Jerry Kleczka

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, as sure as swallows returning to Capistrano, it seems like every year Congress considers a supplemental spending bill to fatten all the other appropriations bills we pass year. This is just a way to spend more than we said we would in the first place. While I know there are many fine things the $29 billion in this bill could buy, I have to wonder why these programs can't wait until the regular appropriations process, which is just about to begin. After all, we are already more than halfway through this fiscal year with just four months left to go before Fiscal Year 2003 arrives. In truth, there are many provisions in this bill which are not really the result of an emergency and do not require ``emergency spending.'' What is really going on, is that, as in previous supplemental appropriations bills, this one will allow Congress to circumvent the very spending caps it has set. In a wave of the magic wand, the $29 billion contained in this bill will not count against those spending limitations. And therefore it will allow certain programs and departments to bulk up now so that there will be less pressure this summer for budget-busting increases in the regular appropriations bills. Along with all the extra spending in this bill, there are unrelated measures that have been thrown in. This legislation will be used to raise the federal debt limit. With the federal debt nearing its ceiling, the Administration has asked Congress to raise the limit, but no bill has come to the House floor for consideration. We should have an open debate on the need to raise the debt limit, already at nearly $6 trillion. Also included in the supplemental spending bill is a rider changing how several counties in Pennsylvania are treated for the purpose of making Medicare payments to hospitals, and another that adds rural Orange and Dutchess counties in the urban area designation of New York City for the purpose of Medicare payments. The bill contains a trade measure requiring that knit and woven fabrics be dyed and finished in the U.S. in order to qualify for duty-free treatment under the African and Caribbean Trade Act. And this legislation allows the U.S. Postal Service to continue to use the bypass mail system in Alaska. Clearly, these are not emergencies. We have criticized Enron and Arthur Andersen for using budget tricks to cook the books. We shouldn't pull the same sleight of hand on the taxpayers while throwing in unrelated policy riders. I ask my colleagues to join me and vote against this $29 billion supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, welfare programs come in various sizes and shapes. There are good welfare programs and bad welfare programs. A few weeks ago the Congress passed a farm bill, a farm bill that was signed by the President this last weekend. That bill increased farm spending $180 billion, an increase of almost 80 percent, giving growers in this country, large corporate farmers, up to $360,000 a year of taxpayer money. Under a loophole in the bill, they can get as high as $700,000 per year. Mr. Speaker, welfare to corporate farmers and agribusiness is good welfare. However, welfare to poor people is not good welfare. That is bad welfare. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the welfare bill back in 1996, and when I did so I indicated to the Members that my major reservations were that we did not do enough to promote education, and clearly the child care funding was inadequate. Now, with 6 years experience, we find out that that I was right. And, the Republican bill does nothing to address these two most serious concerns. Yes, we have dramatically reduced the welfare rolls over the last number of years, but we have not reduced the poverty rate. The Cardin substitute truly does address the poverty rate. Right now we say, get a job, and then after you are done working and taking care of your kids, you can also go to school and that will be counted as work. But we have put the cart before the horse. Let us make sure that individuals get adequate training, be it a GED, English as a second language, or a vocational associate degree before mandating the job. We are not going to lift people out of poverty, forcing them to go right to work to get the most menial jobs that we have in this country. So if my colleagues are really intent on lifting the poverty rate and helping these individuals, vote for the Cardin substitute, which does address education and provides for adequate child care.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 16th 2002, the Greater Milwaukee Aerie 4214 Fraternal Order of Eagles will award Colonel Kenneth J. Sweet (Retired) the Lance P. Sijan Award. Lance P. Sijan was born and raised in the Milwaukee community of Bay View. After graduating from the Air Force Academy in 1965, he went to serve in DeNang, Vietnam where he flew sixty-six combat missions. On his last mission his plane was shot down over enemy territory and, although he evaded the enemy for 6 weeks, rescue efforts failed and he died as a prisoner of war. Lance was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor along with the Distinguished Flying Cross, two Purple Hearts, two Air Medals and a Certificate of Honorable Service. His courageous service is recognized throughout the country with scholarships and memorials. Throughout a career that spans over 40 years, Colonel Kenneth J. Sweet (Retired) has served his country faithfully and in the same courageous manner as Lance P. Sijan. Colonel Sweet's first assignment with the Army Air Corps was at Wheeler Field, Hawaii where he was on guard duty on December 7, 1941 when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. He was among the first to fire a rifle in defense of his country at the start of WWII. After the war ended he became one of the founders of the 128th Air Refueling Wing when the unit gained Federal recognition in 1947. During the Korean War, Colonel Sweet was active for 21 months, and earned his commission on September 29th, 1961. Retiring in 1982 with 40 years and 8 months of service to his country, Colonel Sweet remains active in the community, advocating for military retiree's in Wisconsin and founding the Wisconsin National Retiree Council in 1983, and has served as its director for 16 years. So it is with great pride that I thank Colonel Kenneth Sweet for his years of dedicated military service, and congratulate him on receiving the 2002 Lance P. Sijan Award.