Jerry Kleczka

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the VA-HUD appropriations legislation before this House. Mr. Chairman, many other Members have made the point that this bill goes after HUD funding with a machete instead of a scalpel. I understand the need for spending cuts, and I support eliminating programs that are wasteful or do not work. However, I would like to bring to your attention one HUD program that is efficient, cost- effective, and extremely necessary--and yet was eliminated by the Appropriations Committee. Service coordinators were established in 1992 in response to a crisis in our Nation's public housing projects. It was at this time that financially strapped public housing managers began placing senior citizens and non-elderly disabled residents in the same housing facilities. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel recently reviewed the situation of the early 1990's, and I quote: Only a few years ago, frightened seniors couldn't move out fast enough from the city's 14 public housing towers and their muggings, noisy tenants, and other troubles. The conflict between the needs and lifestyles of the elderly and disabled non-elderly populations in these projects was leading to mutual fear and distrust. Some of the younger residents were engaging in drug and alcohol abuse. In a few cases, violence even broke out. In 1992, Congress passed corrective legislation that authorized and appropriated annual funding for service coordinators to bring the elderly and disabled residents together and to ensure that the needs of all were met. These needs included critical transportation, nutrition, psychological counseling, and similar services. The change in the projects was dramatic. To quote the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Within months, [service coordinators] * * * had made major inroads in easing tensions, helping residents get to know one another and linking those who were sick or abusing alcohol or drugs to the help they needed. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply disturbed by the committee's decision not to fund these service coordinators. In cities like Milwaukee across the nation, service coordinators play a crucial role in maintaining a safe and healthy environment for our elderly and disabled public housing residents. I strongly urge my colleagues to support reinstatement of these funds in the Senate and conference committee.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary appropriation bill. I have particular difficulties with language the Appropriations Committee chose to include in its report. This language directs the Small Business Administration to delay implementing its reorganization plan ``until the Congress has completed action on legislative changes to the SBA's mission.'' In addition, the report states that any changes should take place within a consultative process involving the authorizing and appropriating committees. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this an unwise instruction for several reasons. First, while the House will likely consider an SBA reorganization plan this fall, the Senate has made more limited progress. Therefore, it is questionable whether reorganization legislation will be completed during this session of Congress. Moreover, it is even less predictable whether the president would sign the resulting bill. In my judgment, it is not sensible to delay the SBA's reasonable consolidation and the associated taxpayer savings for such an uncertain and possibly lengthy amount of time. Second, I believe this language represents another example of the attitude that Washington knows best. The Republicans are clearly violating their often-repeated pledge to allow local groups to make decisions about what is best for them. The SBA formulated its plan through close communication with and input from branch and district offices, local and State governments, and other interested parties. However, the committee majority is prepared to override these local decisions and impose its own direction. This leads me to a third important point. I am extremely concerned that the excessive consultation demanded by the committee will expose this reorganization to political pressures. The SBA reorganization closes and consolidates a range of offices in many districts and States. This consultation may provide an irresistible opportunity for Members to maintain offices in their districts or move them back into their States. Finally, the report language states, ``Changes in SBA's programs and responsibilities should be the primary factor in determining the need to maintain individual offices in the field structure as well as at SBA headquarters.'' In my view, this is an important factor, but not the only one. The needs of individual communities and the level of SBA involvement there should be equally critical in deciding which offices to maintain or close. SBA branches should be located near the people and businesses who need and use SBA services. Mr. Chairman, I find this report language on the SBA reorganization ill-considered and politically motivated. Let's not use the SBA as a political football. I urge my colleagues to support removal of this language in conference.