Jerry Kleczka

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have heard some pretty outlandish things here this afternoon. First of all, we were told by the gentlewoman from Washington who just spoke that next year we are going to create 200,000 jobs if we repeal the death tax, the inheritance tax. The fact of the matter is it is not going to be repealed under current law until 2011. So how can we create 200,000 jobs if it is not going to be repealed for another 9 years? It is all nonsense. In fact, the gentleman from Massachusetts indicated what we are talking about is a sense of Congress resolution to tell the other body to do something that we already did. Understand that? It is a sense of Congress. It does not change any law. It is like calling your neighbor and saying, ``Hey, rake your leaves.'' That is what this is all about. This House already did the bad thing by passing the repeal of the inheritance tax. And why did we do that? To the benefit of 1.3 percent of the wealthiest Americans in this country. As I look at the gallery, Mr. Speaker, I would bet no one in that gallery is going to pay an inheritance tax on their estate, for the current law today has a $2 million exemption per couple. And for those who have a lot more than $2 million like Mr. Bill Gates, maybe their heirs should pay something, because in a lot of situations, some of that wealth has never been taxed, anyway. It could be built up in the stock market. It could be property value. What my Republican colleagues want to say is, for the wealthiest 1.3 percent in America, they will pay no tax at all. This is big bucks. If we do this repeal of the inheritance tax in the years 2011 to 2021, that is going to cost the Treasury $800 billion. That is some real money, my friends. And where are we today in this Federal budget? We are going to end the fiscal year over $300 billion in the hole. Yet we are giving out tax breaks for the wealthy like popcorn. The President today is talking about an unprovoked attack on another country which will cost millions and millions of dollars. And my colleagues are talking about a tax break for the millionaires of the country. Is something wacko in here? Is something not reading right? Yes. Just recall, 20 months ago as we started this congressional session, we had surpluses, as my colleague from Iowa said before the Budget Committee, as far as the eye can see. We had surpluses as far as the eye could see, and 20 months later we are in a $300 billion deficit. Yet those folks are still pushing to give tax breaks to the wealthiest of individuals. Now, to take care of the farmers and small businesses we proposed a $6 million exclusion from inheritance tax. That would take care of 99 percent of the farmers, the ranchers and the small businesses in this country. But it did not take care of the wealthy ones, and that is why they are pushing to take care of the Ted Turners and the Bill Gateses and the other multi-multimillionaires from WorldCom and Enron who treated their employees so well. This resolution does nothing, but the tax policy we already passed does disaster, because it means ``you guys ain't going to get a drug benefit, your educational construction for New York is not going to be funded, because we are in a deficit.'' So let us not shed big alligator tears today for the wealthiest of the wealthy. They can afford their drugs. They send their kids to the best schools available. It is the people like I represent from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who are not worrying about an inheritance tax, a death tax today. They are worrying about paying their mortgage. They are watching their 401(k)s, their retirement benefits, dissipate as the market keeps going down, and this administration is doing nothing about it. They have turned a blind eye, and my retirees are looking now to go back to work. And we have money around here for the wealthiest of the wealthy, the richest of the rich? What misdirected policy. Let us worry about the deficit and take care of the working men and women in this country. Ted Turner will do well without this, and his heirs will do better than him. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, September 9, 10, and 11, I was unavoidably detained and thereby absent for votes on rollcall numbers 375 through 384. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall number 375, ``yea'' on rollcall number 376, ``yea'' on rollcall number 377, ``yea'' on rollcall number 378, ``yea'' on rollcall number 379, ``yea'' on rollcall number 380, ``yea'' on rollcall number 381, ``yea'' on rollcall number 382, ``yea'' on rollcall number 383, and ``yea'' on rollcall number 384.