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, May 11, 2002, the National Association of Letter Carriers teamed with an army of volunteers, will march forward to stamp out hunger in our country's largest one day food drive. With the current war in Afghanistan, our televisions have been flooded with images of individuals who struggle daily to meet their nutritional needs. Malnutrition seems to be a problem that only affects those half a world away. Unfortunately, the war on hunger is also battled in the United States every day. On May 11th, letter carriers from across the Nation will join together to collect nonperishable food items from their customers that will then be sorted and delivered to local food pantries for distribution. Last year, letter carriers in the metropolitan Milwaukee area, with the help of the Hunger Task Force, collected over 763,000 pounds of food to insure that the over 40,000 moms, dads, and children that go to local pantries for nutritious food did not go hungry. These donations come at a critical time when supplies at pantries are traditionally low and demand for food to feed school-age children typically peaks, as access is restricted to school breakfast and lunch programs. Currently, 42 percent of low income children nationally depend on school programs to provide both breakfast and lunch. As the food drive takes place right before the local schools go on summer break, the timing of this event makes the National Association of Letter Carriers' Food Drive extremely important to the health of the most needy in our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to ask that my colleagues lend their support to the letter carriers' drives in their own hometowns and districts. To my neighbors and friends in Milwaukee and Waukesha counties, I ask that you pick up a few extra nonperisable items on your weekly shopping trip. As these essential donations stay in the community, those that you work with and live near will benefit from your generosity. ``Stamp Out Hunger'' gives everyone the chance to help their fellow Americans while working for solutions to end hunger in their community.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, April 13, nine students from Waukesha West High School made history as the first team from outside of California or Texas to win the United States Academic Decathlon in its 21-year history. The Academic Decathlon consists of 10 events with questions involving six subjects: art; music; economics and science; language and literature; mathematics; and social science. The students make presentations, write essays, give interviews and participate in the SuperQuiz, a Jeopardy-like challenge with nine rounds of five questions each along a common topic. The Waukesha team broke new ground by winning the Wisconsin state championship. Then with that victory under their belt, they moved on to the nationals. There, they were named ``rookie team of the year'' and placed first among Division 11 schools. In the final round, they truly proved themselves first among equals by winning the overall competition. Decathletes Ryan Ramlow, Katy Long, Jacob Kowalski, Adam Siegel, Jon Lindsley, Brian Kyle, Nicole Chartier, Nate Edwards and Scott Wilcox and alternates Steve Moon and Chris Schrader are to be congratulated for their accomplishments and the milestone they have set. Waukesha West won the overall competition that drew 55 top-notch teams representing 38 states. Their victory could not have been accomplished without the help of coaches Duane Stein, Christine Beck and Lee Schmidt, as well as the parents, faculty and administrators of Waukesha West. It was with their encouragement that the team was able to win at the state and national competitions. Their pride was evident from the reception that welcomed the winning team home at Mitchell International Airport on the Monday after the victory with the same fervor usually reserved for sports heroes. One of the goals when the Academic Decathlon was founded in 1981 was to develop interest in academics among all students. Teams are comprised of individuals representing a range of skill levels: three A students, three B students and three C students. The competition promotes the value of academic excellence, and stresses the importance of involvement for all students. Waukesha West High School's win shows that great things can be accomplished through the hard work and dedication of students, teachers and parents acting together. This is not only a goal of the Academic Decathlon program, but also the education system as a whole.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, our great statesman Benjamin Franklin was asked, ``What have you wrought?'' He replied, ``A republic, if you can keep it.'' Two hundred years later, the Center for Civic Education, created by Act of Congress and funded by the U.S. Department of Education, began working with our nation's elementary and secondary students to help them understand the enduring relevance of that statement. Since the inception of the ``We the People'' program in 1987, more than 26 million students and 82 thousand educators have participated in the Center's outstanding program to promote civic competence and participation. Our founding fathers recognized that ultimately a free society must depend upon the civic virtue of its citizens, and that our schools have an important mission to prepare students to become informed, responsible citizens. Heritage Christian High School's social studies teacher Tim Moore certainly understands the important role of schools in promoting democratic values and an involved citizenry. In the seven years that Heritage Christian has participated in the ``We the People'' program, Mr. Moore's students have won first place in the Wisconsin state competition five separate times! The students from Heritage Christian have truly been inspired to academic excellence, and have demonstrated an impressive knowledge of the fundamental principles of our nation's constitutional democracy. It is with great pride that I recognize their outstanding achievement, and commend them for their exemplary commitment to the study of constitutional issues. This year's representatives from Heritage Christian High School are: Sarah Bohl, Tim Bruce, Tim Cisler, Liz Culver, Jordan Hawkins, Joe Hense, Joanna Hinks, David Kludt, Amy Krejcarek, Brad Larson, Paul Lorenz, Tim Melville, Jon Pickens, Ashley Ramsland, Erik Skoglund, Meredith Spry, Courtney Van der Ploeg, and Andrew Wier. Congratulations, and best wishes for continued success in this year's national competition in Washington, D.C.!