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of the Coleman amendment to protect workers' rights in this country. Mr. Chairman, I support the Coleman amendment because I believe we should stand by American workers and protect the principle of collective bargaining. The Coleman amendment would reverse the bill's repeal of section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act. This section represents one of the only collective bargaining rights that 200,000 transitworkers across the country have. Section 13(c) requires that transit systems, as a condition for receiving Federal transit aid, make fair and equitable arrangements for affected transit workers. It thereby ensures that conflicts on these systems between workers and management are resolved through collective bargaining. That is not too much to ask of these entities, yet it is an essential protection for these Americans. It must be maintained. Over the last century, we have gradually, but progressively improved the rights of American labor. Collective bargaining is one of the fundamental principles of our evolution into a society that allows workers to organize in order to improve their lots in life and their opportunities to gain fair treatment for themselves and their families. Repealing 13(c) will turn back the clock. And, as my colleague Representative Martin Sabo has said, ``This is another fundamental attack on the income of working people in this country.'' Hundreds of transit workers from my district in Wisconsin have contacted me to voice their opposition to this repeal. They, like many across the country, see their lifestyles in jeopardy if section 13(c) is repealed. We cannot allow that to happen. We have to allow them access to this established and effective process to raise their grievances so they can get a fair deal. My colleagues, a vote against the Coleman amendment is a vote against American workers. They have been under assault in this body, but they are still the most productive, most resilient, and finest in the world. We should preserve this tool for them. Vote for the Coleman amendment and maintain collective bargaining for transit workers.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I was trying to find one of the proponents of this waste-of-moneys chart, but I cannot seem to locate it right, now, so I will not use it. Mr. Chairman and Members, if we had an extra $110 million lying around collecting dust, maybe we could justify giving it to corporations like Ralston Purina, Pillsbury, Snapple, name brand, very profitable companies. But, my friends, we do not have an extra $110 million laying around. So at this point in time I think it is time to say we do not have the money. We have to abolish the program. Why? What are we doing to the citizens of this country who provide those tax revenues? For the senior citizens of this country, we are going to cut Medicare by $270 billion. Do you know where the bulk of those funds are going to come from, my friends? From your pocket. It is going to come as out-of-pocket expenses to pay for the hospital bills and the doctors you are going to need. So, as we give $110 million to E.J. Gallo and Pillsbury, you are going to pay more. For the students, $10 billion cut in student loans, they are not going to be able to afford college. We do not have the $110 million.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]. (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. Mr.Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].

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

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, why was the $5 million earmarked for one project in Oklahoma? Mr. REGULA This was the amount that was offered as an amendment in the full committee and accepted by the members of the full committee. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I agree with all the gentleman says. However his mark coming before the committee was a $59 million appropriations. If in fact he wanted more dollars in that line, why did not the committee from the git-go put in the $64 million or $84 million or whatever.

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

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman from Oklahoma, the author of the amendment in committee, states is not really accurate. In fact, if it was accurate, the committee report language would not have to read, ``The committee recognizes the accomplishments of NIPER and directs that these research funds in the bill be allocated to oil research to be used by NIPER and such work should not be transferred to another research laboratory.'' The last campaign by most of us in this Chamber was one about pork. There were instances like the Lawrence Welk farm of years past, which people just were abhorred over. Now here the gentleman from Oklahoma, who he himself says pork is pork, even if it lives at home, goes to the committee he serves on and puts in an additional $5 million above and beyond the committee level to squirrel it away, to earmark it for his district and an entity in his district. I say to my colleagues, all 435 of us would like to bring home the bacon, but in this atmosphere, we cannot. For a person who is opposed to it to put it in, I think that is inexcusable. There is $59 million left in this portion of the oil research part of the bill for oil research, fossil research that will be put out by bid. And if, in fact, the program is as good as the gentleman indicates, they will be competitive. They will win a piece of that $59 million. But that is not what happened in committee. The gentleman introduced an amendment and first he wanted to take the money from the endowment for the arts. He changed his mind and scratched that and