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, it was one year ago that we first shared that sense of inimitable sadness upon learning that thousands of our fellow Americans were suddenly and unexpectedly lost to us forever. They met their ends in the fields of western Pennsylvania; at our national military headquarters in Washington, DC; In two of the world's tallest office buildings in New York City. Some were sitting down for work, or simply taking a plane trip when the unthinkable occurred. Hundreds of others, heroes, were taken from us as they selflessly struggled to bring others to safety. We came together today to honor their memory. In churches, synagogues, mosques, schools, homes, and workplaces across the land and around the world people will observe moments of silence in solemn remembrance. We pray for those left behind, whose lives are scarred forever with the loss of loved ones. We ask God for healing for them and for our country. We also gather as a nation to lift our voices in song. While uniting us across the miles, our shared music today not only pays homage to the lives lost, but reaches out to embrace the grieving. The songs give us a shared strength by allowing us to publicly reaffirm the triumphs of our humanity over terror, of community over hatred, of rebuilding over destruction. May today's remembrances bring honor to the memory of those who died one year ago, healing to the wounded of body and spirit, and the blessings of courage and strength for all who remember.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for recognizing me for a short time. This bill was before the Committee on Ways and Means a short time ago. And after listening to the debate, I come down on the same side as my colleague from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), who indicates that the long- term care insurance is something that I think we should not only consider but also encourage. We find that the population in the country is living longer. We also find that long-term care is something that many people are going to be in need of, and so to encourage people today where they can get a premium rate that is somewhat reasonable versus waiting until you are 55 or 60 years old is something this Congress should be involved in. The other provision of the bill deals with the personal exemption to those who provide home care to dependents. Again, we should thank and encourage these people to stay home. The option is to put your relative in a nursing home or assisted living which will cost much more. The thing I think is not a fatal flaw in the bill, but one is kind of like a turkey as referred to by the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), that is the MSAs for Medicare+Choice. We tried this failed policy before with the general population. We found that the only people buying MSAs were doctors and attorneys; and to now subject the Medicare+Choice elderly to an MSA is ridiculous. They are the ones who need not only the Medicare program, a supplemental, but also a drug benefit. It is not fatal. I will be supporting the bill, but it is bad policy.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 9th, 2002 members of the Holy Cathedral Church of God in Christ (COGIC) congregation and the Milwaukee community will join together to celebrate Pastor and Lady C. H. McClelland's 20 years of ministry and community service. Dr. Charles H. McClelland was appointed pastor of Holy Cathedral in September 1982. In July 1989, with his wife Prentiss and a congregation of less than 300 members, Pastor McClelland led his flock from the former Eagle Eye COGIC congregation into its present location on North 40th Street in Milwaukee. Since then membership has continued to thrive and now numbers over 1,200 strong. The mission of Holy Cathedral is to ``reap the harvest of souls by preaching of the gospel as well as the provision of an array of services that are Christ centered through the Word of Hope Ministries.'' The Word of Hope Ministries, founded by Pastor McClelland, includes a Family Resource Center, Health and Social Service programs, an Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Abuse (ATODA) Support Group, Job Placement and Training, and a training lab in the Family Technology Center. The wide range of ministries offered through Word of Hope, directly address the needs of the surrounding community. The Men's Ministry focuses on spiritual development for all men, with special focus on the challenges facing young black males in the city of Milwaukee. There is also a Women's Ministry, designed to address the physical, moral and spiritual development of lay women. Members of the congregation also reach out to prison inmates, nursing home residents and poor through the Urban Ministry. So it is with great pride that I congratulate Dr. and Lady C.H. McClelland on a lifetime of service to God, and on 20 years of service, not only to the congregation of Holy Cathedral Church of God in Christ, but also to the surrounding Milwaukee community.