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, while our country continues to be a staunch ally and long-time friend to Israel, this resolution does nothing to bring about a ceasefire that might lead to a lasting peace. Our role should be drawn these bitter enemies closer together, not drive them further apart, as this resolution does. The legislation, far more than a simple expression of support for Israel, also contains a long list of rhetorical ``findings'' which undermine any attempts to move the parties toward a comprehensive peace agreement. It will do little but further enflame the conflict in the Middle East. The measure before the House today comes on the heels of weeks of work by the Bush Administration to reduce tension in the region, and bring about an end to the suicide bombings and Israeli incursion into Palestinian towns. The resolution would likely complicate the President's efforts since it provides a one-sided view of the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict that likely would only cause anger and distrust for the U.S. among the Palestinian people and erode the hard-won progress the Administration has already made. I and other Members have expressed a preference for a more balanced statement that would express support for Israel, but additionally advance the cause of peace. Press reports and a Member on the floor during debate today has stated that officials with the U.S. agency responsible for the peace process efforts, the State Department, also indicated their preference for a less one-sided bill. Senator Joseph Lieberman and Congressman David Obey both had prepared resolutions of support that were much more balanced that I would have strongly supported had I had the opportunity to do so. Both of those resolutions still condemn suicide bombings, support the right of Israel to defend itself and call on the Palestinians and other Arab states to work to end terrorism. Congressman Obey's resolution also urges Israel to make it clear when it will withdraw from Palestinian territories. Additionally, included in the measure before the House today is a statement supporting increased foreign aid to Israel. With budget deficits projected over the next several years, we won't even have the necessary resources to strengthen homeland security, improve Medicare benefits, safeguard Social Security, develop a comprehensive drug plan for senior citizens and provide a high quality education for America's youth. We must do all we can to support the President's efforts to bring about peace in this region. I certainly do not want to undermine what progress he has already made. While I have consistently been a supporter of the State of Israel, regrettably, today I must vote `no,' on this resolution. It is always difficult to say ``no'' to friends, but we must when it's appropriate. And it is appropriate here because this action does not advance the long-term cause of peace in the region.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Girl Scouts of the USA this year for their 90th anniversary. Since 1912, the Girl Scouts have strived to help all girls grow strong by teaching them to develop to their true potential. Through girl scouting, girls acquire self- confidence and expertise, take on responsibility, and are encouraged to think creatively: all qualities essential for good citizens and leaders. Today, with a membership of 3.8 million, the Girl Scouts are the largest organization for girls in the world. Of that 3.8 million, almost one million of those are adult volunteers, who dedicate their time and enthusiasm to ensure that Girl Scouting is available to every girl in every community, reaching beyond racial, ethnic, socioeconomic or geographic boundaries. Scouting encourages girls to study fields that are typically male dominated, such as science, technology, health and sports. Of the more than 50 million women who are Girl Scout Alumnae, over two-thirds are doctors, lawyers, educators, or community leaders--including many Congresswomen. Former Girl Scouts include Eileen Collins, the first female space shuttle commander, Olympic Gold Medallist Jackie Joyner- Kersee and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. For 90 years, Girl Scouts have paved the way for girls of all ages, empowering them to become leaders, and community activists. Through their dedication, Girl Scouts have improved our communities, and adults have realized they can be positive role models to children. Many thanks and congratulations to the Girl Scouts for their invaluable achievements over the last 90 years.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, on April 26, 2002 St. Mark African Methodist Episcopal (A.M.E.) Church will celebrate its 133rd anniversary in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In 1869, a time when African American's made up less than 1 percent of the city of Milwaukee's population, St. Mark A.M.E. Church was founded in a former site of a German Congregation. Although no longer at that location today, St. Mark is one of the oldest, largest and most influential congregations in Milwaukee. The A.M.E. Church in the United States was founded out of the Methodist tradition but with its roots in the segregationist attitudes of that period in our history. In 1787, a group of slaves and former slaves in the Philadelphia area withdrew from St. George's Methodist Episcopal Church when they were not permitted to sit with the congregation, but were forced to sit separately in the gallery. They formed their own church, the African Methodist Episcopal (A.M.E.) Church, and committed themselves to living the gospel and adopted the motto of ``God Our Father, Christ Our Redeemer, Man Our Brother.'' After its founding, the A.M.E. church spread quickly throughout the Northern states, and eventually moved into the South after the Civil War. Eighty-two years after the A.M.E. church's founding in the United States, a group of African American activists came together in Milwaukee, to establish St. Mark. Several of St. Mark founding members had a positive and permanent impact on the African-American Community in Milwaukee and Wisconsin. Mr. Ezekiel Gillespie, a former slave from Georgia who served as chairman of the group that founded St. Mark in 1869, filed a historic lawsuit that eventually led to full suffrage for African-Americans in Wisconsin. The Reverend Eugene Thompson, a former pastor at St. Mark, was one of the founding board members of Columbia Building, which in 1924 began helping African-Americans buy homes in the Milwaukee area. This history of living one's faith through activism provides the foundation for a legacy of service to the community. Current initiatives and ministries at St. Mark are operated through the Lovell Johnson Quality of Life Center, and include counseling for alcohol and drug abuse; assistance with economic development, education and employment opportunities, as well as environmental preservation. The church also created the Anvil Housing Corporation and was the first African-American congregation in Wisconsin to sponsor senior citizen and disabled housing. St. Mark also fosters public service and patriotism in its youngest members through its sponsorship of Boy Scout and Girl Scout troops. So it is with great pride that I congratulate the congregation of St. Mark A.M.E. Church and its Pastor, Reverend Michael A. Cousin, on 133 years of giving glory to God by living the gospel and serving our community.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, On Sunday, May 5, 2002, the Pulaski Council of Milwaukee will be observing Polish Constitution Day with its 23rd annual Heritage Award Dinner. This year's Polish Heritage Award is being given to Milwaukee author and historian John Gurda. John is a native Milwaukeean, with a life-long love for local history. He is author of 13 books, including his most recent work, The Making of Milwaukee, a superbly written and richly illustrated account of our community's past and present. An 8-time winner of the Wisconsin Historical Society's Award of Merit, John Gurda serves as a guest lecturer, tour guide and local history columnist for the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel. He has also received well-deserved honors from the Council for Wisconsin Writers, which awarded him the Leslie Cross Award for book-length nonfiction, and was the Milwaukee Public Library's 2000 inductee to the Wisconsin Writers Wall of Fame. Anyone who has had the opportunity to hear John speak, read his books and articles, or take one of his neighborhood tours has truly been enriched by the experience. He is a masterful storyteller, bringing Milwaukee's colorful and fascinating past to life, and often finding, in the telling, important relevance to our community's present and future. Milwaukee is a city of immigrants, a weave of many nationalities and cultures. John Gurda has eloquently captured the histories of our ethnic neighborhoods, including Milwaukee's Polonia, or Polish-American community. From Polonia's early struggles with poverty and language barriers to its growth to one of Milwaukee's largest ethnic groups, John has skillfully chronicled the community's rich Polish heritage. As Gurda himself has said, ``We look back to look ahead; the deepest value of the past is to help the present shape its future.'' John Gurda's gift to Milwaukee's Polish-American community is a deeper connection to its past, and a greater understanding of its role in our city's present and future. The Pulaski Council of Milwaukee has made an outstanding choice for its 2002 Polish Heritage Award, for John's words will continue to educate, inspire and bring Milwaukee Polonia's history to life for generations to come. Congratulations, John!

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House, upon conclusion of today's business, adjourn until noon, January 1, 2011.

Mr. KLECZKA. Well, Mr. Speaker, if it was in order, it would give some rationale to the bill before the House. The tax bill, as passed by my colleagues to my left, provided for the sunset. And the gentlewoman from Washington State just stood up and said, my friends, here is what happens. If you die in 2011, you are going to pay an inheritance tax. And if you die in 2009, you will not. Well, whoever drafted such a nutty bill? It was they who did so, and it was they who passed it. And it was signed by the President in June of last year. So now a few months later to come back and say, my God, the sky is falling, we are hearing from people who know they are going to die in 2011, and they want it changed now. And I have not heard from any constituent who knows they are going to die in 2011. But I say to my colleagues that we have some other things to talk about before we restore the permanency to this tax cut. Why are we doing it? I think I know why. In November there is going to be a congressional election, and right now, the poll numbers are showing them guys think they are in trouble. And if, in fact, the Democrats take back the House, which I think we will, that bill might not come up. And the new chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), might see to it that it does not come up right away, because he and I and many other Democrats are concerned about providing for a drug benefit for the Medicare program. That is going to cost some money. We are told by the Secretary of the Treasury that by June of this year, we have to increase the national debt for all Americans to $6.5 trillion. How can we do that if we make permanent a tax cut which is questionable to begin with? But remember the debate last year. We were awash in a surplus. We were just swimming in greenbacks here in Congress, so they had a tax bill that gave the bulk of it back; and this year's budget is back in a deficit. Let us take care of the needs of the people; let us get out of deficit before we do something foolhardy, and if I get that call from a constituent who is going to die in 2011, I want to know how he or she knows that.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? The fact is he voted for the conference committee report.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. We do have with us today, Mr. Speaker, a group of students. I think they are probably sitting up there wondering, what is the Congress talking about today? The issue before the House is to extend the hunting season for mourning doves, little mourning doves that go whoo, whoo, whoo. In the winter they are at the bottom of the feeder. For the most part, they are ground feeders. They are pretty little birds, very, very peaceful. What we are doing today is extending the season so we can kill them. Well, the students probably know or have talked to their folks who have indicated this is a bad economy. Maybe one of the parents is laid off, or a neighbor or an uncle or aunt; and it is Congress's authority and it is in our power to give them unemployment compensation benefits. What is happening is they are running out of their original natural allotment. The U.S. Senate, your Senators, passed a bill providing a 13-week extension for unemployment compensation benefits to help people who are laid off. It is in the House, but the Republicans in this House do not want to take it up and instead bring before the House today, we have nothing else to do today, they bring before the House today a bill to extend the season on killing these little, whoo, whoo, whoo, mourning doves. Let me tell you about the mourning dove. I come from the State of Wisconsin. When I was in the State legislature a couple years ago, back in 1971, the State legislature passed a bill naming the mourning dove a bird of peace, a bird of peace. How noble. It was befitting this little bird. Well, then the legislature and the Natural Board of Resources last year voted to open the season. It is bugging some people that this little bird which mates for life is at the bottom of some people's bird feeders cleaning up the seeds that have been knocked out of the feeder and so the response for Wisconsin is kill them. So Wisconsin says let us kill them. They are bugging someone. But then those who want to kill them are saying, Oh, but are they good eating. Listen, after we take the feathers off that little guy, it is about this big and 4 ounces. Is that a meal? To hear the Republicans come up and say we need to kill these birds because of economic stimulus or because we need it to provide some economic development, how hungry can you be? We know full well the bad news is the bird of peace in the State of Wisconsin is now being killed because it provides such great meals. I guess it is something like a turkey. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, the Retired Enlisted Association's Senior Citizens League (TREA) is a non-profit organization that professes to help seniors by promoting legislative reforms that will advance the interests of elderly individuals. However, contrary to its claims, TREA has repeatedly targeted seniors with mailings about the ``Notch'' issue 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 difference arose because a law was passed in 1972 that provided automatic cost-of-living adjustments for all Social Security recipients, so that benefits would keep pace with inflation. However, the formula used was flawed, causing benefit levels to rise faster than the rate of inflation. In 1977, Congress corrected this formula, necessitating a reduction to the correct level of Social Security benefits. Unfortunately, groups like TREA are telling seniors they are working to correct a Notch ``problem'' that doesn't exist, in an attempt to scam seniors out of their hard-earned money. The Social Security Administration, State Attorney General offices, and Members of Congress have received numerous complaints and questions from seniors who have been confused and misled by TREA's Notch campaign. In response to these complaints, the Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee held a hearing on July 26, 2001 to investigate TREA's activities. This hearing uncovered numerous deceptive tactics used by this organization. For example, TREA purports to have the authority to handle distribution of Social Security benefits by mailing seniors an official looking ``Notch Registry'' identification card and a ``National Notch Victim Register'' form that asks seniors to specify whether they prefer their $5,000 Notch payment sent to them in one lump sum or in installments. Seniors' preferences are requested in spite of the fact that Notch payments have not been authorized by Congress, and even if they were, distribution of such payments would be handled exclusively by the Social Security Administration. TREA also disseminates solicitations containing replicas of Social Security checks written in the amount of $5,000. Perhaps the most disturbing of all, TREA's fundraising efforts have included mailing solicitations that ask seniors to redraft their wills to make TREA a beneficiary. Specific instructions for such will preparation are even provided. During the Subcommittee hearing, it was discovered that TREA Senior Citizens League used its mailings to collect over $46 million from seniors from 1997 to 2000, with $12 million of that in the year 2000 alone. It is clear that Congress can no longer turn a blind eye to TREA's fundraising schemes, which seek to exploit America's seniors in the name of legislative reform. Despite repeated warnings by House members to end the barrage of misleading solicitations, TREA has refused to comply with such requests. TREA's actions leave me with little choice but to introduce a bill that would revoke the Congressional 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 is clearly not patriotic, charitable, or educational, and allowing TREA to maintain its Federal charter would send a signal to the American public that Congress condones such behavior. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill in response to the deceptive tactics of a group that preys on our senior citizens. The Retired Enlisted Association's Senior Citizen League, or TREA, as it is called, has repeatedly targeted seniors with deceptive ``Notch'' mailings in an attempt to extort millions of dollars from these seniors. This is a scam. TREA is telling seniors that they are working to correct a problem that does not exist in an attempt to bilk the elderly out of their hard-earned money. From 1997 to 2000, this group raked in over $46 million. Because of these tactics, today I am introducing the Senior Protection Act, which would revoke TREA's Federal charter, a distinction given to groups with a patriotic, charitable, or educational mandate. Their deceptive tactics reflect none of these characteristics. Congress can no longer turn a blind eye to TREA's fund-raising schemes which exploit our seniors. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to join me and cosponsor this necessary legislation.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, it is also true that last October we passed a ``stimulus'' bill, a bill which repealed the alternative minimum tax for businesses, but made it retroactive to 1986, giving IBM one check for $1.4 billion, GM a check for $850 million, and Enron $250 million. And my colleague wonders why the Senate did not pass his bill? The gentleman poisoned the well with that type of nonsense.

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), in his opening remarks said the reason we need this bill comes with a very easy explanation. In fact, it is one word called jobs. I will give my colleagues an easier explanation as to why we need this bill, but it is two words. It is called campaign contributions. Last year we already passed an economic stimulus bill. It totaled $1.3 trillion in tax cuts, and many of us argued that that is too much, the surplus that we thought would be there might not materialize, and lo and behold it has not. So compliments of the party of fiscal discipline, this Federal Government is now in a deficit. After we passed this massive tax break, the bulk of which folks are not going to get, we passed a $15 billion bailout for the airlines, and we were told at that time by the Speaker and the minority leader the next bill or very shortly we are going to take care of the unemployed workers. That was months ago. Then the House brought up a bill to bail out the insurance industry. Again, nothing done for the unemployed worker. Today, we have an opportunity to finally take care of the unemployed worker. Pending before the House is a clean, simple Senate-passed bill that provides a 13-week extension for the unemployed worker, but the majority leader says we do more because that worker needs a job. That worker needs an extension because he wants his old job back, whether he or she has the seniority or he or she has a 401 or retirement program. We can do today what we have not done for months. We can pass this bill and have it to the President this afternoon by passing the Senate bill. Why must we do it today? Because today Congress goes on vacation. We are going on vacation for a week, and as Members are going to be scurrying off to Andrews Air Force Base to board those beautiful Air Force jets that workers paid for, taking them to exotic places, the workers of this country get nothing, the unemployed workers get nothing. Mr. Speaker, today we can send this valentine to the unemployed workers of America, and we are going to sign it, regards, the people's House. Not the ``Special Interest House,'' not the ``Business Only House,'' this is for the unemployed workers from the ``People's House.'' That is what we can do today. But my Republican colleagues are saying, okay, we will give this to the unemployed workers, but we have to give this valentine to our corporate business friends. Signed, Love, the Republicans. Mr. Speaker let us not blackmail the unemployed workers of America.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, today, at long last, the House of Representatives will finally get a fair vote on campaign finance reform legislation. In order to reach this point, 218 Members had to sign a discharge petition to force the anti-reform Republican leadership to bring this measure to the floor for a debate and hopefully passage. H.R. 2356, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001, is necessary if we are to remove the undue influence of soft money on our political process and the unregulated issue advertisements that inundate our airwaves during each election season. When Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 it included a provision that allowed national political parties to use unregulated contributions, ``soft money,'' for generic party-building activities such as get-out-the-vote drives and voter registration efforts. Initially, the parties adhered to the restrictions on the use of soft money, but soon began shifting soft money contributions to state parties to be used for paid television and radio campaign advertisements. Under FECA, such advertisements were supposed to be paid for by regulated hard money that is raised through limited contributions to political parties and candidates. We have recently seen an unacceptable increase in the amount of soft money used in campaigns. In the year 2000 elections alone, $495 million in soft money was spent by the parties, an amount that is nearly double the $262 million spent four years earlier. The steadily increasing use of soft money to skirt federal campaign contribution laws has given it a growing role in our system of elections that cannot be allowed to continue. An equally troubling aspect of today's campaign system is the number of issue advertisements broadcast on the television and radio. Although these ads technically adhere to federal campaign regulations, they violate the spirit of the law. Issue ads are supposed to be used to discuss issues of legislation, not to attack or support candidates, like they often do today. Through this loophole, corporations, unions, and other organizations have avoided federal reporting and disclosure laws by running ads that avoid the magic words ``vote for,'' ``vote against,'' ``support,'' and ``defeat.'' Since the ads are technically campaign ads, the people paying for them do not need to identify themselves or their supporters, which is contrary to the basic tenets of campaign-finance regulations. H.R. 2356 would fill in the gaps left by FECA. First, it would ban all national party use of soft money. In order to ensure that get-out- the-vote drives and other genuinely generic party activities are not hindered, it would allow state and local parties to spend soft money on these activities. Individuals, corporations, and labor unions can give $10,000 in soft money to party committees organized at the state, county, and local level for these legitimate efforts. H.R. 2356 would also prevent corporations and organizations from skirting the law with unregulated issue advertisements by requiring that all campaign ads for federal office be paid for with publicly disclosed and regulated campaign funds that are subject to federal contribution limits. This would be achieved by expanding the definition of ``campaign advertisement'' to include any ads that clearly identify a federal candidate made within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary and are targeted to that candidate's electorate. Some of my colleagues claim that these regulations would violate the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. That is simply untrue. Corporations, labor unions, and other organizations would still be permitted to use any funds they have to run ads that discuss issues of legislation, so long as they do not specifically refer to a candidate for federal office. If they do mention a candidate by name, all they have to do is to use hard money, which is regulated, subject to contribution limits and disclosure laws. These groups may also fund advertisements that do attack or support a specific candidate, the only requirement being that they do so through the established regulated process using hard money donations to their political action committees. This bill would also retain several important hard money contribution limits. Individuals would still be permitted to contribute only $1000 per election to candidates for the House of Representatives and political action committees would be restricted to the current $5000 per election limit. This day has been a long time coming. We need to reduce the influence of unregulated money which has been flowing at an increasing rate into our political system. H.R. 2356 reigns in soft money and issue advertising that has operated outside the framework of our campaign- finance laws. I urge my colleagues to support the amendments that the reform measure's authors must offer in order to get the complete bill to the floor under the GOP leadership's rule. Similarly, I urge Members to oppose those ``poison pill'' amendments designed to kill the bill, and instead support final passage of this important measure.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, today Mr. Stark from California and I are introducing the Medicare Substitute Adult Day Care Services Act. This critical legislation would expand home health rehabilitation options for Medicare beneficiaries while simultaneously assisting family caregivers with the very real difficulties in caring for a homebound family member. Specifically, this bill would update the Medicare home health benefit by allowing beneficiaries the option of substituting some, or all, of their Medicare home health services for care in an adult day care center (ADC). The ADC would be paid the same rate that would have been paid for the service had it been delivered in the patient's home. In addition, the ADC would be required, with that one payment, to provide a full day of care to the patient at no additional cost to the Medicare program. That care would include the home health benefit as well as transportation, meals, medication management, and a program of supervised activities. The ADC is capable of providing these additional services at the same payment rate as home health care because there are additional inherent cost savings in the ADC setting. In the home care arena, a skilled nurse, a physical therapist, or any home health provider must travel from home to home providing services to one patient per site. There are significant transportation costs and time costs associated with that method of care. In an ADC, the patients are brought to the providers so that a provider can see a larger number of patients in a shorter period of time. It is important to note that this bill is not an expansion of the home health benefit. It would not make any new people eligible for the Medicare home health benefit. Nor would it expand the definition of what qualifies for reimbursement by Medicare for home health services. To be eligible for this new ADC option, a patient would still need to qualify for Medicare home health benefits just like they do today. They would need to be homebound and they would need to have a certification from a doctor for skilled therapy in the home. This legislation simply recognizes that adult day care facilities can provide the same health services with the added benefits of social interaction, activities, meals, and a therapeutic environment, in which a group of trained professionals can treat, monitor and support Medicare beneficiaries who would otherwise be monitored at home by a single caregiver. Rehabilitation is enhanced by such comprehensive care. Not only does ADC aid in the rehabilitation of the patient, it provides an added benefit to the family caregiver. When a beneficiary receives the Medicare home health benefit in the home, the provider does not remain there all day. They provide the service they are paid for and leave to treat their next patient. Because many frail seniors cannot be left alone for long periods of time, this prevents the caregiver from having a respite or being able to maintain employment outside of the home. If the senior could utilize ADC services, they would receive supervised care for the whole day and the caregiver would have the flexibility to maintain a job and/or be able to leave the home for longer periods of time. Adult day care centers are proving to be effective, and often preferable, altematives to complete confinement in the home. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor and support this important legislation.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, if I were a Republican, I would not want to get up and talk on this rule either. It seems only the Committee on Rules representatives, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) has the guts to do that. But do we know what is void in this debate today? And I cannot recall in a previous hour and I cannot recall the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) saying it in this rule debate, that the House has already passed a stimulus bill. We passed one 2 weeks ago. But it seems no one wants to talk about that because that is the bill that gave $1.4 billion to IBM, $1 billion to Ford, $850 million to GM. That is what was in that give-away. So why do not we have a compromise here today? Because the Senate looked at that and said not over their lives. That was dead on arrival. All right. So there has been talks going on over the last couple weeks. And I know why I am a Democrat and now I know what the Republicans are all about. Do you know why we do not have a compromise with us today? Even though the other body was going to swallow some of the tax cuts, the main reason is the Republicans did not want to do anything of any meaningful value to the unemployed in this country, and to those losing health care. My colleagues smile. The bill says $9 billion for health care for unemployment. That goes to the States. There is no guarantee they are going to extend unemployment 13 weeks. They can use those dollars in this bill to cover their current costs, and as far as the health care provision, we use two existing programs to provide meaningful health care coverage to those losing that coverage, but the Republicans are on a different program, and this is what really killed any compromise. Their long-term goal is to destroy the employer-based health care system in the country. When we get to the bill, I will bring out some charts that will prove that to be their agenda. That is why the Senate said no compromise. What their bill does is start us on the path of insurance credits. We are going to give them an insurance credit, and we go through the private market and find a policy, a poor family with no insurance and small income cannot afford a credit, be it 60 percent or whatever, so they are still going to go without. That is what this debate is all about. It is not stimulus. We passed a $1.35 trillion bill in June. There is more tax cuts in the pipeline than brains in this House. This is all about doing damage to the health care system of the country.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) indicated in his opening remarks that this is sort of like a compromise, sort of like a conference committee report. Well, it is sort of like it is not. The fact of the matter is the only good part of the bill is it is as dead as the first you passed, which is even worse. Now, one of the big hangups between the other body and the House Republicans was not the corporate tax giveaways, totaling some $60 billion for this year; but it was a few billion dollars for the unemployed and those who are losing their health care. And I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), what you have in this bill is woefully inadequate. If we can throw $60 billion at the corporations and the high-income folks, we can do better for those people who have lost their jobs and have lost their health care. And so the other body, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and our negotiators were going to swallow hard on the corporate stuff. We will give you the $60 billion, but we want a better shake for the unemployed. And you guys said, you cannot have a better shake, this is all we are giving you. And then what really squelched the deal was your insistence on health tax credits. Some might say, well, why are they so hung up on it? Well, Mr. Speaker, here is why. Here is a quote from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means in an article dated March of 1999, where he indicates, ``We will offer a bill this year to jettison the entire employer-based insurance system and replace it with a system of individual tax breaks.'' So it did not happen in 1999, but it is happening today, and this is the start of it. Instead of expanding an existing program, COBRA, and giving a better break to workers, what my colleagues are doing is saying we are insisting on these tax credits because the next step, my friend, is to replace employer-sponsored health care with the same type of a tax credit. Now, you can say, no, that is not my quote, I do not remember that, but the chairman has said this four or five times, and I have the exact quotes each time. Remember the old Medicare program? They had a good idea over there about making it better and giving our seniors a Medicare HMO. And since that happened, 800 million seniors who joined up have quit it. It is a bad deal. It is a failed experiment. And so now my friends on the Republican side, after helping our seniors, are out to help working men and women by jettisoning employer-based health care. That is what this debate is all about. I am glad this bill is DOA, if it ever gets over to the Senate.