just out of thin air found $5 million and put it into that line of the budget. I am saying to you, that is not the way you talk in your campaign. It is not the way the balance of us talk. However, when the campaigns are over, at that point in time, you forget about that and when no one is looking, you put in a little bacon for your district. I am saying, if NIPER is as good as you say, they can compete, they can be successful for a portion of the $59 million. Why did we put in the $5 million cut? The only way you get at this pork project, the only way that we, under the rules of the House, can get at it is to take an amendment, reduce the appropriation reflecting your amendment in committee by $5 million, thus we take down the entire energy research and development budget from $384 million to some $379 million; clearly, not devastating to the appropriation, but recognizing the $5 million add-on that was provided in committee is not fair, is not equitable, should not be done. It is descried by everyone on the House floor. When we find it, when it is bills like the one we are talking about today, at that point in time I think the House has to stand up and say what is good for Oklahoma is good for Wisconsin. If it is not good for Oklahoma, Wisconsin should not do it either. I ask the Members to adopt the amendment which in essence would strike this one pork project.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Brig. Gen. Michael R. Lee, the departing commander of the 440th Airlift Wing at General Mitchell International Airport. General Lee has guided this Air Reserve Station superbly over the years. It is with fond memories and deep gratitude that we wish him well on his new assignment at Dobbins Air Force Base in Georgia. As we all know, reassignments, transfers, and reorganizations are a fact of life in the military. Still, I find it no easier to have to say good-bye to a gentleman who is the epitomy of a dedicated, talented, and revered career Air Force officer. General Lee is an accomplished military man and a master navigator logging more than 5,500 flying hours. He is also a goodwill ambassador for the Air Force and the U.S. Armed Forces at large. I truly believe that an individual's character and inner strength are best measured during times of adversity and uncertainty. The last few months were such a time for the general and the 440th, and both fared exceptionally. Under General Lee's leadership, the 440th successfully survived its placement on the Base Closure and Realignment Commission's list of C- 130 bases under examination for possible realignment or closure. In true form, General Lee rallied his staff, pulled together the 440th's Community Council and each and every civilian, and presented the best possible case to the Commission. Just a few weeks ago the Commission echoed the widely held view that the 440th deserves its reputation as the best of the best. Based on all the 440th's merits and value to our national defense, and in large part due to the general's round-the-clock efforts, the base will remain open. Mr. Speaker, the 440th and Wisconsin's loss will truly be Georgia's gain. I join the men and women of the 440th Tactical Airlift Wing in wishing General Lee continued success in his new assignment.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this unnecessary constitutional amendment. All of us here today respect and honor our flag. We all feel so proud when we see the Stars and Stripes on a front porch. We all agree that the flag is a treasured symbol of our democratic ideals and the values we hold most dear to our hearts. And, we all agree that damaging that symbol is disgraceful and should never be condoned. The key question is, are we truly prepared to amend the Bill of Rights for the first time ever, to begin eroding the freedom of speech and expression? Our Founding Fathers drafted the Bill of Rights as a guarantee against the abuses and tyranny they had fled. These inalienable rights have stood the test of time and survived for 204 years. Are we prepared to begin placing qualifications on the first amendment? What provision of the Bill of Rights will be next? If we start down the slippery slope of eroding fundamental rights like free speech, where will the assault on individual freedom we all take for granted end? What is the logical extension? I am disturbed by the remarks of American Legion National Commander William Detweiler, who stated, ``Burning the flag * * * is a problem even if no one ever burns another American flag.'' These comments show an alarming lack of perspective. Is Congress going to begin amending the Constitution to prohibit actions which do not even occur? There is no rampant abuse of the flag occurring in this country. There has not been a major incident in 5 years. But know full well, as soon as we pass this amendment, someone will burn a flag just to get in the news. Old Glory has a special place in our Nation's history and damaging it is disgraceful. But we should not let a few isolated hooligans and malcontents blackmail us into whittling away at the Bill of Rights. Moreover, our flag, while revered and held in honor, is a secular symbol and thus should not be worshiped. It should not be elevated to the exalted status this amendment would confer. That is why I am perplexed by the use of the word desecration in connection with the flag. The word actually means ``to violate the sanctity of,'' a definition with obvious religious undertones. William Safire, one of the most