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 22, 2002, Mr. and Mrs. Trudy and Paul Peukert will celebrate 80 years together as man and wife. Trudy was born July 7, 1904 and this year will celebrate her 98th birthday. Paul was born February 26, 1901 and is 101 years old. He was one of 12 children, 6 boys and 6 girls, and is the only surviving member of his family. Both were born in Germany, and were married in Sandorf, Germany on July 22, 1922. Ironically, before they were married, Trudy's mother pulled her aside after assessing Paul's small stature--he had to compete with 11 other children for food and was quite skinny--and advised her not to marry him because he looked sickly and surely would leave her a young widow. In 1923, at the relatively young age of 22, Paul left his new bride and infant daughter and immigrated to America. In 1925 he had worked and saved enough to bring Trudy and their daughter Johanna to the U.S., and the family moved to Detroit, Michigan, where Paul worked for Chevrolet Motors for 30 years. They have been American citizens for over 65 years. Paul and Trudy have been blessed with two daughters, four grandsons, eight great grandchildren and one great-great grandchild. For the last 17 years, the Peukert's have called Greenfield, Wisconsin home. They own and live in their own home, still enjoy tending their flower gardens and attribute their longevity to good, clean living. They are also active voters. So it is with great pride that I congratulate Mr. & Mrs. Peukert on their longevity and unending commitment to each other. Their relationship is inspiring and stands as a testament to life-long love and enduring friendship.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose yesterday's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding that the use of ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. The case in question originated from a lawsuit filed by a parent who felt that the use of the phrase ``under God'' impinged on his daughter's First Amendment rights since he believed that it constituted a sanction of religion in the public school she attends. This decision was clearly erroneous and I find it abhorrent, as do the vast majority of Americans. It was based upon a total lack of respect if not knowledge of the traditions, the values, and the history of our nation. From the very beginning, as the Declaration of Independence points out, our founding fathers established this land based on the idea that individuals were endowed not by man, but by ``their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.'' The Pledge of Allegiance is a revered expression of patriotism recited by millions of citizens every day. When it is spoken, it instills support for the United States and reflects the love that Americans feel for their country. The Pledge does not violate the separation between church and state since it is not a religious statement, but a verbal expression of Americans' affection for our country. As the dissenting judge pointed out, similar brief references such as the ``In God We Trust'' that appears on our currency and the opening call of the Supreme Court, ``God save the United States and this honorable court'' have always been accepted. I am hopeful that the 9th Circuit Court as a whole reverses the decision of this three judge panel or that the Supreme Court takes up the case and overturns this badly mistaken ruling. This morning we were proud to recite the Pledge of Allegiance on the House floor as we do each day. I am a co-author of the resolution before us, H. Res. 459, that expresses the opinion of Congress that the court's judgment was in error. The measure calls for ``under God'' to remain in the Pledge, and for the decision to be reversed. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, we are told by my Republican colleagues that this is a powerful benefit, that this is an historic opportunity. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. For you see, Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago to the day an identical bill passed this House of Representatives. And why did it pass 2 years ago at this time and why is this bill on the floor here today? Because 4 months from now we will have the November congressional elections. And you see, the American public wants a drug benefit. And they do not want to give one, but they keep bringing up this fig leaf 4 months, every 2 years before the Congressional elections. But what is their bill all about? This is not a Medicare benefit like hospitals and physicians. This is a subsidy to insurance companies. We were told 2 years ago when this same bill was up that no insurance companies are going to sell these policies. For everyone who buys a policy will have a claim against the policy, and it is going to be identical to the failed experiment that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) called Medicare Choice. Two million people have been canceled by insurance companies from that plan, and the same is going to happen here. But for a senior with drug costs of $3,800 a year, the Republican plan will give them almost nothing. After they are charged a premium, a deductible, they pay $150 for the first $1,000 of costs. They pay one-half or $500 for the next thousand. Then they have no coverage at all for any and all drug costs from $2,000 to $3,800. So for $3,800 in drug costs per year the senior gets $3,100 of extra payments out of the pocket. The benefit is $680. Is that what they want to give their mothers and their aging fathers? They should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, on roll call Numbers 249, 250, 251, and 252, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on all of those votes.