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, almost 11 weeks have passed since the Speaker indicated that the House would take up legislation to help those who were unemployed due to the September 11th attacks and the slowing economy. To date we have not completed action on proposals to extend unemployment compensation, to address health insurance for people who lost coverage through their former employer, or to provide health insurance coverage for those who did not have health benefits through their employer. Today we are asked to consider another bill that would benefit large businesses at the expense of the American worker. The legislation before us would grant the President the ability to negotiate trade agreements with other countries and then send them to the Congress for it's up or down vote. Congress should be part of careful and deliberate negotiations on all trade agreements. They should not be put on the fast-track. Such a take-it-or-leave-it approach strongly favors any agreement submitted by the Administration, regardless of its flaws or impact on our workers and the environment. A recent trade agreement between the United States and Jordan was not subject to fast-track procedures, but was approved by Congress nevertheless. This measure required labor and environmental issues to be part of the core negotiating objectives. If Congress has not been a part of constructing that agreement, those objectives would surely have been left out of the accord. The most appalling aspect of this bill is the fact that it fails to address the continuing problem of varying labor and environmental standards throughout the world. The bill requires only that a country enforce its own laws--however bad they may be in terms of worker rights and working conditions. There is no real requirement that a country's law include any of the five core labor standards--bans on child labor, discrimination, slave labor and the rights to associate and to bargain collectively. Therefore, this bill would allow countries that do not provide basic protections to children under 14 who work in factories, that allow the use of slave labor, or that deny workers the basic right to associate and bargain collectively, to continue to do so. It is nearly impossible for American companies and their employees to compete against foreign businesses that pay poverty wages. Nor does the bill direct that concrete steps be taken to integrate existing or future multilateral environmental agreements with trade agreements. Instead, the bill says we do not care whether your companies pollute the water or poison the air. This bill says we do not care how safe your products are and it allows foreign investors in the U.S. to challenge our own right to enact environmental and other public interest laws within our borders. Our trade agreements should not forsake the interests of U.S. workers and industries, for the option of foreign companies flooding our markets with cheap products, forcing American businesses to close there doors and send their workers to the unemployment line. Trade agreements have far-reaching effects on the U.S. economy, workers and the environment and at a time when the economy is in a recession and America is waging a war overseas, the jobs of American workers should not be put at additional risk by this legislation. This bill differs little from the fast track bill voted down by the House in 1998 and it should be voted down today as well.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House of Representatives is considering the Medicare Regulatory and Contractor Reform Act of 2001 (H.R. 3391) on the suspension calendar today. This important, bipartisan legislation will address the very real and practical regulatory concerns health care providers, contractors, and beneficiaries are currently facing with the Medicare program. H.R. 3391 helps providers and beneficiaries better understand the complexities of Medicare, while at the same time protecting the Federal Claims Act and maintaining strong efforts to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. It is my hope that this legislation will allow providers to focus their attention on patients, and not bureaucracy. Of particular importance to me was the inclusion of language I offered during the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee markup that would establish a new Medicare Beneficiary Ombudsman. H.R. 2768, as originally introduced by the Ways and Means Committee, had included language requiring the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary to appoint a Medicare Provider Ombudsman to provide confidential assistance to physicians and practitioners regarding complaints and grievances. I believed this point-of-contact should be extended to Medicare beneficiaries, who also have complex questions and receive conflicting guidance. I am pleased that my suggestion to create a comparable Beneficiary Ombudsman to serve as a voice for beneficiaries within the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) was included. This provision should enable the Agency to better anticipate and address beneficiary needs. Furthermore, I requested language in Title II of the Act that would eliminate the provider nomination provisions for contracting purposes. This provision effectively waives the prime contracts that the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) currently has with national organizations and permits CMS to contract directly with entities during the transition period prior to the October 1, 2003 effective date without regard to competitive bidding procedures. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to both Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Stark, and their respective staffs, for being so accommodating and working together to create responsible, well-targeted regulatory legislation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3391, and I hope the Senate will work quickly to pass this legislation prior to the end of this Congressional Session.

Mr. KLECZKA

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, this week one of my district's many fine parochial schools will reach an important milestone. St. Veronica Catholic School, first opened its doors on December 6, 1906. Two small rooms accommodated the 106 students who attended class on that day. As the community once known as the Town of Lake expanded, so did St. Veronica's. After surviving the lean years of the Great Depression and World War II, a new 17-room school was dedicated by Rev. Gordon Johnson in 1952. Today, as the school prepares to celebrate its 75th anniversary, it boasts an enrollment of nearly 450. The Sisters of St. Francis of Assisi, who taught at St. Veronica's from its inception until the late 1980s, instilled in their students the importance of education, God, family and community in their daily lives. Sister Marie Estelle Kuczynski and her faculty and staff the school's dedication to those ideals as they prepare the children of today to become the leaders of tomorrow. St. Veronica's strives to afford its students the opportunity to acquire the skills necessary to excel in our changing world. New additions are planned for the library, learning center, and computer lab. However, the dedication to academic, spiritual, social and moral development remains unchanged. And so, it is with great pleasure that I join with the faculty, staff, students, and alumni of St. Veronica School in celebrating 75 years of quality education, and wish them godspeed in all that lies ahead.