Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Who are working and suffer the marriage tax penalty benefit under this legislation.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, of course I rise in support of this resolution which, frankly, is very, very important; and I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for the leadership he has given on this issue. You know, if you listen to the rhetoric of my friends on the other side of the aisle, you can see they are, frankly, laying the groundwork for a tax increase. They opposed permanency of the Bush tax cut, they are opposing permanency of the individual provisions, whether marriage penalty or death tax, and even the most popular provision, which, of course, is the pension provisions that we have before us today. They are opposing it; and, frankly, a vote against this resolution essentially is a vote in favor of a tax increase. As you can see from the rhetoric and their procedural moves that they always take, they are trying to stall, stymie and delay making permanent the Bush tax cuts, because they believe that money can be better spent here in Washington than hardworking Americans can spend it back home. I believe, as I know the majority of my colleagues do, that we should allow working Americans to keep more of what they earn. Today we are, of course, talking about the opportunity to improve retirement savings. This House passed this with overwhelming bipartisan support. In fact, the Bush tax cut, the final version passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Unfortunately, it was not permanent; but we passed legislation increasing opportunity for retirement savings, which benefits every American who pays taxes. We increased the opportunity to give a larger amount to your individual retirement accounts, increased that from $2,000 to $5,000. We increased what you can put into your 401(k) from $10,000 to $15,000. I would note that there are catch-up provisions. People like my sister Pat, who are out of the workforce for a few years, staying home with the kids, the family income is less and they were not able to set aside much or anything for retirement savings. Now they can make a catch-up contribution once they turn 50, which will be a great benefit to stay-at-home moms and empty-nesters. Thanks to the Bush tax cut, that is now law. Unfortunately, it is temporary. I would also note, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) pointed out, we had an important reform that benefited over 10 million construction workers, building tradesmen and women, all across this country, who benefit from the removal of the caps put in place under section 415, which affects the multi-employer pension funds, which are basically labor union and building trade pension funds. Those artificial caps have been in place for far too long. Thanks to the Bush tax cut, they have been removed. And for a couple like Larry Kohr of Peru, Illinois, and his wife, he saw his take-home pension that he can live on, now that he has retired, essentially double by removing those artificial caps. There is no science and no reason to have them; nobody had just gone back to fix them. So that section 415 provision, which claims a lot of bipartisan support unfortunately will expire unless we make it permanent. That is why I was pleased earlier this year that the House of Representatives passed with a vote of 407 Members, the vast majority of Democrats; only a very small, narrow group of Democrats voted against making permanent this legislation. Unfortunately, the Senate has not yet taken up this legislation. My hope is that the House and Senate can work together in a bipartisan way and make permanent efforts to eliminate that cap on section 415, as well as increase opportunities for retirement savings. So let us really get to what the real issue is here before us. The question before us today is, do we make permanent the portion of the Bush tax cut which gives increased opportunity for retirement savings, helping construction workers, helping those who have IRAs or 401(k)s, helping empty-nesters or stay-at-home moms do what we all need to do more of, and that is to set aside more for our retirement savings. Think about this: unless we make it permanent, those opportunities go away. That is a tax increase on savings; that is a tax increase on working Americans. This is a simple vote, and that is if you vote ``no,'' you are voting to raise taxes on all those who wish to save for their retirement. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I commend the gentleman from Ohio for his resolution before the House.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the rule. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question because this is a pretty simple debate before us today. We are debating bringing up a measure that says we need to get our work done on making elimination of the marriage tax penalty permanent; and before I discuss this marriage tax penalty, I do want to commend my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for their good work on the pension legislation that is also part of this rule debate, particularly for the inclusion of the 415 pension provisions which benefit over 10 million construction and building trades people across America. Thankfully, President Bush had the leadership to sign that legislation into law; and unfortunately, it was a temporary measure, and just imagine what it would mean to working folks back home in our districts if the rug were pulled out from them if that provision were allowed to expire, what it means for a laborer in my district like Larry Core. That 415 provision means a doubling of his pension by removing those artificial caps that denied him the full pension that he earned and deserved. I have often, like many of my colleagues, come to the floor and asked the very fair and basic issue of fairness, and that is, is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code almost 42 million married working couples have suffered higher taxes historically just because they are married? It does not seem right, and it does not seem fair; but the average marriage tax penalty would be about $1,700. Thankfully, this House, along with the Senate, and we obtained bipartisan support, succeeded in passing as part of the Bush tax cut legislation to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, helping 42 million married working couples, couples such as Jose and Magdalena Castillo, two laborers, two construction workers from Joliet, Illinois. They