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the record a June 1 New York Times op-ed by Geoff D. Porter, a professor of Middle Eastern studies who expresses frustration at what he says is a slow and ineffective means by which the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been trying to recruit those proficient in Arabic. Since his insight as to the need for experts in the various dialects makes a compelling argument, I've also forwarded a copy of the article to FBI Director Robert Mueller. I thank my friend, Professor David Randall Luce of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for bringing this article to my attention. [From the New York Times, June 1, 2002] Lost in Translation at the F.B.I. (By Geoff D. Porter) In announcing his restructuring of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, its director, stressed the importance of upgrading the F.B.I.'s intelligence capabilities by recruiting ``the right people with the right experience.'' If my own experience with the agency is any guide, that should include an urgent recruiting drive for people with the right Arabic language skills. Less than a week after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, I responded to the F.B.I.'s calls for Arabic translators. I know of a half-dozen other Middle Eastern studies graduates who also applied--Ph.D.s who, like me, are proficient in one or more Arabic dialects, as well as in Modern Standard Arabic. Ultimately--dismayed by what seemed to us the agency's flawed understanding of what proficiency in Arabic means--none of us pursued our candidacies. I applied less than a week after Sept. 11 but wasn't called for the four-and-a-half hour translation test until January. It wasn't until February that I sat for a four-hour interview and polygraph test. The F.B.I. was then to begin a six- to eight-month background check. At the earliest, I might have started translating more than a year after I applied. The slow pace, however, wasn't the most unsettling characteristic of the process. There was something more worrisome: The F.B.I.'s Arabic translation test simply does not measure all the language skills needed for intelligence gathering focused on Arabic speakers. The Arabic-language test--copyrighted in 1994 by the Defense Language Institute, according to the back of my exam booklet--was solely in Modern Standard Arabic, the Arabic most frequently studied at American universities. This is the form used for official speeches and in the news media in Arab countries--but almost never in conversation. It differs substantially from the spoken varieties of Arabic in vocabulary, syntax and idioms--enough so that a non-native speaker who learned only Modern Standard Arabic would not be able to understand Arabic speakers talking to one another. The regional dialects also differ from one another--varying considerably from one end of the Arabic-speaking world (in Morocco) to the other (in Oman). The dialects are, for some Arabic speakers, mutually unintelligible. (Once, I mistakenly gave a Cairo taxi driver directions in Moroccan Arabic, and he responded: ``Ich spreche kein Deutsch.'') These varieties of Arabic are the language of the market, the home and the street for the world's 200 million Arabic speakers. Yet no colloquial Arabic, in any dialect, appeared anywhere on the F.B.I.'s Arabic translation test, which included a listening-comprehension section. During my post-exam interview, I tried to offer some feedback about the test's failure to measure skills in everyday spoken Arabic, but the interviewer brusquely moved on to his next question. Nor was there a chance for me to name the two Arabic dialects in which I am proficient. The interview is scripted; there is no room for unscripted interaction. All the other Middle East studies applicants with whom I spoke said they, too, noticed the test's shortcoming but couldn't find an opening to comment on it. As the F.B.I. reorganizes, it should improve its recruitment of Arabic translators by adding tests that measure fluency in one or more of these numerous Arabic dialects. Otherwise, its translators may be limited to reading Arabic newspapers or listening to Al Jazeera broadcasts. They may misunderstand wiretapped phone conversations or be unable to identify crucial information. Until the F.B.I. shows more willingness to listen to the experts it is trying to attract, it will not get the expertise it needs.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. So this is 2002. So we are talking about something that might happen and might not happen in 8 years from now?

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I am addressing them through you.

Mr. KLECZKA. But is it not true that they would stand to lose money in 2010 if we do not repeal the sunset?

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

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) indicated to the House that a couple in his district, the Castillos, would stand to lose $1,125. When, if ever, would that occur if we do not repeal the sunset?

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I would also respond to the chairman. I happen to be a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. One of the reasons we had to adjourn last week is because at the same time we had this hearing in one of the buildings across the street, the House was debating a very important piece of legislation from the same committee. That was a permanent repeal of the inheritance tax. Members remember the inheritance tax. That is where 2 percent of the public pays something when their estates are probated. It is for the very, very wealthy. Well, as I indicated to the chairman at the committee, and he is pretty powerful, but even though he has all his power, he cannot be in two places at once. So the committee chose to come to the House floor and debate that policy. That is what the debate was all about. But let us talk about the bill that is before us today. Through the miracle of C-SPAN, hundreds of thousands of people are watching their House of Representatives. We have hundreds of people in the gallery, Mr. Chairman, watching what we are doing. They are going to go home and the neighbors are going to say, Wow, you went to Washington. What did you see? Oh, I saw the Smithsonian, I saw the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, and we had the honor of going to the House floor and listening to the debate. And the neighbors are going to say, what did you hear? Well, they were debating a bill that would address a problem that might or might not occur in 2011. The neighbors will say, hot damn, really? 2011? Well, that is 9 years from now. Yes, they took it up today. Had to be done right away. Well, the question is why? I will tell you why. There is one big event between today and January 2011, and you know what it is. It is November 2002 elections. It is the elections. So we are gathered here today to promote our elections. And how about addressing the work and the needs of the people? Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, what I was trying to say, and I am assuming what this neighbor will also say is, well, what did you hear about the deficit? Because last year I recall reading a newspaper. We are going to have surpluses for as far as the eye can see. What did they say about the $300 billion deficit of this year? And you are going to have to say back to them, nothing. They did not bring it up. Well, how about a drug program that our seniors are in dire need of, where in my State hundreds and thousands of seniors want Congress to act? No, they did not address that. They are talking about this bill that might be a problem in 2011. Mr. Speaker, let us separate the wheat from the chaff. What we are doing today is nothing but politics to benefit some of the Members of this House in November of 2002. Clear and simple, that is what it is all about. And the gentleman will say, well, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) voted against a marriage penalty consistently and 200,000 of his constituents will not get the relief. The fact of the matter is, and you heard the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. McDermott), he and I have been on this program to eliminate the marriage penalty since 1995, so I am glad the Republicans are joining us. But nevertheless, the fact of the matter is there are hundreds of thousands of people in my district who want a drug benefit today, who want us to address the war on terrorism and provide money for that. And they also want us to address the $300 billion deficit. So I encourage my colleagues to talk about those issues today so when your neighbors ask you what they did, they did not think about some problem that might occur in 2011.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, June 23, 2002, my friend, Robert Braeger, will finally be presented with the Distinguished Flying Cross that he was awarded, but never received, over 57 years ago. As a student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, he and a group of friends were shocked when the December 7, 1941 Green Bay Packers and Chicago Bears game was interrupted with news of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Bob knew at that moment that he wanted to serve and defend his country. Enlisting in the Army Air Corps, Braeger was commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant and assigned to the 34th Bombardment Group in continental Europe as a navigator on the B-24 Liberator Bomber, ``Bambi.'' Bambi's crew of ten guided her through thirty bombing missions over enemy-occupied territory. On his thirtieth mission, Bambi's crew crashed into a French field after the plane lost an engine. After returning to Paris with the help of French citizens, and due to their courageous and dedicated service in the European Theater, Bambi's crew was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. When he was discharged, Bob returned with a treasure chest of awards, but the DFC was not included. When Bob is not with his wife Deanna or his seven children, he has remained active in recognizing the achievements and actions of area veterans since his days in the Army Air Corps. A co-chair of the Wisconsin Veterans War Memorial/Milwaukee, he led the fundraising campaign to refurbish the memorial for veterans and their families. The 7,875 homeless veterans in Wisconsin have also found a friend in Bob Braeger. He has been involved with the National Coalition of Homeless Veterans, an organization that works to end homelessness among veterans by shaping public policy, educating the public, and building the capacity of service providers. During his service, Braeger developed a deep sense of appreciation for the contributions of minority soldiers. He now volunteers his time to recognize these distinguished men and women by working with the National Association of Black Veterans. Over half of a century later, it is a pleasure to see this patriotic citizen receive the long overdue, and thoroughly deserved, Distinguished Flying Cross. Congratulations, Bob Braeger!

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 20, 2002, the Milwaukee chapter of the American Jewish Committee, AJC, at their 58th annual meeting will present Mr. Franklyn M. Gimbel with the 2002 Community Service Human Relations Award. This award recognizes outstanding individuals in the community who have dedicated their lives to the Jewish commitment of ``tikkun olam'' or repairing the universe. Frank is regarded as one of Milwaukee's most distinguished attorneys and community leaders. His legal career began in 1960 with graduation from Marquette University Law School. He served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney from 1963-1968 and received the Superior Performance Award from the U.S. Attorney General in 1967. He is the founding partner of the law firm Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown and his illustrious career is punctuated by many awards including the Milwaukee Bar Association Lawyer of the Year in 1989 and 1998 and the Leadership Award from the Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in 1987. He has also been named as one of the Best Lawyers in America for crimimal defense for nearly 15 years. With all the energy he directs towards his professional career, Frank still manages to make time to work on projects in the community. Mr. Gimbel has served as Vice-Chairman of the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission from 1977-1982. He was appointed as director of the Wisconsin Center District Board of Directors by Governor Tommy G. Thompson in May 1994, and has served as its chairperson ever since. In 1998 he was awarded the Lamplighter Award from the Greater Milwaukee Convention and Visitors Bureau in recognition of his outstanding leadership in the community. In 2001 he received the Charles Goldberg Distinguished Service Award for his lifetime achievement in the legal profession from the Wisconsin Law Foundation. So I am pleased to join with the Milwaukee Chapter of the American Jewish Committee to recognize Frank M. Gimbel's many years of service to the legal profession and the community at large.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, let us put this debate into some perspective. First of all, we do not have a death tax in this country. Nowhere in the statute does it mention the word ``death tax.'' What we have and have had since 1916 is an inheritance tax paid to the government by the most wealthy. Why do we have it? Well, to fund this government. To fund the military, to fund the expensive farm programs we passed 2 weeks ago, we need revenue. What the country decided long before I was in Congress was a tax code like a three-3-legged stool. One leg will be the income tax for which everybody pays. Then we have another leg for the business people, which is a business, or corporate tax, and the third is an inheritance tax. And that was fair. What has happened since 1916, small businesses and farmers have flourished. Look just at the 1990s when the stock market went through the ceiling. The Gateses of the world were created. But now we are being told by my Republican friends that the country is going to hell in a handbasket unless we repeal this tax. How does it affect Americans? Currently, 2 percent of the American public will pay it. In the gallery before me are about 100 people. Under this tax, two people will pay it. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, two people sitting in the gallery will pay it. Well, how about the 98 other bodies in the gallery? Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, 98 percent of those who might be in the gallery will pay the additional income taxes to make up for this loss. Where are we as a country? Two years ago we were awash in surplus, and we were told by my Republican friends that as far as the eye can see, we will have surpluses. These same folks have tax-cutted this country back into a deficit. This year we are looking at a $300 billion deficit. As we all know, this country is on a war footing, a war on terrorism. We just passed a bill last week for $29 billion for the military and other homeland security items. Is now the time to repeal the tax paid by the 2 percent wealthiest of this country? Should they not help us with the war effort? They are the beneficiaries. Not you. The Cabinet of the current administration will see a windfall of millions of dollars if we take this bad action today. I ask my colleagues to defeat this measure. Quit kidding the American people and saying that this applies to everyone. The fact is 2 percent.