Jerry Kleczka

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Earlier this year, the U.S. Trade Representative announced that the United States would file a World Trade Organization case against the European Union over its 5-year moratorium on approving genetically modified foods. The measure before us today supports the Bush administration's challenge to the EU's longstanding moratorium. The European Union is made up of sovereign countries whose citizens have decided that they would rather not eat genetically modified food. Mr. Speaker, when did the United States acquire the right to tell Europeans what they should be eating? The issue before us is not trade discrimination as the proponents of this bill have argued. The individual EU countries are simply debating whether or not to implement a domestic policy related to genetically modified food which would also be applied to imports. Due to the lack of hard data about the long-term health effects, in the United States there has also been public concern about consuming genetically modified products. According to a Rutgers University Food Policy Institute study, 90 percent of Americans said that foods created through genetic engineering should have labels on them. I am proud to join with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) in his efforts to require the labeling of genetically engineered food. Although there have been few studies devoted to health effects of genetically modified food, some scientists claim that there may be a link between the resurgence of infectious diseases and genetic modifications in the U.S. food supply. There have even been cases of lab animals suffering immune system damage and allergic reactions after eating biotech food. I think that Members would agree that the WTO should not interfere with the creation of domestic law in this Chamber, so I ask Members to apply the same principle to our friends in Europe. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this heavy-handed measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge). (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan). (Mr. RYAN of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, the American flag is a visible symbol of all the freedoms that make our Nation great, and this includes our First Amendment right to express ourselves freely. Our Constitution protects even those forms of speech that others may disagree with or find offensive. It is this very liberty to publicly voice one's opinions and ideas no matter how controversial they may be that distinguishes our great Nation from others. While the desecration of our flag triggers an almost universal reaction of disgust by Americans, we are strong enough as a nation to allow individuals to express themselves in this manner, and stronger still to resist the urge to stamp out free speech that challenges us. By outlawing the expression displayed in desecrating the flag, we would diminish and undermine our flag's value by suppressing the very freedoms that it represents. We must also note that this amendment offers a solution to a problem that simply doesn't exist. Only 45 incidents of flag desecration were reported between 1777 and 1989. Since then, these acts have been very rare. This was particularly noteworthy during the lead-up to the War in Iraq. Despite vehement anti-war sentiment, no groups burned or desecrated the flag during rallies or protests. I fail to see why it is necessary to tinker with the Bill of Rights--the bedrock of our Republic--for the first time in 211 years to outlaw an act that rarely occurs. The United States of America has a long and proud history of protecting the right of free expression for its citizens, and I do not believe that the voice of freedom should be muzzled.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 29, 2003, Siefert Elementary School will be celebrating its 100th Year Anniversary, a historic event in the education of Milwaukee's youth. Originally called Ninth District #1 when its doors were opened in 1903, the school was renamed Siefert Elementary School after Henry O.R. Siefert, who served as principal for 16 years. Siefert retired from Milwaukee Public Schools in 1922 at the age of 82, after serving Milwaukee area students for 63 years in numerous capacities, including teacher, principal and superintendent of the Milwaukee Public School System. Located in the Midtown Neighborhood of Milwaukee, a community with diversity at its core, the school currently serves students from Head Start through 5th grade, and its mission is to ensure that all students reach their academic potential and become responsible, well-rounded citizens. The curriculum trains children to become competent, creative problem solvers, particularly in science and mathematics, and to be familiar with current technological advances. Siefert Elementary challenges its young people, helping them develop the independent thinking skills they will need as they move beyond the halls of this outstanding school. It encourages each student to be an active partner in his or her individualized education program, working to achieve personal excellence in academics, communications, emotional intelligence and life planning in order to become a self-directed, contributing member of society. This Milwaukee Public School begins the process of equipping students with the tools required to function successfully in the global economy of the 21st century. Celebrating 100 years of public education is a testament to how great things can be accomplished when students, teachers, administrators and parents work together. I salute Siefert Elementary efforts, and extend my best wishes for continued success in providing quality education for young people in our community.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, we are not currently at war with another nation and the Cold War has been over for more than a decade. But we alone already spend more on our military than the 21 countries with the next largest defense budgets combined. Our military spending is greater than the total defense budgets, added together, of Russia, China, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Italy, India, South Korea, Brazil, Taiwan, Israel, Spain, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Turkey, Mexico, Kuwait, and the Ukraine. Nonetheless, before us today is a bill, H.R. 1588, FY04 Defense Authorization, that would authorize an increase of $7.6 billion for a total defense budget of $400.5 billion, the highest in this country's history. This legislation authorizes $3.5 billion for the F-22 Raptor, an air superiority fighter designed to fight the Soviet Union. This program has seen continual cost overruns and encountered technical problems, and now represents the most costly jet fighter ever built. However, the other fighters that the F-22 is designed to replace continue to perform admirably and the only countries that possess aircraft that even come close to parity with our existing fighters are our allies in NATO, as well as Russia. Given this program's troubled history, it is likely to balloon in cost even more, and is hardly a bargain for our military and taxpayers. Likewise, the ``Star Wars'' missile defense program also receives a huge boost in this measure, increasing by 17 percent over last year to a total of $9.1 billion. Despite massive spending since the 1980s on this program, a working system has yet to be produced. Furthermore, we live in an age in which those wishing to do us harm would be more likely to smuggle a nuclear device into our country through a port where overworked customs inspectors rarely examine the bulk of arriving cargo. Firing a ballistic missile at the United States is suicide, and any potential enemies know it. The defense authorization measure would also unnecessarily circumvent important environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Department of Defense (DoD) has control over 25 million acres of land that provide habitats for over 300 endangered and threatened species, and portions of this land have been designated for special protection in recognition of the endangered wildlife present. Under the ESA, the DoD works with environmental agencies to provide protection for these species that live within the boundaries of military installations. The bill before us allows DoD to avoid its obligations under the ESA by filing alternative resources management plans. Concerns have already been raised that such plans may be inadequate to protect endangered species, and as a result are currently the subject of court challenges. The bill's sponsors claim that this new provision is necessary to ensure that training is not affected. However, a General Accounting Office (GAO) report last year found no evidence to support the contention that critical habitat designations conflict with military training or other activities. And even if such conflicts were to arise, the Pentagon is already able to obtain national security exemptions from the ESA critical habitat conservation measures. No Secretary of Defense has ever requested such an exemption in the 30 years the law has been in effect. The ESA provision has no place being included in this defense legislation. Lastly, this bill allows DoD to scrap the civil service procedures currently in place to safeguard the rights of 700,000 of its civilian employees. The legislation would allow managers, including Administration political appointees, to change the existing pay scale, the appeals process for employees that disagree with decisions related to their employment, and the right to join a union in some cases. While the Administration claims that it wants these provisions in order to institute more flexible, performance-based pay and personnel policies, last month the GAO's Comptroller General warned that ``moving too quickly or prematurely at DoD or elsewhere can significantly raise the risk of doing it wrong . . .'' The GAO testified that such changes would first require having a ``credible . . . validated performance management system in place with adequate safeguards, including reasonable transparency and appropriate accountability mechanisms to ensure fairness and prevent politicization and abuse.'' GAO said the DoD does not have these safeguards, transparency, or accountability in place. We should not rush to rubber stamp an Administration plan that could lead to favoritism, appointment of political cronies, or discrimination in hiring, tenure, promotion, or other conditions of employment due to an employee's political opinions or affiliation. The defense of our nation is a critical issue to which every Member is committed, and I certainly support increasing military pay, providing quality health care for those who serve and their families, and funding necessary modernization priorities. But this bill contains unnecessary weakening of environmental laws and elimination of worker civil service protections while providing an increase to a military budget besides which already far outpaces all other allies and potential enemies. It would make move to devote increased resources to homeland security to prevent future terrorist attacks than spend more money on weapons systems that are designed to fight Cold War adversaries that no longer exist. Therefore, I must regretfully cast my vote against this legislation.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to honor my friend and former colleague, Justice William A. Bablitch, as he celebrates 35 years of service to the people of Wisconsin. Long known as a vigilant champion of the underprivileged, Justice Bablitch began serving others early in life. At the age of twenty-two, he traveled to Liberia in Western Africa with the Peace Corps, and spent his tour teaching young pupils in a local elementary school. Struck by the conditions that his students endured daily, he returned to his home state impassioned to work on behalf of the public and to study law at the University of Wisconsin. After receiving his Juris Doctorate in 1968, the Justice spent three years as a District Attorney, during the tumultuous times of the student-led Vietnam protests. By working with the administration of the University of Wisconsin--Stevens Point and the Sheriff's Department of Stevens Point, he helped ensure that in the wake of the Kent State Massacre violence or bloodshed did not erupt at UWSP. In 1973, Bill turned his talents to representing the people of Portage County in the Wisconsin State Senate where I had the esteemed pleasure of serving with him. A strong advocate for civil and human rights, Senator Bablitch pushed for legislation reform in discrimination, sexual assault, child abuse, and divorce law. His role as majority leader paved the way for public accessibility to Wisconsin government by creation of Wisconsin's Open Meeting and campaign reform laws. Always a defender of social justice, Justice Bablitch's career has been highlighted by his twenty years in the Wisconsin Supreme Court where he has fought for the protection of consumers, the environment, and a patient's right to know. While away from the office, Bill spends time with his wife, Anne, daughter, Bulleh, and granddaughters, Layteh and Nancy, at his homes in Northern Wisconsin and Hawaii. Whether fly-fishing with family and friends or cooking a meal for them, he has filled the lives of those around him with laughter and happiness. Justice William Bablitch's retirement is certainly well deserved, but his leadership and passion for serving the best interests of Wisconsin citizens will be truly missed. Congratulations, my friend.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, jobs, jobs, jobs. Two years ago the Republicans in Congress passed a tax cut totaling $1.3 trillion, and that bill was to stimulate the economy, create jobs, get this country moving again, $1.3 trillion. And you know what happened? We lost 2 million jobs in this country. So now the Republicans have another way to create jobs and that is another tax cut bill. This one totals about $1 trillion if you add up the true cost of the bill. The problem with that is 70 percent of the benefits are going to go to the richest 5 percent of households in the country. And you do not create jobs by giving rich people capital gains breaks, profits in stocks and bonds or on dividends. That is not going to create jobs. The only thing that this bill is going to stimulate, the only thing that is going to be stimulated with an election next year is campaign contributions to those who support it.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 22, 2003 the Milwaukee community will honor Sr. Joel Read for 35 years of distinctive and dedicated service to Alverno College. A member of the School Sisters of St. Francis and President of Alverno College since 1968, under her leadership, Sr. Joel and Alverno College have gained national and international recognition for their innovation in education. Sr. Joel's commitment and hard work has led to the introduction of Alverno's ability-based curriculum, which has placed Alverno at the forefront of education as a liberal arts college. Her efforts in this area have brought her high honors from other educators. Sr. Joel has been described by her colleagues as someone who has emerged as one of the country's most remarkable leaders in higher education. She is legendary in our community for her passionate spirit and steadfast approach to getting results. So distinguished is her reputation that educational associations across the nation seek Sr. Joel's assistance. She has received numerous local and national awards and recognitions for her dedicated support to higher education, the advancement of women and the development of our communities. Awards and recognitions include: Anne Roe Award, Pope John XXIII Award, Morris T. Keeton Award, Sacajawea Award, Lifetime Leadership Award, Distinguished Service Award, and Outstanding Woman of Achievement--just to name a few. Sr. Joel is actively involved in volunteering her time and talents to various organizations and causes. She is a founder of the Milwaukee Achiever Program, has served with the Goals for Milwaukee 2000 Task Force, the United Way of Greater Milwaukee, and the Mayor's Beautification Committee and was appointed by the Governor to the Wisconsin National and Community Service Board. Currently, she serves as a board member in several organizations, including the Greater Milwaukee Committee, Junior Achievement of Wisconsin, and the YMCA. I congratulate Sr. Joel for 35 years of visionary leadership and devotion to Alverno College and to women in higher education. Her significant contributions have broken educational ground and have placed Alverno College on the map as a national and international leader in education. May God continue to bless her in her retirement, and as she takes on new challenges within the community.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month it came to light that a limited number of companies were invited to bid on post-war reconstruction contracts in Iraq. Most prominently, Bechtel, an engineering and construction firm, was awarded an initial contract of $34.6 million that could potentially grow to $680 million over the next year and a half. It is critical that openness and transparency are the hallmarks of the reconstruction process, and for that reason, I am introducing the ``Sunshine in Iraq Reconstruction Contracting Act.'' Although legal, the bidding process thus far leaves much to be desired. Left unanswered are questions about why open competition was not allowed, and the size and scope of the reconstruction contracts awarded. We should all be able to agree that the U.S. government's reconstruction bidding process should be as open to disclosure as possible to ensure that there is no question of political favoritism or backroom deal making. After all, these contracts are spending hard- earned taxpayer dollars, and our constituents deserve to know to whom their money is going and why. My legislation, which mirrors a bipartisan Senate measure, simply requires federal agencies that award contracts for Iraqi reconstruction activities to publicly disclose how a non-competitive contract was awarded, and the justification for foregoing an open-bid process. These details, along with a brief description of the contract's cost and scope, would have to be published in the Federal Register within 30 days of the date the contract was awarded. Any classified information would only be provided to the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Government Reform Committees, as well as whichever committee has jurisdiction over an agency that awards a non-competitive contract. It only makes it more difficult for the United States to hold ourselves up as a model for a future Iraqi government if the contracts the federal government awards are done with little or no competition and without adequate public disclosure. The Iraq reconstruction process should be as open as possible. This is not a partisan issue, but one that concerns the public interest and American credibility. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this measure.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, for the fourth consecutive session of Congress, I am introducing the Personal Information Privacy Act (PIPA), which would help restore individuals' control over the use of their Social Security numbers and personal information. Over the years, the Social Security number (SSN) has unfortunately become a de facto national identifier. SSNs are required to receive a driver's license from every state, and many companies require consumers to provide their SSN as a condition of doing business. This means that should one's SSN fall into the wrong hands, it can be used to steal one's identity, run up thousands of dollars of false charges in your name, and wreak havoc on your credit history. The issue of identity theft has grown to be the largest single complaint received by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and curbing the rampant use of the SSN--``the key to identity theft''--is paramount in reducing identity theft and restoring citizens' ability to protect their personal information. Under this legislation, PIPA, businesses would be prohibited from refusing to sell goods or services to individuals that do not want to provide their SSN. Furthermore, without written consent, one's SSN could not be used for commercial purposes or used as an identifier. Neither could information on products or services bought by an individual and where they were purchased--known as transaction histories--be sold to third parties. Lastly, individuals would be permitted to seek redress for violations of this measure in civil courts, with the statute of limitations beginning to toll three years after the offense was discovered. PIPA would also establish penalties for the use of Social Security numbers without a consumer's consent of up to $25,000 for a single offense, and up to $500,000 for repeated violations. Any victim of identity theft could tell you the difficulty of restoring one's credit and good name. Identity theft is on the rise, and topped the FTC's consumer fraud list for the third year in a row. Unless action is taken to curb the widespread use of SSNs as identifiers or as a condition of doing business, this crime will continue to harm increasing numbers of our citizens. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation, and give Americans the ability to better safeguard themselves from identity theft.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, May 4, 2003, the Pulaski Council of Milwaukee will be honoring John Walloch, President of Polish Heritage Alliance, at its twenty-third Heritage Award Dinner. Mr. Walloch's ties in our Polish community run deep. The proud son of Leonard and Helen Walloch, John grew up on Milwaukee's southside where he graduated from my alma mater, Don Bosco High School. Following his time at Don Bosco, he entered the Milwaukee Institute of Mortuary Science and graduated in 1961 with certification as both a Funeral Director and Embalmer. With the assistance of his parents, he opened the John J. Walloch Funeral Home in 1966 and has been overseeing its operations ever since. Despite his hectic professional schedule, John has always found time to serve his fellow Milwaukeeans. He has previously held leadership roles for the South Side Business Club and Xaverian Missionary Fathers Advisory Board, and is currently a member of St. Joseph's Foundation, the Knights of Columbus, St. Alexander's, and St. Roman's Parishes. For many years, John has also played an important role in the Polish- American community in the Milwaukee area. He is an active member, and past president, of the Milwaukee Society of Polish National Alliance, a fraternal Polish-Americans organization. In 2002, he assumed the presidency of the Polish Heritage Alliance. Under John's leadership, the Polish Heritage Alliance has continued to gain notoriety as the directing organization for Milwaukee's famous Polish Fest, America's largest Polish Festival. During each visit to the festival, attendees are sure to see him dancing the polka while donning a red czapka. John, the avid outdoorsman, likes to spend his ``free time'' boating, hiking and entertaining friends and his two daughters, Linda and Christi, and his son, Jason, at his recently refurbished second home on Elkhart Lake. In the past years, John has been collecting stamps in his passport, and had the opportunity to visit the homeland of his ancestors, Poland. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I extend my congratulations to John Walloch for his exemplary work in the Polish-American community. May he continue to be blessed with happiness and success for years to come. Sto Lat!

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, today Congressman Camp and I are introducing legislation, the Medicare Renal Dialysis Payment Fairness Act of 2003, which would require the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to create and implement by January 2004 an annual updating mechanism for dialysis reimbursement under Medicare. While the Medicare program pays for about 75 percent of dialysis care, there is currently no mechanism to update the reimbursement to account for inflation, new technology, labor, and other cost increases. In fact, the dialysis reimbursement is the only Medicare prospective payment system that does not have an updating framework. As a result, in their March 2003 Report to Congress, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) states that Medicare is on average paying three percent less than the cost of a dialysis treatment. This payment disparity is even greater for small and rural dialysis facilities, which experience about an 11 percent payment shortfall per treatment. A primary concern about this underfunding is the inability of dialysis facilities to compete with other providers--who do receive annual updates--for nurses and other health care workers. According to a study completed by Abt Associates, a dialysis center in Baltimore, Maryland is only able to pay $25.75 per hour while the local hospital has the resources to pay $35.00 per hour. Similarly, in northern California, a dialysis center pays staff $32.00 per hour while the hospital pays $40 per hour. Across the nation, nursing salaries have increased an average of 27 percent (from $23,140 to $31,720) from 1992 to 2002. It has become more and more difficult for the renal community to keep up with these rising labor costs and recruit and retain trained staff for dialysis facilities when other providers have the capabilities to pay higher salaries. Even more importantly, reports show that low reimbursement rates have started to create access to care problems for Medicare end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. In 2001, on average 77 percent of patients treated at renal facilities were Medicare beneficiaries. However, among the dialysis facilities that closed in 2001, Medicare beneficiaries comprised 88 percent of patients. This evidence indicates the economic challenge that dialysis centers face in treating Medicare beneficiaries. I am pleased that this legislation is supported by the Renal Leadership Council and the National Kidney Foundation. Mr. Speaker, providing for an inflationary annual update would allow the Secretary of HHS to make appropriate, data-driven decisions each year on fair dialysis payment rates. We must ensure that dialysis care for Medicare beneficiaries is not jeopardized due to inadequate reimbursement. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this important legislation.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker; thousands of former servicemen and servicewomen in five states are currently prohibited from receiving state-financed home mortgages backed by the sale of federally tax- exempt bonds. That is why Congressman Herger and I, along with 36 of our colleagues, are introducing the Veterans American Dream Homeownership Assistance Act. This legislation is similar to bills we introduced in the 104th, 105th, 106th, and 107th Congresses. In order to help veterans own a home, Congress created a program where states could issue bonds exempt from federal income tax in order to raise funds to finance mortgages for owner-occupied residences. Five states--Wisconsin, Alaska, Oregon, California, and Texas--implemented such a program for their veterans. Under a little-known provision in the 1984 tax bill, Congress limited the veterans eligible for this program to those who began military service before 1977. As a result of the 1984 tax bill, veterans who entered military service after January 1, 1977 are prohibited from receiving a low- interest mortgage financed by federal tax-exempt bonds. This means veterans who served honorably in Panama, Grenada, the Gulf War, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and now Iraq cannot benefit from this partnership between the federal government and these five states. Are those who began serving our country after January 1, 1977 any less deserving than those who served before? This arbitrary cutoff was created to raise additional revenue in the 1984 tax bill by limiting the issuance of tax-exempt bonds. When this provision was enacted, post-1976 veterans were a small percentage of all veterans, without much voice to protest this discriminatory change. But, over two decades later, there are thousands of veterans who have served our nation honorably. Mr. Speaker, as time goes by, this legislation takes on increasing importance. The State of Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs has informed me that if the cap on veterans bonds is not lifted, the State will be forced to disband the program because too few veterans are eligible for the program. This legislation would simply eliminate the cutoff that exists under current law. Under our proposal, former servicemen and servicewomen in the five states who served our country beginning before or after January 1, 1977 will be eligible to qualify for a low cost mortgage financed by federal tax-exempt bonds. This legislation does not increase federal discretionary spending by 1 cent. It simply allows the five states that have a mortgage finance program for their veterans to provide mortgages to all veterans regardless of when they served in the military. There is no justification to allow some veterans to qualify for these home mortgages while others cannot. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to help those veterans who have served after January 1, 1977 to own a home and pass this important legislation into law.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, millions of disabled Americans must rely on government disability checks or support from family members in order to get by. For many of these men and women, the prospect of being employed outside the home seems out of reach because the costs associated with working are simply too daunting. For example, in order to work, an individual who uses a wheelchair might need to hire a personal attendant to provide transportation to and from the job site. Such persons might also need assistance with cleaning, cooking, and other daily tasks that they are unable to perform independently and, without which, they could not be gainfully employed outside the home. In many cases, the amount of money that a disabled worker would have to spend on these essential services is substantial. And if a significant portion of the worker's earnings would be spent on paying for such expenses, the disabled individual might elect to stay home-- absent some additional financial incentive. Unfortunately, not only do these individuals fail to benefit from all that employment could offer, but society as a whole never realizes the enormous contributions they might have made if given the right opportunities. Disabled workers possess a myriad of talents and skills that could be of tremendous value to the business community and provide a boost to the U.S. economy. Today, I am introducing the Disabled Workers Empowerment Act, which would expand upon an existing provision in the tax code in order to make it easier for disabled persons to enter the workforce. Current law allows a limited deduction for disabled workers' expenses, but this deduction is strictly limited to expenses incurred at the workplace or for work performed at home. Moreover, it can be claimed only by individuals who itemize expenses on their tax return. My bill would expand the types of expenses that could be deducted as work-related and permit a deduction regardless of whether or not the taxpayer itemizes expenses. Specifically, expenses incurred away from the job site (such as paying an attendant to provide transportation to and from work or perform domestic and personal care services at home) would be deductible as long as such expenses were incurred because of the individual's disabilities. In this way, the bill reflects the real- life costs that disabled workers face on a daily basis. Finally, the amount that could be deducted for any taxable year would be no more than the disabled worker's earned income. By tying this new tax benefit to income generated from work, the deduction would serve as an incentive for disabled individuals to engage in employment that is both personally fulfilling and creates financial independence. The Disabled Workers Empowerment Act would open the door to employment for millions of disabled Americans, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this measure.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us provides the additional funds required for the ongoing war in Iraq. $62 billion will help provide the supplies, munitions, weapons, intelligence, and logistics that are critical to those in combat at this time. I support our brave troops, and urge my colleagues to do the same. Congress must ensure that our fighting men and women are provided with every resource they need to accomplish their mission and return home quickly and safely. As I cast my vote in favor of this measure, however, I note that there is $1 billion in foreign aid for Turkey. The Administration argues that we need to offer this aid because of the depressed economy there. I voted to strike this aid, since it makes no sense to provide a billion dollars to a nation that did not even allow our troops access to their soil for this operation. Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated. Further, as I support this measure, I would hope that Congress is equally generous when addressing the challenges that we face right here on the home front. For instance, our economy is in worse shape than Turkey's, having steadily declined for the last two years and with job losses in my district and across the nation continuing to mount. But somehow we have no funds to provide extended unemployment benefits for the 1 million in our country who have been out of work for more than 39 weeks. Additionally, seniors need a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, and families have contacted me to ask what can be done about skyrocketing healthcare costs. We also must ensure that federal commitments in education and healthcare are met, and that our homeland security is strong and our first responders equipped and prepared. Here at home we have needs that also could use this additional funding that we have provided to other nations through this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I support our men and women in uniform and pray for their quick and safe return. We must give them everything they need to accomplish their mission. I just hope that later on, this Congress will remember what it gave for Turkey's economy when it comes time to vote on providing extended benefits to the many still unemployed right here at home. With this in mind, I urge my colleagues to support passage of this Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations bill.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, today I announce the retirement of a great friend of labor, Tom Lesch. Over the years, the machinists of Wisconsin have had no greater an advocate than Tom. For four decades, he has ably served in one capacity or another as a committed member and leader of Local Lodge 2110 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW). Mr. Lesch started his union career as Local Lodge President, Recording Secretary, and Shop Committee Chair representing workers at Geuder, Paschke and Frey. In 1976, he became a Business Representative with District 10 of IAMAW, AFL-CIO, and he was named Assistant Director in 1981, rising to Director in 1994. In addition to Tom's active involvement in Local 2110, he holds the distinction of having been a leader at all levels of the labor movement. Tom has been the stalwart head of the union's state organization for over two decades. He is currently the President of the Wisconsin State Council of Machinists, a position he has held since 1982. Prior to that, he served as Financial Secretary to the Council. Active at the county level as well, he served on the Milwaukee County Labor Council Board for 13 years until leaving in 1994. And even with all he has been doing these days, Tom has also taken up the cause for workers across the nation, maintaining a position on the AFL-CIO Executive Board and Executive Committee. Tom has served on the boards of many other worthy community and labor organizations over the years, including the Red Cross, the United Way Labor Cabinet, Guide Dogs of America, and the Wisconsin Labor- Management Council, just to name a few. But most recently, he has been the driving force behind a broad labor-management effort to come up with possible solutions to the critical problem of rising healthcare costs in our state. His personal involvement in spearheading this initiative can, in large part, be credited for the productive dialogue and progress they've made. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join with me in thanking Tom Lesch for his tenacity and willingness to hold out for the rights and living standards of the people he represented. His leadership was felt by all, and has left its mark on the ongoing struggle for the cause of working men and women. Along with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and the entire Wisconsin labor community, I wish him a long, healthful, and well-deserved retirement.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Marquette University men's basketball team for their sensational season this year, one that will not soon be forgotten. With Coach Tom Crean at the helm and players like Dwayne Wade, Travis Diener, Robert Jackson and Steve Novak patrolling the hardwood, Marquette has enjoyed a remarkable year and has earned a well-deserved berth in the NCAA Final Four. Now that the Golden Eagles have a chance to win their first championship since 1977, when Al McGuire was coaching them and the team was named the Warriors, only the Kansas Jayhawks stand in their way of reaching the title game. To demonstrate my utmost confidence in Marquette, Mr. Speaker, I made a friendly wager with the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) that the Golden Eagles will beat the Jayhawks in the national semifinals. I am putting Wisconsin bratwurst, an assortment of Wisconsin's finest cheeses and a case of Milwaukee-brewed Sprecher root beer on the line. It is too bad my friend from Kansas will not get the opportunity to enjoy them, for I look forward to a wonderful feast of his two slabs of Kansas pork ribs and a jug of Kansas barbecue sauce when Marquette knocks off Kansas to advance to the national championship game. Mr. Speaker and Members, I join with the entire Marquette community in wishing the Golden Eagles Godspeed and a great victory this Saturday.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, today Congressman Stark and I are reintroducing legislation, the Hospital Investment Act, sponsored initially in the 107th Congress, to address serious concerns about conflicts-of-interest raised by specialty or so-called ``boutique'' hospitals with physician-investor ownership arrangements. Across the nation, there is a tremendous growth of boutique hospital construction. In the Milwaukee-area alone, there are three boutique heart hospitals under development. These facilities are not typical, general hospitals, which are prepared to meet the wide variety of health needs within a community. Instead, these entities specialize in one area of procedures, such as cardiac care or orthopedic surgery, that is high-volume and high-profit to these investor-owned facilities. One major consideration with the proliferation of these boutique hospitals is the issue of self-referral, in which doctors send their patients to facilities where they have a preferential financial ownership stake. Current federal law forbids a physician from referring patients to health facilities--such as clinical laboratories, physical therapy groups, and radiology centers--in which he or she stands to financially benefit. These Stark I and Stark II laws did provide one exception that allows physicians to self-refer patients to hospitals, as long as it is a ``whole hospital'' and not just a particular department or clinic within the facility. Since whole hospitals provide such a wide array of health services, there was minimal risk of conflict-of-interest. Unfortunately, this exception has become a loophole by which physicians can legally refer patients to freestanding boutique hospitals where they have a direct personal financial interest. Typically, stakes in these boutique hospital ventures are marketed exclusively to doctors in a position to refer patients to the facility. This preferential interest creates an inducement for investor- physicians to overutilize services and base treatment decisions on profits rather than the medical needs of the patient. As we have seen in the past, these arrangements invariably lead to increased health care spending without necessarily increased quality of patient care. This is exactly the scenario that the Stark laws were designed to prevent. Boutique hospitals also rob full-service community hospitals of their most profitable lines of business, leaving them to struggle to stay afloat financially. Without the high-profit surgical units to cross- subsidize the other less-profitable--but equally important--services like emergency and burn care, these hospitals will have to turn increasingly to the federal government as well as their local communities for financial assistance. Medicare, Medicaid, and other important programs, which are already stretched thin, should not be forced to take on this additional burden because these joint ventures are skimming off large profits for their investors. The Hospital Investment Act of 2003 would close this loophole by prohibiting preferential hospital ownership terms for physicians. Under this legislation, physicians could continue to refer patients to joint ventures and specialty hospitals, but only if their ownership or investment interest is purchased on terms also available to the general public at the time. This would ensure that stock purchases are not a result of a special deal available only to physicians that gives them a preferential share of the profits. Physicians and facilities found in violation of this act would be subject to a civil monetary penalty of up to $15,000 per prohibited referral plus twice the amount billed for the referred service. In cases where there was an arrangement or scheme to refer patients to facilities owned by the physician, penalties could be as high as $100,000 and twice the amount billed for referred services. Also, the physician and specialty hospital would be denied participation in the Medicare program. Mr. Speaker, we must close the loophole in the Medicare physician self-referral laws and halt this trend that threatens the sustainability of our local community hospitals. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this important legislation.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 76, I wish to be recorded as voting ``yea.'' Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''