conservative commentators in America today, addressed the question of the flag's true secular symbolism eloquently. In 1990 he wrote, * * * in this democracy, nothing political can be consecrated, ``made sacred.'' * * * Any attempt to make the nation's flag sacred--to endow this secular symbol with the holiness required for ``desecration''--not only undermines our political freedom but belittles our worship of the Creator. He continued, Should we respect the flag? Always. Should we worship the flag? Never. We salute the flag but we reserve worship for God. Mr. Speaker, in spite of my deep respect and affection for our flag, I will vote against this constitutional amendment. This amendment would alter our Bill of Rights for the first time in more than 200 years to prohibit an act which almost never occurs. It is ironic that this amendment's sponsors are using our Nation's symbol of freedom to begin eroding that freedom. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this unnecessary constitutional tampering.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, during the weeks for which the House was in session between May 16, 1995 and June 16, 1995, I was granted an official leave of absence for medical reasons. As an elected Representative of Wisconsin's Fourth Congressional District, I have a responsibility to my constituents to inform them of the votes during that leave and to apprise them of how I would have voted. The following is how I would have voted on rollcall votes Nos. 330- 388: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rollcall No. Bill No. Position ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 330....... H.R. 1590....................................... Nay. 331....... Procedural...................................... Nay. 332....... H.R. 961 (Boehlert Amdt.)....................... Yea. 333....... H.R. 961 (Gilchrest Amdt.)...................... Yea. 334....... H.R. 961 (Frelinghuysen Amdt.).................. Yea. 335....... H.R. 961 (Wyden Amdt.).......................... Yea. 336....... H.R. 961 (Bonior Amdt.)......................... Yea. 337....... H.R. 961........................................ Nay. 338....... Procedural...................................... Yea. 339....... H. Res. 149 Previous Question................... Nay. 340....... H. Res. 149 Rule................................ Nay. 341....... Procedural...................................... Yea. 342....... H.C.R. 67 (Gephardt Amdt.)...................... Yea. 343....... H.C.R. 67 (Neumann Amdt.)....................... Nay. 344....... H.C.R. 67 (Payne Amdt.).................... Nay. 345....... H.C.R. 67 (Kasich Amdt.)........................ Nay. 346....... H.R. 1158....................................... Nay. 347....... H. Res. 155..................................... Yea. 348....... H.R. 1561 (Brownback Amdt.)..................... Yea. 349....... H.R. 1561 (Morella Amdt.)....................... Yea. 350....... H.R. 1561 (Smith Amdt.).................... Yea. 351....... H.R. 1561 (McKinney Amdt.)...................... Yea. 352....... H.R. 1561 (Wynn Amdt.).......................... Nay. 353....... H.R. 1561 (Smith Amdt.).................... Yea. 354....... H.R. 1561 (Hastings Amdt.)................. Yea. 355....... H.R. 483........................................ Yea. 356....... H.R. 535........................................ Yea. 357....... H. Res. 156..................................... Yea. 358....... Procedural (``Present'')........................ Would have voted. 359....... H.R. 1561 (Hyde Amdt.).......................... Nay. 360....... H.R. 1561 (Ackerman Amdt.)...................... Yea. 361....... H. Con. Res. 67................................. Yea. 362....... H.R. 1561 (Hoyer Amdt.)......................... Yea. 363....... H.R. 1561 (Gilman Amdt.)........................ Nay. 364....... H.R. 1561....................................... Yea. 365....... H.R. 1561 (Hamilton Amdt.)...................... Yea. 366....... H.R. 1561....................................... Nay. 367....... H. Res. 164..................................... Nay. 368....... H. Res. 164..................................... Nay. 369....... H.R. 1530 (Dornan Amdt.)........................ Nay. 370....... H.R. 1530 (Kasich Amdt.)........................ Yea. 371....... H.R. 1530 (Collins Amdt.).................. Yea. 372....... H.R. 1530 (Clinger Amdt.)....................... Yea. 373....... H.R. 1530 (Spratt Amdt.)........................ Yea. 374....... H.R. 1530 (DeFazio Amdt.)....................... Yea. 375....... H.R. 1530 (Shays Amdt.)......................... Yea. 376....... H.R. 1530 (Pombo Amdt.)......................... Yea. 377....... H.R. 1530 (Berman Amdt.)........................ Yea. 378....... H.R. 1530 (Kolbe Amdt.)......................... Nay. 379....... H.R. 1530 (Molinari Amdt.)...................... Yea. 380....... Procedural...................................... Yea. 381....... H.R. 1530 (Markey Amdt.)........................ Yea. 382....... H.R. 1530 (DeLauro Amdt.)....................... Yea. 383....... H.R. 1530 (Spence Amdt.)........................ Yea. 384....... H.R. 1530 (Dellums Amdt.)....................... Yea. 385....... H.R. 1530....................................... Nay. 386....... H. Res. 167..................................... Yea. 387....... H. Res. 167..................................... Nay. 388....... H.R. 1817 (Herger Amdt.)........................ Nay. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The outcome would have been no different on any of these votes if I had been present. Regarding my absence from the House Ways and Means Committee, on which I serve, one vote occurred during that time. On that vote, which occurred on whether to report H.R. 1812, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. I would like to commemorate the 125th anniversary of the founding of Milwaukee's Pio Nono College and High School and the 50th anniversary of the founding of my alma mater, Don Bosco High School. [[Page E1100]] For more than a century, quality Catholic education has been available on Milwaukee's South Side thanks to the traditions forged by Pio Nono College and High School and by Don Bosco High School. Although these two outstanding schools have since merged to become Milwaukee's Thomas More High School, the standards of excellence and commitment to Catholic principles which they established remain as strong and true as ever. Pio Nono College was founded in 1870 and initially trained young men in music and teaching. For a time, Pio Nono stood as one of this country's foremost centers of Catholic liturgical music. As the educational needs of the Milwaukee diocese evolved, the focus of Pio Nono changed. Over the years, Pio Nono was transformed into a boarding and day school for young men, later into the St. Francis Minor Seminary, and by 1965, into Pio Nono High School. Throughout these changes, Pio Nono's commitment to providing quality Catholic education never wavered. By the mid 1940's, the need arose on Milwaukee's South Side for a high school serving young men who sought a Catholic education, but who were not called to join a seminary. In 1945, Don Bosco High School was founded in response to that need. For the next two and a half decades, Don Bosco High School, under the guidance of the Marianist order of priests and brothers, prepared scores of Milwaukee's young men for the lifetime of challenges that lay before them. I am very proud to be among those members of our community who received their scholastic and spiritual foundation at Don Bosco. By the late 1960's, the needs of the Milwaukee diocese had again changed, and in 1972, these two institutions were merged into Thomas More High School. This year, as we celebrate the 125th anniversary of the founding of Pio Nono and the 50th anniversary of the founding of Don Bosco, we can be proud that the traditions of those outstanding schools are being carried forward into the future by Thomas More. The alumni of Pio Nono, Don Bosco, and Thomas More owe a debt of thanks to the men and women, past and present, who cared enough to make quality and affordable Catholic education available to our community.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mrs. Janet Banach on being named 1995 Polish Woman of the Year by the ladies auxiliary of the Polish National Alliance--Milwaukee Society. Janet Banach is a person who is genuinely committed to well-being of others and to the betterment of her community. By selecting Janet as the 1995 Polish Woman of the Year, the Milwaukee Society--ladies auxiliary is rightfully recognizing a person who has devoted her time and talents to a wide variety of worthwhile activities. Over the years, Janet Banach has been actively involved in a number of organizations dedicated to assisting the needy and less fortunate. Through her volunteer involvement with organizations such as the American Red Cross, the St. Vincent DePaul Society, the SHARE Program, and the South Community Organization, Janet has transformed her concern for others into effective action. Through her involvement as a Cub Scout and Brownie leader Janet has helped to prepare our community's future leaders for the challenges that lay ahead. Janet has also shown herself to be a person committed to her Catholic faith and her Polish-American heritage. Janet is a long-time member of Milwaukee's Holy Spirit Parish. Both she and her husband take an active role in sharing their faith with others through their parish activities. In addition, through her involvement with organizations such as the Polish National Alliance--Milwaukee Society and Polish Festivals Inc., Janet plays an active role in keeping Milwaukee's Polish-American heritage alive. I would like to commend Janet on her outstanding and worthwhile achievements and I congratulate her on being named 1995 Polish Woman of the Year.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ms. Sue Mikolajczyk on receiving the Pulaski Council of Milwaukee's 1995 Polish Heritage Award. In selecting Sue Mikolajczyk as the 1995 Polish Heritage Award recipient, the Pulaski Council has honored a woman who has devoted countless hours of work to preserving the richness of Milwaukee's Polish-American heritage. It has long been a goal of our community to build a Polish-American Community Center. This goal is closer to becoming a reality because of the commitment, hard work, and sheer determination of people like Sue Mikolajczyk. Her outstanding efforts as coordinator of Polishfest's weekly bingo games have helped to ensure a steady source of funds for the development of the community center and more importantly, have helped to sustain the dream which guides our Polish-American community forward. In addition to her involvement with Polishfest, Sue Mikolajczyk has been actively involved in a number of other Polish cultural organizations in our area and has assumed leadership positions in several of these organizations. Groups such as the Polish National Alliance, the Polish-American Congress, Polanki, and the Polish Womens' Alliance have all benefited from Sue's talents, determination, and willingness to take charge. At a time when it seems that more and more people are forgetting their roots, Milwaukee's Polish-American heritage, thanks to the efforts of people like Sue Mikolajczyk, remains as alive and vibrant as ever. I commend Sue on her outstanding efforts on behalf of Milwaukee's Polish-American community and I congratulate her on receiving the 1995 Polish Heritage Award.