Jerry Kleczka

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I bring forth this amendment with my colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed]. And if I might briefly explain what the effect of the amendment would do, the bill, as reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, provides for a temporary assistance block grant in title I. As part of setting up that block grant, we permit States to amass up to 120 percent of the block grant in what we call a rainy day fund. I think there is a lot of support for the rainy day fund. I think there is lot of logic to establishing the rainy day fund for a State that comes on hard times. If there is an economic downturn, there will be ample funds available for the block grant programs to take care of the needy within that State. I should also add that the bill provides that States can transfer from other block grants up to 20 or 30 percent into the rainy day fund. The problem I have with this section is that after the State has amassed this 120 percent, it then has the opportunity to call the Governor or the legislature to shift funds out of the rainy day fund anything above and beyond 120 percent, into the State's general fund. As I indicated to my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means, the bulk of us in Congress today were former State legislators. And surely they are not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. They are going to see these funds as being available for their disposition. It will alleviate their need possibly to raise taxes. If, in fact, a State has some particular road needs, they could take moneys from this rainy day fund into the highway program of the State. And clearly that is not why we are sending the States these dollars. These dollars are for specific programs in these various block grants. I think it is ill-advised to permit the State the latitude to take federally-raised dollars sent to the State for a specific purpose and use it for their general purpose needs. So the amendment would delete from the bill that particular section of the bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], the author of the amendment.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to pay tribute to my long-time friend, Raymond ``Red'' Fularczyk. Red and I have a lot in common. We were both born in Milwaukee and attended Don Bosco High School, on the city's south side. working men and women of Wisconsin and our Nation. For example, Red joined the Teamsters at the tender age of 16, and became a union steward just a few short years later. In 1968, he joined the staff of Teamsters Local 200. Throughout the years, Red served as the local's president and secretary-treasurer. He was the principal officer of Joint Council No. 39 until 1990, when he joined the staff of the Central Conference and became director of the Food, Dairy and Warehouse Division and secretary-treasurer. Red's desire to further serve the American worker manifested itself in his political activities. An ardent supporter of workers' rights, he has always backed candidates on the municipal, county, State, and national levels who shared his views. A true bipartisan, Red was appointed by Wisconsin's Governor to represent labor on the State's Jobs Council Committee. In continuing his service to the citizens of the Milwaukee area, Red was on the board of directors of both the Milwaukee War Memorial and the Performing Arts Center. I am pleased to add to the many tributes and commendations Red has received and will continue to receive throughout his retirement. Congratulations on a job well done. Best wishes as you spend more time with your family and many friends.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to just seek some clarification. I listened to the author try to explain it, but it was not really clear to me. I have here a Republican handout from one of the previous amendments, and in part it says let us not exempt this bill to death, and as I understand the amendment, what we are doing is being very specific that there is an exemption as it relates to the hunting season for ducks. I think that is pretty important stuff, but I do not know if we should exempt the bill to death. I recall a previous amendment dealing with a very serious water problem in the Milwaukee area in the State of Wisconsin, and that was the cryptosporidium problem. We tried to exempt the clean water regulations in this bill and we were turned down in large part by the Republicans, but now we can exempt the bill to death by providing an exemption for ducks. The problem I have with that is I think clean water and cryptosporidium problems are more important than the duck season. I think it is a sad day in the House of Representatives when we put ducks above water safety in this country, clean water regulations. But so be it, that is the new regime we are working under. I want to respond to the author of the amendment. I do object to one of the statements made when he indicates that if this was last year the Democrats would not let him offer this amendment, now he has free rein to offer it. My Lord, I would be shocked if we let him offer such nonsense to this bill, especially when we turn down water safety, meeting specs, things of that nature, which on a priority scale, my friends, I would think is a smidgen higher than the all important duck season in this country.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, since January 1 of this year, reformulated gasoline has been required by the Clean Air Act in southeastern Wisconsin and other areas of this country. This reformulation contains either ethanol, MTBE, or ETBE. Immediately, constituents started calling to complain of engine problems and reduced mileage, but more importantly they complained of adverse health effects. I recently spoke with an allergist, Dr. Roger Hirsch, who confirmed that he noticed a pattern of symptoms for his patients starting in the second week of January. These symptoms included respiratory problems, light-headedness, low-grade headaches, and itchy and burning eyes. When these symptoms reoccurred 3 to 4 weeks later, Dr. Hirsch began to suspect that there was a common cause. Going by the flood of calls received by my office, other congressional offices, and State and Federal hotlines, there certainly is. To address this problem, my colleague, Mr. Barrett, and I are introducing legislation today that would suspend the reformulated gas requirement until the complaints of adverse health effects are thoroughly examined. The onus would be on EPA to prove that this fuel is safe. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us by cosponsoring this bill. We are all for clean air, but we should not create health hazards achieving it.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for H.R. 831, the health premium deduction for the self-employed. This bill would permanently extend the 25-percent health insurance deduction for the self-employed, and would do so retroactively so that these individuals may take advantage of it when they file their tax returns this Spring. My colleagues, self-employed individuals are waiting for us to act, and we owe it to them to pass this legislation expeditiously. This much needed deduction has been extended, and extended, and extended again. It is time to provide some stability for the many small employers who rely on this assistance by extending it once and for all. If this deduction is good policy--and I believe it is--then let us give it the credibility it deserves and make it a stable part of our tax law. Restoring the 25-percent deduction is a matter of simple fairness. Corporations can deduct 100 percent of the costs of providing insurance to their employees, but self-employed people, mostly small businesses and farmers, can no longer deduct even the meager 25 percent that they used to be able to deduct. The least we can do is restore this minimal assistance to them. While the 25-percent amount is not nearly what the large employer receives, it is an important first step toward leveling the playing field in a responsible manner. Permanently restoring this deduction is also consistent with the goal of encouraging health insurance coverage for all Americans. According to the Small Business Administration, there are 2.6 million uninsured self-employed Americans--making that group one of the largest groups of uninsured citizens. Without the 25-percent deduction, the number of uninsured in this segment of the population would likely increase. Hopefully, by making the tax break permanent, we can encourage more of the self-employed to buy insurance. Passing H.R. 831 is the fair thing to do. It is good for small business and will help encourage health care coverage. Moreover, the bill enjoys bipartisan support. Mr. Chairman, I urge that we adopt this provision.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give tribute to George R. Urban, who after serving the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers [IAMAW] with distinction for 42 years, has retired. George was initiated into the union while employed by Alloy Products Corp. in Waukesha, WI. He later became a member of the bargaining committee and a shop chairman at Alloy Products. George has served as a business representative of District 48, which merged with, and became known as, District 10 in 1973. He has held this highly regarded position for 27 years. As president of the Waukesha County Labor Council since 1975, George Urban has devoted countless hours to ensure the well-being of working men and women and their families in southeastern Wisconsin and throughout our Nation. Our young labor leaders would do well to follow George's fine example of union representation. George, best wishes during your well-deserved retirement with your family and many friends.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as I review the legislation before us, I at first blush thought it was an unfunded mandate bill on the States. But as I have listened to the debate and as I have studied the bill, I find that it is not only an unfunded mandate bill, but it is also a blackmail bill. We have been told for years that the attitude that Congress knows best and one size fits all, and we should tell the locals what to do because we are smarter, has to end. With some of the legislation we already passed this session, we indicated it is a new day, those things are going to end. But now that same attitude has reared its ugly head in this legislation. What we are calling for here is longer sentences, the 85 percent goal. And my friends, it is not only on Federal crimes, which we have a right and responsibility to legislate and dictate, but it is on State violations of their criminal law. We are telling the State legislatures and the Governors, who are up here all the time hugging the Republicans, that when it comes to welfare block grants and Medicare block grants, you can have all the latitude you want, including millions and billions of dollars. But when it comes to your legislature handing out prison sentences to your inmates in violation of your State crimes, which the Republican Congress know best, I think that is phony. I think that is hypocrisy, and I will tell you where the mandate comes in. Now we are going to, with the carrot and the blackmail, give the States the bricks and mortar. We know full well, and I know full well in Wisconsin, we need the construction dollars. We are overcrowded. But we are going to have to change our State law to further exacerbate the crowding problem, and then the unfunded mandates come, my friend, when the Feds leave town after they dump the bricks and mortar and the State and the taxpayers and the State legislatures have to cough up the State-raised funds to house the inmates, to provide security for three shifts a day, just like a hospital, to provide all the other maintenance efforts. And at that point, my friends, are you going to help the States continue that expenditure, or help pay for it? So, Mr. Chairman, this is not only an unfunded mandate bill, but it is also a blackmail bill. Blackmail today and tomorrow. Once the States have incurred the costs, we are going into another area of trying to help the States out. That is their problem. Sorry, States. I urge the Members to support the Schumer amendment.

Mr. KLECZKA

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

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I also support the rule and will be supporting line item veto authority for the President. I come from Wisconsin. It has been in our Constitution for years. Even though the current Governor is now abusing that power, I think it is one which Governors should have and Presidents should have. But I am a little concerned over this rule. I am told it is an open rule, but it is an open rule if, and the ``if'' is, if we do not finish by Monday night and wrap this and give it as a birthday present to President Reagan, then we are going to close it. I am saying that is kind of phony symbolism. I do not know. We could be done before Monday or early Monday on this proposition, but what I am told and what the rumor mill around here is that it is open but we cannot go past Monday night because then we go past President Reagan's birthday. I am saying if in fact that is how we are going to legislate with that type of phony symbolism, then what bill do we pass on President Ford's wedding anniversary? Have you selected that yet? And if amendments are pending, do we have to stop talking? How about President Nixon's confirmation date? I am assuming there is some legislation that has been pegged to hit on that date and not an hour later. I will support the rule but I will be very, very interested to watch the majority on Monday once we start getting into the evening hours and at that point watch them close this process up, because this has to be wrapped and sent to California--for President Reagan's birthday? That is the same type of symbolism we had last night with these three rules, on three noncontroversial bills. So the Committee on Rules, to up their batting average, put out three open rules on three bills which needed no rule, they put the taxpayers through the expense of not only drafting but printing up the rules. I checked back here where the rules are left for the Members' edification and was told that they were thrown away. I wish I was here on the floor last night to grab that garbage bag so I could bring it here and say, ``This is the phony symbolism, American taxpayers, that we're going through.'' We have to pass legislation on Presidents' birthdays, we have to do rules which are not necessary to up the majority's batting average, and what happens? It is wasted because they are thrown in the garbage.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as I read H.R. 2, I discovered two serious flaws or two problems that I personally had with it. One was addressed in the previous amendment, and that is limiting the corporations or the individuals who are getting a tax break to only 100. I think that is not advisable public policy. However, the floor has spoken and that did not get adopted, or the deletion did not get adopted. When I first saw the section indicating that we could not pull out various line item vetoed items and vote on them separately, I thought that was a very serious mistake. So when the gentlewoman introduced her amendment, I called and said I would like to support it and would come to the floor and speak in favor of it. However, in speaking to the chairman of the committee, he indicated he did not like that approach and would be supporting the amendment of the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman]. I thing the compromise gets at the problem, although I think the better way would be to eliminate the necessity for 49 or 50 Members. However, since that is not going to be the will of the House, I think at least by having the 50 Member requirement when there are items in 1 veto message, and let's say there are 10 items, and there is one which I think almost everybody in the House would agree to, we could have the ability to pull that one out, knowing full well we do not need 10 votes because the other 9 will not survive. The gentlewoman from New York indicated that Wisconsin had a policy on this. As a former State legislator in Wisconsin, that is exactly how we did it. When the Governor sent back line item vetoed items in the budget bill, we would select the ones, with the minority, which would necessitate a vote. The bulk of them were voted en bloc, and the sufficient two-third was not garnered. So that is the correct procedure, it is one which worked there, it is one which would work here, but that is not going to be the way it is going to go. So let us try the 50 Members signing to request a separate vote and see if that provision works.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KLECZKA. Let me echo the sentiments of my colleague who has just spoken. If we are going to start the exclusion game, we are going to be on this bill longer than the unfunded mandates game. I say to you right now, and I told you earlier in the debate, I support H.R. 2 as drafted. We did amend the bill with the Thurman amendment, which I thought was a step in the right direction. If you adopt this amendment and take one major portion of the budget, 20-some percent of the budget, off the table for the most part, do not let the President get near that and not do the same for education, health care for young and old alike, medical research, I think what we are doing here, Mr. Chairman, we are purporting a sham on the American people. And I would like to tell my colleagues there will be a rollcall on this, so if any of you are going to shout loud and run to the Cloakroom, ``It ain't going to happen.'' But note, if you will, the precedent we are setting with this amendment, if adopted, is terrible, terrible, and if you are serious about passing this line, item veto legislation, do not start by putting nonsense like this into the product. I plead with my colleagues not to do so.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my friend, Mr. William Kowalkowski, on being named Person of the Year by Milwaukee's Council of Southside Advancement Associations. Milwaukee's south side has long been a place where people can count on the help and friendship of their neighbors. It is people like William Kowalkowski who have helped to keep this special quality alive in our community. Mr. Kowalkowski, through his many years of community service, has rightfully earned the respect and admiration of those around him. His outstanding work with charitable organizations such as the St. Joseph's Foundation and Polish Relief for Poland has benefitted the less fortunate, and those who were displaced by the upheaval of war. His involvement in numerous civic and cultural organizations such as the Pulaski Council, the Southside Businessmens few, has helped to preserve the rich cultural heritage which make Milwaukee such a wonderful place to live. The list of honors which Mr. Kowalkowski has received is impressive to say the least. Bill has been honored over the years, by numerous State and local organizations such as the Wisconsin Fraternal Congress, the Pulaski Council, and the Southside Businessmens Club. In addition, his outstanding efforts on behalf of Polish-Americans and the people of Poland have earned him recognition by the Government of Poland. In 1975, the Polish Government in exile presented Mr. Kowalkowski with the Gold Cross of Merit. Last year, Kowalkowski received the prestigious Knight's Cross of Merit for Service to the Polish Republic. In addition to his professional and civic achievements, Mr. Kowalkowski and his wife Felicia have raised a family of whom they can be proud. It is very fitting that the Council of Southside Advancement Association, an organization dedicated to the principle of community service, has honored William Kowalkowski as the Person of the Year. Congratulations, Bill, this is an honor that is well deserved!

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I take the floor this morning to expose a caper which will be unfolding later today. A couple days ago I and several of my colleagues went to the Committee on Rules to ask to be made in order a balanced budget amendment which would exempt Social Security. However, the Committee on Rules did not report favorably on that, and will deny us a very clean vote on exempting Social Security from the balanced budget amendment. What they did was produce a sense-of- Congress resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 17, which would exempt Social Security from any bills coming out of committees. Know full well, this is the same mechanism, Mr. Speaker, that we declare National Pickle Week around here, so the Republicans are treating the trust fund for Social Security as if it were National Pickle Week. Know full well, it is becoming very clear to me and other people that the $423 billion surplus that currently is in the trust fund will be on the table once this balanced budget amendment passes. I support the balanced budget amendment, but let us not take that contract we have made with our seniors and destroy it because of this. The end result, Mr. Speaker, is that once this balanced budget amendment goes to the States, it will be defeated.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, Members, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, Members, all this rhetoric this afternoon would not be necessary if, in fact, the Committee on Rules would have adopted the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] or my amendment to the Barton bill which would provide an exclusion from Social Security in the balanced budget amendment. So, all this talk of protection and all the other rhetoric we are hearing, would not have been necessary, but let me quote for my colleagues from some senior citizen organizations which have written to us in the past couple of days. Probably the most respected is the Association of Retired Persons, AARP. They indicated that the House Committee on the Judiciary voted to keep Social Security on the table. To exclude it, according to its chairman, would require us to make spending cuts more sweeping than currently contemplated. This scare tactic is a quote from our chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and it is from a senior citizen