although I am quite nervous over that happening without a rollcall vote, but nevertheless let that happen, and I will be watching. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today in tribute to a man I admire greatly, my good friend, Frank Paul Zeidler, former long-time mayor of my hometown, Milwaukee. The history books and records at City Hall tell us that Mayor Zeidler served as a Milwaukee County Surveyor, the Director of Milwaukee Public Schools, and as our city's highest elected official from 1948 through 1960. I would like to stress, however, the many aspects of this great leader that historians may have overlooked, and that the average Milwaukee-area resident may not be aware of. He is truly a gifted man, with many diverse talents and interests. First and foremost, Mayor Zeidler was, and continues to be, a family man. He and his wife, Agnes, raised six children, who with their many offspring, continue to be Frank's pride and joy. The former mayor was, and also continues to be, committed to education, demonstrated in his efforts on behalf of local libraries, colleges, museums, life-long learning institutions, and public radio and television stations, to name a few. But, what Frank Zeidler is most, is a man dedicated to improving the quality of life for all those with whom he comes in contact with in his day-to-day activities. Be it the students he reaches in his college lectures, the attendees at one of the many civic board meetings he participates in, or the Milwaukee resident who just happened into City Hall when the former mayor was there for a meeting, all are graced by his presence. Mr. Mayor, you are truly a living legacy in Milwaukee. So many of the treasures of my hometown are the way they are because of you and I can truly say that Milwaukee would not be what it is today without your influence over the years. Mayor Zeidler, on behalf of all Milwaukeeans, past, present, and future, I salute you.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, it is too bad that the amendment before us is not in order on this bill. Let me just say a couple of words about the Community Development Block Grant Program. We are not here to decry the benefits because in our State and many other States it has worked so well. But it is not and it has never been incepted to be used as raiding jobs from one State to another. Last year it happened in Wisconsin on a couple of occasions. Maybe if it happens to the State of California and New York and some other States, we will get more support on the House floor to change this. I would hope the chairman of the committee, not only the appropriation committee but also the authorizing committee, will look at this and deem it to be an essential part of any reform of the CDBG Program. Again, it was never authorized and never meant to be a means of raiding jobs from one State to another. Maybe when it happens to Members from other States, you might be taking the floor and helping us out getting this amendment passed in a more appropriate way. I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for yielding. Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole