Jerry Kleczka

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, at a time when our federal budget faces huge deficits and we are engaged in a large military campaign halfway around the globe, now is not the time to slash taxes. Never in the history of our country have we fought a major war and cut taxes at the same time. Yet that is exactly what the Republican budget resolution does. These serious times demand that we act prudently, and that means we must pass a budget that meets our financial obligations. The Republican budget makes permanent the $1.35 trillion tax cut passed in 2001, at a cost of $523 billion. It also implements the $694 billion ``Growth'' bill, the centerpiece of which is the elimination of the dividend tax. This plan will fail to spark an economic turnaround because it applies to only 25% of the population and less than 5% of the benefits take place this year when the economy needs it the most. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, a similar tax cut proposed by the Administration would add $2.2 trillion in deficits over the next 5 years. Because the first priority of the Republican budget is to cut taxes, programs dedicated to health care, education, and the environment suffer drastic cuts. To make room for tax cuts, at least $265 billion over ten years is slashed from programs like veterans' benefits, loans for college students, school lunch programs, and Medicaid. Most concerning is that we really don't know how much the military operations and our occupation of Iraq will cost, but we do know that the U.S. alone will carry the tremendous burden of that responsibility. Estimates vary widely, and the lowest, most optimistic figure is $80 billion. With that enormous figure added to this year's deficit of $304 billion, common sense dictates that we refrain from additional tax cuts and return fiscal sanity to the budget process. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic budget alternative, which offers a sound, practical way to stimulate economic activity while paying down the debt and saving critical social programs. The Democratic proposal includes $136 billion in tax cuts and targeted investments this year. At less than one-sixth the cost of the Republican ``Growth'' bill, the plan allows the budget to recover while giving the economy the immediate boost it so desperately needs. The Democratic alternative ensures that critical social services will continue to be provided at their current levels by restoring the cuts made in the Republican Resolution. It also provides $528 billion in new money for a Medicare prescription drug benefit, while the Republican proposal only offers $128 billion. The Democratic measure allocates $34 billion more for homeland security and $60 billion more for education over the next ten years, adds $10 billion more to help working families with child care over five years, and protects funding for Low Income Heating Energy Assistance Program, Women Infants and Children Nutrition, housing programs and other important initiatives. If we pass another round of irresponsibly large tax cuts, government deficits will spiral out of control, especially as war increases our overall spending. We cannot saddle our children and grandchildren with this debt--we must decide now to adhere to the principals of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I back this resolution because of my complete support and admiration of the brave men and women in our armed services. Each of us owes a debt of gratitude to these selfless individuals who have put themselves in harm's way in service of our Nation. Like many of my fellow Americans, I still disagree with the process that brought us to this juncture and my vote here does not represent any change in that belief. But I pray for a quick end to this conflict and for the safe return of all of our men and women in uniform.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. MR. Speaker, On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Men's Basketball team qualified for the NCAA tournament by defeating the Butler University Bulldogs. The Panthers (24-7) are making their first-ever appearance in the NCAA Tournament, and gained an automatic berth into the field with a 69-52 win over Butler in the championship game of the Horizon League Tournament. UWM will be seeded number 12 in the West Region of the NCAA Tournament. This outstanding achievement is a proud moment for the university, alumni, students, and the community. I would like to join with the UWM family in recognizing this enormous accomplishment, and it's with great pride that I offer my congratulations and applaud their efforts. Tournament MVP Clay Tucker scored a game-high 23 points in leading the No. 2 seed University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee over No. 1 seed Butler University in the championship game. He also had team-high eight rebounds to go with game-bests in assists (4), steals (4), and blocks (2). UWM's Head Basketball Coach Bruce Pearl coaching talents have been recognized nationally. In the May 1999 issue of Sport Magazine, Coach Pearl was listed as one of the ``Five Head Coaches on the Rise,'' placing him in a group with Paul Hewitt (Georgia Tech), Mike Brey (Notre Dame), and Buzz Peterson (Tennessee). Before coming to coach the UWM Panthers, Coach Pearl ended 14 years as an assistant at the University of Iowa. Prior to coaching at Iowa, he was an assistant coach at Stanford, and, at the age of 23, was promoted to Associate Head Coach at Stanford. Bruce Pearl helped lay the groundwork for the resurgence in men's basketball at Stanford. So, I am pleased to join with the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee to recognize the Men's Basketball Team for their notable play and excitement for the community at large and the State of Wisconsin.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, today Congresswoman Wilson and I are introducing the Medicaid Safety Net Improvement Act of 2003. This important legislation would increase the allowed federal Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) allotment in ``extremely low- DSH'' states from one percent to three percent of Medicaid program costs. In the mid-1980s, Congress established the Medicaid DSH program to provide additional funds to certain hospitals that deliver a disproportionate share of health care services to low-income patients, including Medicaid recipients and the uninsured. By providing financial relief to these facilities, this program ensures that all Americans-- regardless of ability to pay--have access to critical hospital care. Unfortunately, due to limitations imposed by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) and the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA), there are significant inequities in how these funds are distributed among states. For 18 states, including the State of Wisconsin, the federal DSH allotments are not allowed to exceed one percent of the state's Medicaid program costs. The average state spends about eight percent of its Medicaid funding on DSH. This bipartisan legislation would address this inequity by raising the share of federal funds to extremely low-DSH states. The 18 states that would benefit from this proposal include: Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. It is important to note that this bill would not redistribute or reduce the federal DSH allotments in other states. The Medicaid DSH program plays a tremendous role in the survival of the safety net that serves our most vulnerable populations, particularly the rising number of uninsured Americans, which at last count stands at nearly 42 million. For many hospital facilities, Medicaid DSH is the main reason they are able to keep their doors open. Providing an increase to three percent of Medicaid spending in the allowable DSH allotment would do a great deal to help these low-DSH states support low-income medical care. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this important legislation.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing a bill to revoke the federal charter that was to the Retired Enlisted Association (TREA) in 1992. TREA is an organization that has repeatedly targeted seniors with ``notch'' mailings that are deceptive, false, and designed to extort money from elderly persons, many of whom live on limited incomes. The term ``notch'' refers to the difference in Social Security benefits paid to individuals born before 1917 versus those born between 1917 and 1921. This discrepancy arose because of a law enacted in 1972 providing automatic cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security recipients. However, the formula used to compute these annual increases was significantly flawed, causing benefits to rise faster than the rate of inflation. In 1977, Congress corrected this defective formula (thereby reducing benefit levels) in order to prevent Social Security payments from skyrocketing. Had such revision not been made, many future beneficiaries would have received Social Security checks that were larger than their pre-retirement earnings. Moreover, the entire system would have become insolvent within 3 or 4 years. The National Academy of Social Insurance, the General Accounting Office, the Social Security Administration, and the Congressionally- appointed Social Security Notch Commission have since concluded that the 1977 benefit changes were urgently needed and that Social Security beneficiaries born during the notch period are receiving correct benefit amounts. They also found that increasing benefits for ``notch babies'' would not only be unjustified, but would unnecessarily jeopardize the financial stability of the Social Security system. Yet, despite these conclusive findings, TREA currently operates a multi-million dollar fundraising scheme based on the notch issue. This group tells seniors it is working hard to correct a notch ``problem'' that doesn't exist in an attempt to scam seniors out of their hard- earned money. Under the guise of advocating for legislative reform, TREA collected over $46 million from seniors over four years (1997 to 2000), and its moneymaking campaign continues. In addition, the tactics used by TREA to solicit money from elderly individuals are deplorable. Included among TREA's numerous deceptive mailings are official-looking notch identification cards and registration forms that give the mistaken impression that this group has the authority to handle the distribution of Social Security benefits, TREA also sends solicitations containing replicas of Social Security checks, thereby reinforcing this image. Perhaps the most disturbing, the group's fundraising efforts have even included mailings that ask seniors to redraft their wills to make TREA a beneficiary. In order to stop the exploitation of America's seniors, I am reintroducing a bill that would revoke the federal charter granted to TREA in 1992. While Congress rarely revisits a former charter decision, this group's persistent pattern of fleecing seniors clearly warrants such a step. Federal charters are prestigious distinctions awarded to organizations with a patriotic, charitable, or educational purpose. Although intended as an honorific title, a federal charter implies government support for such organizations. Misleading America's seniors clearly violates the high standards held for chartered groups. Moreover, allowing TREA to maintain its charter would send a signal to the American public that Congress condones such behavior. Six bipartisan members of the House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee have joined me today in support of this legislation- including Chairman Shaw and Ranking Member Matsui. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this measure.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, today I am again introducing legislation, the Veterans Medication Accessibility Act, which would permit veterans to obtain prescription medications from Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals using prescriptions written by their family doctor. This legislation is identical to H.R. 1717, a bill I introduced in the last Congress. Our nation's veterans are eligible to receive health care at VA facilities for illnesses and injuries that are not only service-related but also those incurred after their service. Because the VA acknowledges that some veterans have more severe ailments, a veteran is placed in one of seven priority categories when seeking care. Those with serious service-connected disabilities are placed in a high priority category while those in generally good health and with income exceeding a certain amount are placed in a lower priority group for scheduling of care. Currently, those veterans that do not have service-connected injuries and whose income is above the level that makes them eligible for free care may fill their prescriptions at VA facilities for the low cost of $7 per prescription per 30-day supply. However, in order to obtain these medicates from the VA, these veterans must first receive an outpatient visit with a VA physician. While I have heard from many veterans who are eager to take advantage of reduced-cost medications, many are not disabled, poor, and do not suffer from a service-connected ailment, which means they must often wait from several months to over a year for their requisite outpatient visit. This places an unnecessary financial burden on our veterans who must pay retail prices to fill their prescriptions while they wait to see a VA primary care physician. This policy can also impose a health burden, as this long wait may discourage veterans from seeking VA medication treatment altogether. My legislation would allow veterans immediate access to needed medications by allowing them to fill prescriptions written by their family doctor at the VA. This change would provide our veterans with timely access to low-cost prescription drugs while also reducing the number of outpatient visits that VA physicians must perform each year. VA facilities would then be able to devote more time and care to those veterans who require inpatient services. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation to give our nation's veterans prompt access to the prescription medications that they need and have earned.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, our Nation's economy has hit an extraordinary low. Since January 2001, 1.7 million jobs have been lost and unemployment stands at the highest rate in 8 years. Estimates show that 8.6 million Americans are actively searching for work, but unable to find it. In my State of Wisconsin, we are experiencing a 5.4 percent unemployment rate. Over 42,000 people from the area I represent are out of work. In times like this, our Nation's social safety net must be extended, not retracted. Welfare rolls may have dropped, but poverty and hardship have not. The success in the welfare reform bill that my Republican colleagues point to is an illusion. Our economic landscape is much different than it was during the welfare debate of the late 1990s. Then jobs were plentiful; today, they are not. Now welfare reform will be put to the test. Instead of providing poor individuals with appropriate skills, training and education, the Republican welfare reform bill goes in a complete opposite direction. H.R. 4 significantly reduces the ability of States to get individuals into innovative training and education programs. Under the bill, welfare recipients must work 40 hours per week. The first 24 must involve so-called direct work activities. Vocational training would be removed from the list of core activities counting for the 24-hour requirement. This eliminates the capability for individuals to spend the necessary time developing skills through education. Instead, they are forced to find jobs, if they are available, such as in fast food restaurants, dry cleaners and custodial work. This type of work offers no chance for advancement, no benefits and no decent wage to support a family. Evidence shows that an overwhelming obstacle to work for parents is lack of affordable child care. The Republican welfare bill grossly underestimates funds for needed child care services. If a parent must expand the work hours, as is mandated under this legislation, the least we can do is give them access to child care. In comparison, the Democratic substitute addresses the reality welfare families face in time of a recession. Our bill would allow welfare recipients to get vocational and education training as part of their work requirement. This includes obtaining a GED or taking English as a second language in classes. The Democratic substitute also commits an additional $11 billion for child care over the next 5 years. Providing child care is the only way that parents will be able to get work. Mr. Chairman, what we need today is a meaningful reform bill that will create the incentive to work and not the approach advocated by my Republican colleagues. I urge Members to support the Cardin substitute.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation, in conjunction with my colleague Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, that would require financial institutions to notify customers if their personal information was compromised as a result of employee misconduct or computer hacking. This legislation, the Identity Theft Consumer Notification Act, was also offered in the last Congress. Identity theft complaints have nearly doubled over the last year, and this is the third straight year this crime has topped the Federal Trade Commission's consumer fraud list. Last fall, the FBI broke up the largest identity theft ring in U.S. history, with more than 30,000 consumers' information having been stolen. In our home state of Wisconsin, it was revealed last year that a local bank had discovered that hundreds of its customers' information had been stolen in September 2001, yet none of the victims were notified until May of 2002, eight months later. This is completely unacceptable, as any victim of this crime will tell you of the lengthy and expensive process of restoring one's credit history after his or her identity has been hijacked. Unfortunately, there is nothing in existing law that compels banks or other financial institutions to contact their customers if it is discovered that their information was stolen from one of these businesses. In addition to requiring financial institutions to promptly notify victims if their personal information has been compromised, this legislation would also have banks assist the customer in repairing his or her credit report, and reimburse them for any losses incurred. It would ensure that the annual privacy notices to financial institution customers required by Gramm-Leach-Bliley include the bank's obligation to carry out these duties. Lastly, the bill would specify that the two- year statute of limitations on seeking civil damages begins to toll at the time the crime is discovered by the victim, rather than at the time the crime took place. It is only common sense that consumers receive timely information from the businesses that they have entrusted their personal data, should they fall victim to identity theft. This bill would give consumers confidence that they will quickly learn if their information has been compromised, and that they will receive the necessary assistance to repair the damage done. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this measure.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I sat here and listened in amazement as my Republican colleagues came crying crocodile tears for the poor unemployed who lost their benefits as of December 28. As I recall, back before we adjourned in November the Senate sent an identical bill over here, but the Republican House leadership chose not to take it up and instead went home; so the House Republicans created this situation which now they decry as the poor unemployed workers, something that they actually caused. But the problem even after we pass this bill is that they are forgetting about in excess of 1 million people whose benefits have expired that we could extend for another 13 weeks, knowing full well that the money is there. If this country has $674 billion in additional tax cuts for people other than these unemployed, surely we have a couple of billion for the million unemployed workers and their families who get no money today. So we are saying that the bill before us is incomplete. Add the rest of the people who are hurting and we have done a better job. Yes, we can do that in 2 seconds. The Senate will adopt it unanimously, and the President can sign it tomorrow.

Mr. KLECZKA. The gentlewoman from Washington is correct, Mr. Speaker, 37,000 people from Wisconsin will benefit under the bill, 37,000 that they cut off because we went home. However, let us worry about the other 22,000 who have been let go. I represent the City of Milwaukee, and I bet the bulk of those people come from the City of Milwaukee and have no income today. So yes, I am with them on the 37,000, but why are they shafting the 22,000 who get nothing under this bill?

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, October 26, 2002 the Milwaukee Community will join together to celebrate Ms. Mattibelle Woods' 100th birthday and honor her for over 50 years of journalistic excellence serving the Milwaukee community. Mattiebelle Woods was born and raised in Milwaukee and has spent more than 50 years as a newspaper columnist and community activist. Ms. Woods has served as an icon for an array of people across socioeconomic lines and professions with a lifetime commitment and dedication to improving the quality of life for citizens in the Milwaukee community. Her distinguished professional career has taken her to the top of her craft with assignments to the Milwaukee Globe, The Chicago Defender, The Milwaukee Star, Jet Magazine and currently the Milwaukee Courier. She still remains active in the community and has been gainfully employed for almost a century. Currently Mattiebelle has a weekly column in the Milwaukee Courier newspaper, `Mattibelle's Party Line.' Legendary is her community involvement where she has played an active role in the March of Dimes, The United Way, The NAACP, the United Negro College Fund, the Urban League, and numerous other endeavors including the political arena. Ms. Woods was the Founder and Director of Miss Black Teen-Wisconsin, Miss Bronze Milwaukee and Ten Best Dressed Black Women in Wisconsin. Numerous awards and recognitions she has received which include: Black Female Pioneer Award, Quality of Life Award, Status of Women Service Award, African-American Ancestry Award, Outstanding Woman in Wisconsin Journalism, and NAACP Presidential Award. So it is with great pride that I congratulate Mattiebelle Woods, not only for her 50 years of community public relations and social affairs, but also for a lifetime of service to the Milwaukee community, and on her 100th birthday celebration. Happy Birthday!

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, although we all know this war resolution will pass, I nevertheless must question the wisdom and morality of an unprovoked attack on another foreign nation. The guiding principle of our foreign policy for over 50 years has been one of containment and deterrence. This is the same strategy that kept the former Soviet Union in check, a power whose possession of weapons of mass destruction had been proven and not speculated, and in fact led to its downfall. The administration asserts that this time-tested policy is not sufficient to deal with this, yes, dangerous but small, economically weakened Middle Eastern nation. Instead, they support a new policy of a unilateral preemptive attack against Iraq, citing the unproven possibility that Saddam Hussein might be a risk to the security of the United States. The long-term effects of this go-it-alone, shoot-first policy will be to lose the high moral ground we have exercised in the past to deter other nations from attacking militarily when they felt their security was at stake. The next time Pakistani and Indian troops mass at their borders with both nations' fingers on nuclear triggers, what moral authority will we have to prevent a potential catastrophe? They would justifiably ignore our pleas for diplomatic or negotiated approaches and instead simply follow our lead. The administration continues to assert that Iraq is an urgent threat to our national security and that we are at risk of an Iraqi surprise attack. But the resolution before us offers no substantiation of these allegations, speaking only of hunches, probabilities, and suspicions. That is not sufficient justification to start a war. Further, there is reference to the 9/11 terrorism we suffered and the assertion that members of al Qaeda are in Iraq. After extensive investigation, our intelligence community could find no link between the Iraqi regime and the plot that led to last year's deadly terrorist attacks. Also it has become reported that al Qaeda members are in Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Do we attack them next? The resolution further asserts also without any evidence that there is a great risk that Iraq could launch a surprise attack on the United States with weapons of mass destruction. It is fact that Saddam does not possess a delivery system that has the throw power of 8,000 miles or anything even close. And if there is such a great risk that he has and will use biological and chemical weapons against us, why did he not do so in the Gulf War? The answer is because he knew that our response would be strong, swift, and fatal. Hussein is not a martyr; he is a survivalist. Similarly, the evidence does not show that Iraq has any nuclear capabilities. General Wesley Clark, former commander of NATO forces in Europe, contends that ``despite all the talk of `loose nukes,' Saddam does not have any,'' or the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to enable him to construct them. Air Force General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently concurred, admitting that the consensus is that Saddam Hussein ``does not have a nuclear weapon, but he wants one.'' One of the goals of the President is to force a regime change in Iraq. Who are we to dictate to another country that their leadership must be changed? What would be our reaction if another country demanded or threatened to remove President Bush? All of us, Republicans and Democrats alike and each and every American, would be infuriated by such an inference and rise up against them. Changes in regimes must come from within. The result of voting for this resolution will be to give the President a blank check with broad authority to use our Armed Forces to unilaterally attack Iraq. He merely has to tell us why he believes that continued diplomatic efforts will fail and does not have to give that information to Congress until 48 hours after he has begun the war. The more meaningful provision would be to provide for a two-step process where after all diplomatic efforts have failed, the President would come back to Congress and make the case that military force is now necessary. Our colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), has that provision in his alternative and it deserves our careful consideration. Let us make no mistake about it, Hussein is a brutal dictator who has flagrantly defied the will of the world community. But the case has simply not been made either by this resolution or by the administration that there is a clear and present danger to the security of the United States which would warrant this Nation embarking on its first unprovoked preemptive attack in our 226-year history. The President must continue to work together with our allies in the U.N. Security Council to ensure that the Iraqi regime is disarmed. Mr. Speaker, war should always be the last resort and not the first. For all these reasons, I cannot support this resolution and must vote ``no.''

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker. On Sunday, October 13, 2002, Milwaukee businessman, philanthropist and my friend, Michael J. Murry, will be honored as this year's Franciscan Hope Award Honoree at St. Josaphat Basilica's annual Loaves and Fishes Gala. Similar to the namesake of the Franciscan order, St. Francis of Assisi, Mike was also born the son of a prominent entrepreneur. Growing up in the shadows of the Basilica, he was first introduced to the world of banking through his father, a former president of Lincoln State Bank. After attending college and serving his country in the Air Force, Mike returned to Milwaukee. Through his diligent hard work and visionary expectations for his father's bank, Lincoln State Bank thrived and expanded from Lincoln Village, the Basilica's neighborhood, to branch into the rest of the state of Wisconsin under Mike's presidency. Just as St. Francis returned to his hometown to perform charity among the sick and through restoring churches, Mike has also put his Catholic values into action by serving on various healthcare boards of directors and the voluntary organization responsible for the beautiful restoration of the Basilica of St. Josaphat. The same enthusiasm and skill he has shown in the business community has benefited the philanthropic community and the Milwaukee area as a whole. The patron saint of ecologists, St. Francis of Assisi was often depicted outdoors surrounded by wildlife. During time away from the office, Mike, an avid outdoorsman, can often be found at his lake home in Hayward, Wisconsin, where he has shared his passions for hiking, fishing and outdoor pursuits with his wife Jan and children Michelle and Joe. It has been documented that thousands ``were drawn to [St. Francis of Assisi's] sincerity, piety, and joy.'' As the 2002 Honoree of the Franciscan Hope Award, Michael Murry has proven himself an embodiment of St. Francis's characteristics and deserving recipient of this great honor. Congratulations, Mike!

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I am coming to this side of the aisle this morning so my remarks can be heard by my Republican colleagues, especially the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). What are we doing here today? We have before us a resolution which tells the Senate to take up legislation to make the marriage tax repeal permanent. Are they going to get this resolution and take it up? No, because they are debating homeland security. They are going to start debating the President's resolution to provide a preemptive strike on the country of Iraq, and so they have other things that they are doing. So let us see what we are doing. We are passing a resolution today to ask the Senate to take up a bill that we passed some time ago. What is not being really told here today is that the repeal of the marriage penalty is already law. The President signed that bill last year, and so we are being told by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) that this family from his District, the Castillos, are going to suffer the loss of this marriage penalty which benefits them some $1,125 unless we make this repeal permanent. Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Castillos have received nothing from repeal of the marriage penalty. The reason is it does not start to phase out until the year 2005. So the Congress, with the gentleman from Illinois' (Mr. Weller) support repealed the marriage penalty beginning in 2005 and phasing it to total repeal in 2010. Then what they did in 2011, it comes back into being. The point I am trying to make is he says that the Castillos are going to get $1,100 and they can do such things as day care for their children. They can start saving for education for their children, their retirement, or the downpayment on a new home. That is all nonsense. The Castillos in 2002 are going to get zero, in 2003 they are going to get zero, in 2004 they are going to get zero, and in 2005, when we start the phaseout, they will get a total of about $223. So what we are doing here is sheer and utter nonsense. If my colleague wants to tell the Senate to take action on this bill or any other bill, he can call his two Senators. The taxpayers gave us a phone in the office. Call them. So the things we are hearing today are just total nonsense. And why are we doing this debate? Well, because the House does not want to take up the appropriation bills. We have passed five of 13 appropriation bills. The Federal fiscal year started yesterday. Eight bills are sitting there waiting for action, and the Republicans in the House of Representatives want to go on telling the Senators what to do. Well, if I were a Senator, I would call the House and say, Do not tell me what to do; I will tell you what to do: take up the other eight appropriation bills. Or, let us start talking on this floor about the shabby state of the economy. Thousands of jobs have been lost since this President took over. The market has gone down by some 38 percent, meaning millions of Americans have lost trillions of dollars in their retirement accounts. Unemployment has gone up. Yet what are the Republicans talking about in the House of Representatives? Telling the Senate what to do. Let us talk about the economy. Let us debate how we are going to get this ship back on course. The administration is not doing it. They are incensed with starting a war with the country of Iraq and every day their arguments keep shifting. And if in fact we do that ill-fated deed, that will cost $9 billion a day, adding to the deficit. When this President took over, we had a surplus as far as the eye could see. My colleagues, today we have a $165 billion deficit, and it is growing.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, hundreds of residents of Wisconsin were notified by their bank that their personal information had been stolen by a former employee. While the bank in question had discovered last September that this crime had taken place, it did not notify the victims until May 2002. This is completely unacceptable. In the meantime, those whose information had been compromised had no idea that their information had been sold to a ring of identity thieves, who were using the financial records to make purchases in the victims' names, including high-end automobiles. Today I am introducing legislation that requires financial institutions to notify their customers if their personal information was compromised as the result of employee misconduct or computer hacking. Identity theft is a crime that occurs with increasing frequency every year, and I have introduced legislation in three consecutive sessions of Congress to increase the level of control and protection one has over personal information. However, the fact that there is nothing in law that compels financial institutions to notify customers that their personal information had been compromised in a timely fashion requires action. My legislation, the Identity Theft Consumer Notification Act, would require banks to promptly notify consumers that their information has been stolen, assist the customer in repairing his or her credit history, and cover any false charges made by the criminal for which the victim is liable. In addition, the annual privacy notices that financial institutions are required to send customers on an annual basis would have to include a description of the bank's obligation to provide notification and assistance in cases in which a customer's information had been compromised. There could be instances in which identity theft is discovered, but law enforcement would be in a better position to successfully complete an investigatiozn and collect sufficient evidence for conviction if notification was delayed. As a result, this bill allows for a temporary waiver of disclosure if law enforcement makes such a request. Lastly, a recent Supreme Court case limited the statue of limitations for victims seeking compensation from credit reporting agencies that allowed criminals to falsely use another person's financial information. The Court held that the statute of limitations begins to toll at the time a crime was committed, rather than at the time that the crime was eventually discovered by the victim. Given that the statute of limitation is only two years, it makes sense to start the clock at the time the crime is discovered, rather than at the time the crime was committed, since that abbreviated time limit leaves some victims unable to seek compensation. This legislation will give consumers confidence that institutions that they have entrusted with their finances have an obligation to notify them if their personal information has been compromised, and that the institution will help them through the often arduous task of correcting their credit history and compensate them for losses incurred as a result of this crime. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and give consumers the notification they need to minimize and quickly repair the damage done by identity thieves.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to congratulate my good friend Richard A. Koob on his installation in Charlotte, North Carolina as President of the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors (NAIFA). My best wishes go out to him as he takes the reins of leadership for this prestigious organization. Mr. Koob has been a Financial Representative for the Northwestern Financial Network since 1967, having become a member while he was still in college. Over the course of his distinguished career, Dick has received numerous awards, including the Wisconsin State Association of Life Underwriters Distinguished Service Award. He is a two-time honoree of the Waukesha Association of Life Underwriters Distinguished Service Award, and has been recipient of the National Association of Life Underwriters National Quality Award for 26 years, and its National Sales Achievement Award for 18 years. He is also a 26-year member of the Million Dollar Round Table. In addition to his involvement in NAIFA, Richard Koob has played key roles in numerous professional organizations throughout his career, including director of the Wisconsin State Association of Life Underwriters Committee on Political Action. Despite his busy schedule, he has also found time to be active in his community, being involved with a number of groups, such as the Lions International Foundation, the Knights of Columbus, and the Waukesha Chamber of Commerce. Dick has also served as vice-president of his Parish Council and as chair of Catholic Memorial High School's Crusader Auctions. A U.S. Army veteran, he was a recipient of the Governors Award for Outstanding Service. Dick Koob has dedicated his life to service; to his clients, to his community, and to his country. I have no doubt that he will provide outstanding leadership to NAIFA as its new president, and I join with his wife Judy, his children Kimberly, Melissa and Christopher, his colleagues and his many friends in offering my warm congratulations, and my best wishes as he takes on this new challenge.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) indicated all the items I talked about, we passed. Well, I would challenge him to tell the House when we passed legislation to reduce the cost of prescription drugs for everybody in this country. There is a discharge petition pending and I challenge him to sign it if he is serious about that. When did this House do anything about school construction costs? On that we have done nothing at all. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means who has advanced some real reforms in the inheritance tax area.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution before us today. This resolution is nothing more than a press release; and I believe that the appropriate arena for press releases is in the press gallery, not here on the floor of the House of Representatives. I always thought that the floor was where we debated legislation, not press releases. The amount of unfinished business currently pending is extremely large. Not one of the 13 mandatory appropriation bills has become law, even though the next fiscal year is only about a week away. In fact, this House has only passed five of those 13 appropriation bills. The Republican leadership has refused to schedule desperately needed bipartisan school construction legislation. The Republican leadership has also failed to schedule legislation to help all Americans with escalating prescription drug costs. Now the Republican leadership has a new strategy: pass resolutions praising old, irresponsible tax bills and then blame the Senate. The resolution before us today is not only a press release, but it is a very misleading one, at that. The underlying bill has no effect until the year 2011. Notwithstanding the rhetoric, the estate tax affects only the wealthiest segment of our society. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker: notwithstanding what my friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), has said, the estate tax affects only the wealthiest segment of our society. In fact, only 1.3 percent of all estates face inheritance taxation. The Republicans have defeated Democratic efforts to prescribe immediate tax relief in the estate tax area by increasing the exemption. The gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) offered a substitute earlier this year which would have provided an immediate $3 million exemption per person or $6 million for married couples. That substitute would have immediately repealed the estate tax for virtually all farms and virtually all small businesses. But the Republicans did not let that come up for a vote. However, those farms and small businesses were held hostage by the Republican leadership in its attempt to repeal the estate tax for the truly wealthy. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would urge that this House return to the real issues facing this country: The lack of a prescription drug benefit under the Medicare program, reducing the costs of prescription drugs for everyone, ballooning deficits, the need to finance our fight against terrorism and a bipartisan commitment to improve our education system. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the gentleman's tale of the couple sitting at home and wringing their hands over the estate tax. I represent a district as large as the gentleman who just spoke, and today if a couple like that in my district passed away, there is a $2 million exemption. In my district, there are not many people who are sweating over the inheritance tax because we do not have that wealth. $2 million for a couple just is not there. What they are wringing their hands over is an affordable drug benefit for Medicare, something that this House did not pass in decent form. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).