group who represents seniors throughout the country who received a news release here from the National Committee to Preserve Social quote: ``This rule shows it's gimmicks as usual. Instead of allowing a simple up and down vote on Social Security, the House instead will vote on the meaningless Flanagan concurrent resolution. Seniors will not be fooled.'' Here is a senior group indicating that. Another senior group did a poll nationally, not of only seniors, but of all Americans, and they indicated that a national poll shows that 80 percent of the voters want Social Security excluded from the balanced budget amendment. So, these are people who are asking us to include it as part of the balanced budget amendment and not this meaningless resolution. What is a sense-of-Congress resolution? As the gentlewoman from Colorado indicated, the way that we made this pickle National Pickle Week was to pass a resolution just like this. So the resolution we are going to vote on shortly has the same effect as making this pickle National Pickle Week. The seniors will not be fooled. That is what the effect is. Does this go into the statutes? No. Does the President sign it? No. I am reminded of the commercial of kids sitting around the table. The leadership looked, and they found out they needed to have this introduced, and they said, ``Let Mikey do it.''

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, over the past years I have supported various versions of the balanced budget amendment. However, I have not been willing to support just any version. After studying all of the proposals that will be coming up next week, I find them deficient in two areas, and I am introducing today an alternative amendment along with the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch]. I should point out it is identical to the contract balanced budget amendment, except for two critical points. First, it excludes the Social Security trust fund, which our Nation's senior citizens depend on. Second, it does not require a three-fifths vote to raise taxes. If the House can vote with a simple majority to declare war or for impeachment of a President, we should be able to set tax policy in the same manner. This resolution creates a prudent and viable balance among fiscal responsibility, majority rule, and our responsibility to our fellow Americans. Please join myself, the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse], and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch], as a cosponsor of this balanced budget resolution.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a Milwaukee woman I have certainly grown to admire and respect over the years, State Senator Gwendolynne S. Moore. In 1992, Senator Moore became the first African-American woman elected to the Wisconsin State Senate. Prior to her election to the Senate, she served two successful terms in the Wisconsin Assembly, representing a district on the north side of the city of Milwaukee. Gwen Moore's deep commitment to her community began long before she won elective office, however. Active in housing issues, Gwen has worked for the city of Milwaukee as a neighborhood development specialist and as a housing officer for the State of Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority [WHEDA]. She continued her fight for safe and affordable housing as a State representative and a member of WHEDA's Board of Directors, where she was instrumental in the development of the ``Heart of Milwaukee,'' an award-winning campaign to increase home ownership in my hometown. Over the years, Senator Moore has been a tireless crusader for the rights of poor women and children. And, as an elected official, she has included money in the State budget for a Milwaukee hospital which serves the uninsured and she has authored drug abatement legislation. For all of the reasons given here and for the many ways she has personally touched the lives of her constituents, and in light of her seemingly endless potential to continue to be a leader in Milwaukee, in Wisconsin, and on a national level, I am pleased to congratulate State Senator Gwen Moore on being named the Wisconsin National Organization for Women [NOW] 1995 Feminist of the Year.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Ms. Sandy Jaskulski, who has been named the 1994 City of St. Francis ``Citizen of the Year''. Ms. Jaskulski was chosen for this honor in recognition of her commitment to family, church, and community. She has been a member of the St. Francis Association of Commerce for the past 14 years and serves on its board of directors. She is a current member of the council of independent managers. She has been an active member of the Cudahy VFW auxiliary for 20 years. In addition, she has been an active volunteer on behalf of the Metro Charitable Foundation, the American Cancer Society, and various activities at the Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Ms. Jaskulski's remarkable contribution to the citizens of the city of St. Francis and in offering to her our sincerest congratulations.