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, this is a sad day for this country . Today, the Republicans passed what should be called a ``Deficit Acceleration Bill'' under the guise of a tax cut bill. This measure will not receive my support because it is a Trojan Horse. It sounds and looks friendly, but it will have dire consequences by exploding the federal budget deficit we have worked so hard the last 2 years to contain. If passed into law, this measure would entail a $630 billion loss to the Federal Treasury over the next 10 years. That is inexcusable. We have a debt of $4 trillion. We have annual deficits estimated to rise in future years due to demographics. Moreover, we are $1.2 trillion short of the balanced budget so many of us want to achieve over the next 7 years. Cutting taxes in this manner and at this time is the absolute height of folly. This bill is the same mindset as the trickle-down, supply-side tax cuts made during the early 1980's. Those tax cuts, along with massive defense spending increases, got us into this fiscal mess. Those tax cuts are the reason each and every child born in this country is born about $20,000 in debt. They are the reason we pay 16 percent of our budget on interest payments on that debt. My constituents have told me over and over that they want us to concentrate on cutting the deficit first. They have said so consistently, and I agree with them. That is why the Deficit Acceleration Bill is not just wrong, but morally objectionable. It robs our children and our grandchildren of their futures. And, it ruins any chance of responsibly achieving a balanced budget. This bill offers huge tax benefits to the wealthy and precious little to those who could use them--hard-working, middle-income Americans. Nearly two-thirds of the tax benefits provided by the Deficit Acceleration Bill will go to those earning more than $75,000 a year. Moreover, the bill gives people who make up to a quarter million dollars unneeded tax relief. The tax cuts will amount to nearly $1,000 a month for the average household with children that has income over $200,000, but less than $66 a month for those that earn between $30,000 and $75,000. That is just $16 a week, which is not enough to take a family to the movies for a matinee these days. It is my hope that the next step is for the Senate to reject this Deficit Acceleration Plan so we can work together on a bipartisan basis to address our long run deficit problems. As Vice President Gore said this week, ``On Day 101 we're going to start fixing the damage that was done during the 100 days of the Republican Contract.'' There is no piece of legislation more in need of fixing than the bill we are considering today.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, over the last 2 days, the House of Representatives has been riveted by a fiery debate over term limits. One of the most intriguing aspects of the debate was the absence of partisianship that characterized the other legs of the Contract With America. We have heard heartfelt arguments from Members on both sides of this contentious issue. Many of the most compelling arguments against the concept were made by Members of the Republican Party. After listening to these arguments, I will cast my vote against term limits. I will do so because term limits are not necessary, and they will lead to harmful unintended consequences. There is a better alternative that will improve representation on Capitol Hill. That alternative is to keep our faith in those we represent. House Members face term limits every 2 years when we stand for reelection. Every 2 years, our records are scrutinized and our constituents have to make the choice about whether or not to return us to Congress. They do a good job weeding out those who they no longer want to represent them. For example, half of all House seats have changed hands in the nineties. Term limits are not necessary. On this, I agree wholeheatedly with the eloquence of one of the most distinguished Republicans in the House, Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois, who called term limits the ``dumbing down of democracy.'' He is absolutely right--the people of Wisconsin's Fourth District are smart enough not to need artificial constraints on the exercise of their democratic right to vote for whoever they please. Term limits are not the answer to reducing barriers to running for Congress. That answer is clearly campaign finance reform. Campaign finance reform would give challengers access to the financial, media, and other resources necessary to mount a meaningful and competitive campaign. We should have spent this week on that topic, not term limits. Term limit proponents rail against an entrenched Congress and allege that power corrupts Members. In fact, the entrenched Congress is a myth. The average length of service for House Members is 7.5 years. That level is well below the 12-year limit proposed by leading term limits