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, last year, the estate tax provisions enacted in the $1.35 trillion Bush tax cut would gradually increase the value of estates that are exempt from taxation, until completely repeating the estate tax for one year only, 2010, after which the exemption would return to $1 million. At that time, these provisions were projected to cost nearly $80 billion over the first ten years. The proponents of this misguided tax cut were confident back then that we would be awash in surpluses as far as the eye can see. But the bill before us today, H.R. 2143, seems to ignore our current budget situation; it would go ahead and permanently repeal the estate tax starting in 2011, even though the nearly $4 trillion in projected future surpluses has evaporated since the Bush tax cut was enacted. The House Budget Committee's Democratic staff now estimates that this year's deficit alone, excluding Social Security Trust Fund surpluses, will be a whopping $314 billion. At this rate, over the next ten years, deficits could add up to a total of $2.6 trillion. I am told by many of those who are supporting this bill, that we are on a war footing, with many additional national expenses as a result. Passing H.R. 2143 would not only squander the opportunities we now have to redirect our nation's fiscal course, but it would further exacerbate the financial predicament that we currently find ourselves in. Instead of reducing the level of future deficits, permanently repealing the estate tax would decrease future revenues by approximately $740 billion over a ten-year period, FY 2013 to FY 2022. If the increased interest payments on the additional debt incurred because of this repeal are included, the effect on the budget is about $1 trillion taken away right at the time that Baby Boomers will start retiring and become eligible to receive Social Security and Medicare benefits. Furthermore, the estate tax only impacts a very small number of people in the United States, or the wealthiest 2 percent. By reading the advertisements of groups who are feverishly lobbing for its repeal, one could easily get the impression that millions of people are stripped of their lifetime earnings upon death. In reality, this just isn't the case. In my home state of Wisconsin in 1998, there were a total of 45,000 deaths. Out of all those estates, only 828 paid an estate tax. Many within this small group of wealthy Americans have actually been the first to come forward in defense of the estate tax. Last year, an organization called ``Responsible Wealth'' circulated a petition in support of reforming, but not eliminating, the tax. More than 1,100 business leaders and investors who will pay estate taxes in the future signed this petition, including George Soros, Ted Turner, and David Rockefeller Jr., along with hundreds of small-business owners who wealth totals between $1 million and $10 million. Their approach toward this issue, reform rather than repeal, is a more sensible alternative. By raising the estate tax exemption to $3 million for individuals and $6 million for couples, the Democratic substitute would exempt 99.7 percent of all estates in America from the estate tax. Further, this exemption increase would go into effect on January 1, 2003, providing more immediate tax relief to family farms, small businesses, and homeowners than the Republican bill before us today. The Democratic substitute also includes offsets, in order to help reduce the total cost of the proposal. Even without these offsets, the Democratic alternative would still cost less than one-half the cost of the Republican base bill. Clearly, we owe it to our constituents to act in a fiscally responsible manner, and the Republican proposal to completely repeal the estate tax fails to meet this test.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, on June 2, 2002, the city of West Allis, Wisconsin will host the centennial celebration of its incorporation as a village. Happy 100th birthday, West Allis. Native American mounds, likely left by ancestors of the Ho-Chunk or Potawatomi tribes in the ground near what today is Wisconsin's State Fair Park, provide evidence of some of the earliest residents in the area. But it was not until the 1830s that native tribes began to see New Englanders arrive in the region to farm its fertile lands and establish the area's first settlement, called Honey Creek. It may have remained a farming community for many years to come, had it not been for a rapid growth of heavy industry in the city of Milwaukee in the late 1800s and the extension of a street railway line to the area. Milwaukee was running out of room for large manufacturing plants, and the Honey Creek area had become a highly desirable location for industry. Companies like Kearney and Trecker and the Rosenthal Comhusker Company began to make their home in the area that was now called North Greenfield, and soon Edward P. Allis decided that his company also needed room to grow. In 1900, Allis moved his company, which had become an industry leader in machinery, to the area that would soon bear his name. Workers soon followed, and the population grew so quickly that the area was chartered as the Village of West Allis in 1902, and as a city only 4 years later. The city of West Allis expanded to become the second largest city in Milwaukee County and seventh largest in the state. Although the region's decline in heavy manufacturing in the past several decades has brought challenges to the community, the city of West Allis and its mayor, Jeannette Bell, have worked tirelessly to bring in new businesses and revitalize West Allis neighborhoods. West Allis remains a city that is proud of its industrial past and enthusiastic about its future. To the city of West Allis and its citizens, my heartiest congratulations, and my best wishes for a prosperous second century.