proposals. And, term limits will not magically lead to the election of upstanding men and women who will resist corruption. Term limits cannot change human nature. It is ridiculous to argue that scandals would not occur if term limits were in effect. As for unintended consequences, term limits will lead to two. First, they will usher in an even more powerful world of special interests. Power will shift from elected and accountable Members to unelected and unaccountable congressional staff, lobbyists, and bureaucrats. Lobbyists will write their own laws and will use their expertise and institutional memory to feed on a never-ending rotation of inexperienced Members. Second, if term limits had been in existence, Wisconsin would have been deprived of many of the banner achievements of Senator Robert LaFollette who spent 22 years in the Senate. Similarly, we would not have had Senator William Proxmire's 32 years of service. And, my predecessor, Congressman Clem Zablocki, would not have been able to serve the Fourth District in an outstanding fashion for 34 years. Members like these are invaluable both to their constituents and to the Nation as a whole. For all these reasons, I voted against term limits. It is a cynical constraint on the rights of the people I represent, and I could not lend the limitation my support.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ms. Violet Jelic on being named Croatian of the Year by the Croatian Civic Club of Milwaukee. In selecting Violet as Croatian of the Year, the Croatian Civic Club has honored a woman who has done much to promote and preserve her proud Croatian-American heritage and who has made a direct impact on the lives of many people in our community. As a member and past president of the Croatian Civic Club, Violet has played an instrumental role in keeping the traditions of the Croatian- American community alive and vibrant in the Milwaukee area. Through her involvement with the Croatian Radio Hour she shares the richness of her Croatian heritage with our entire community. In addition to her involvement in cultural activities, Ms. Jelic has shown herself to be a person who is concerned about the less fortunate and who is committed to living out the principles of her Catholic faith. Whether she is leading prayers in her church, visiting the sick, or inviting hospitalized Croatian soldiers to stay in her home, Violet has demonstrated a willingness to transform her beliefs into effective action. Among those wounded soldiers who have benefited from her efforts are Srecko Filipovic, Dusko Bujak, and Darko Crnojevic, to name just a few. Violet Jelic has clearly set an example for our entire community. I join the Croatian Civic Club in commending Violet Jelic on her outstanding efforts and I congratulate her on being named Croatian of the Year.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I was prepared to vote for true welfare reform today. As the only Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee to support that panel's reform proposal earlier this month, I believe it represented real change of our welfare system. Though well-intentioned, that system is indefensible and in dire need of massive changes. It encourages a cycle of poverty, hopelessness, and despair. At the same time, it discourages family cohesiveness, constructive behavior, and self-reliance. The Ways and Means bill, while not perfect, would have started us down the path to dramatic, yet meaningful reform. I worked long and hard on the plan's SSI reforms and am proud of the outcome in that area. Moreover, turning welfare over to the States is a bold step forward and it represents an improvement over the status quo. Unfortunately, the bill that passed the House today contains a fatal flaw that I could not, in good conscience, support. Namely, it reduces funds for child nutrition in the name of welfare reform. Because of this mean-spirited provision, I will vote against this measure. According to Congressional Budget Office statistics--the most reliable and non-partisan figures available--this legislation is projected to underfund child nutrition programs by $11.77 billion over the next 5 years. At that level, funds will not keep pace with demand: CBO says child nutrition dollars will increase by only 2.1 percent per year, while demand has historically grown at a much higher level. For example, the Agriculture Department reports that between the 1990 and 1994 school years, demand for school lunches increased by 23 percent. In my judgement, that lower level is unconscionable. We have the compassion to meet the basic nourishment needs of our children. Surely feeding children is not too much to ask of this great Nation. All along, I have been clear about my opposition to these changes in the child nutrition program. In a letter to Speaker Gingrich last week, I indicated that while I could support the Ways and Means bill because it represents true welfare reform, the school lunch program should not be included in the bill. My request unfortunately was ignored by the Speaker. I deeply regret that we could not vote on just the Ways and Means Committee's welfare reform plan today. It is my hope that cooler heads will prevail in the Senate and that Chamber will leave child nutrition intact while returning to the House true welfare reform. If and when that occurs, I stand ready and willing to support it.

Mr. KLECZKA

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

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.