have a son and daughter, Eduardo and Carolina. They are good people. They work hard. They are pursuing the American dream, but they suffered the marriage tax penalty prior to President Bush signing the Bush tax cut into law. Unfortunately, the Bush tax cut is temporary. It expires in a few years, so what that means for a couple such as Jose and Magdalena Castillo, who right now have the marriage tax penalty essentially eliminated, is they could end up paying in a few years about $1,700 more in higher taxes just because they are married; and I believe that there is bipartisan agreement in this House that it is wrong that a married couple who are both in the workforce, man and wife, should pay higher taxes. We saw that we had almost 60 Democrats join with every House Republican that rejected their leadership's call, and they voted with us in eliminating that marriage tax penalty. We have before us today a rule which will allow us to bring up this coming week a measure which will say that we want to complete before the end of this year, making permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, and this House has passed legislation to make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty; and I would note that the Senate has not taken up permanency when it comes to eliminating the marriage tax penalty legislation that the House passed months ago. I think it is important that we make this a bipartisan priority. We have that opportunity today, because think about it, for Jose and Magdalena Castillo of Joliet, Illinois, two hardworking people who have suffered the marriage tax penalty, just like 42 million American working couples, unless we make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, they are going to once again suffer higher taxes just because they are married. We have a simple vote before us. We are voting on a rule. It is a procedural thing that we have to do, but this rule will allow us to debate the need to finish our job on eliminating the marriage tax penalty permanently; and, again, I would note that this House passed, and the votes of every House Republican and about 60 Democrats joined with us in a bipartisan effort, to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Michael Vinciguerra, who will be inaugurated today as the 8th President of the University of St. Francis in Joliet, IL. Dr. Vinciguerra comes to the University of St. Francis from the State University of New York (SUNY) at Farmingdale where he served since 1970 as professor, vice president for academic affairs, and provost. While at SUNY-Farmingdale, he led the effort to transform the college to a four-year institution as well as helping to create a campus Bioscience Park in collaboration with Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and a leading biotechnology company, OSI Pharmaceutical. He also initiated a campus- wide outcomes assessment program; pursued continuous improvement in programs and upgraded fiscal enrollment management. Experienced in Catholic Education, Dr. Vinciguerra is a graduate of Iona College in New Rochelle, NY with a degree in chemistry. He holds a master of science degree and Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Adelphi University. Michael and Grace recently relocated in Joliet, IL, and have one son, Michael, who is married to Darcy and one grandson, Christopher who lives in Spotsylvania, VA. With his wealth of academic experience and his ability to work closely with the community, Dr. Vincinguerra is the right choice to lead the University of St. Francis community in its 2002-2003 Annual Theme of ``A Time of Renewal, to reconnect, reaffirm and rejuvenate the many qualities that make St. Francis unique.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask this body to join me in welcoming Dr. Michael Vinciguerra as the President of the University of St. Francis.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 399 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 393, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, due to unavoidable circumstances, I was forced to take a medical leave of absence from the House of Representatives from 12:00 p.m. on September 5, 2002, until 12:00 p.m. on September 10, 2002. I respectfully request that how I would have voted had I been able to be present for votes be submitted and accepted into the Congressional Record at an appropriate place as follows: On Rollcall vote No. 375, H.R. 5157 offered by Representative Don Young, on Federal Transit Formula Grants Flexibilty, had I been able to be present I would have voted ``aye.'' On Rollcall vote No. 376, H. Con. Res. 401 offered by Representative Don Young recognizing the heroism and courage displayed by airline flight attendants each day, had I been able to be present I would have voted ``aye.'' On Rollcall vote No. 377, H. Res. 516 offered by Representative Northup congratulating the Valley Sports American Little League Baseball Team from Louisville, Kentucky, for their outstanding performance in the Little League World Series, had I been able to be present I would have voted ``aye.'' On Rollcall vote No. 378, H.R. 5010 offered by Representative Jerry Lewis to close portions of the conference on the Defense Appropriations bill, had I been able to be present, I would have voted ``aye.'' On Rollcall vote No. 379, H.R. 3210 offered by Representative Oxley to instruct conferees, had I been able to be present, I would have voted ``aye.'' On Rollcall vote No. 380, on approving the Journal, had I been able to be present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Mr. Joseph F. Warner for his many years of service to the Illinois communities of Bloomington and Normal along with the County of McLean in Illinois. Mr. Warner was an outstanding leader in the civic, political, and charitable activities of these communities. Tragically, Mr. Warner lost his life on the morning of July 21 in an airplane crash. His strong leadership and enthusiasm for working to improve the quality of life in these Central Illinois communities will be very deeply missed. A strong advocate for the welfare and good health of senior citizens, Mr. Warner was the president and chief executive officer of Heritage Enterprises in Bloomington--a major senior service company with high quality senior residential facilities throughout the State of Illinois. Further evidence of his interest in health care--a field he served for 32 years--was Mr. Warner's work as past president, vice president and director of the Illinois Health Care Association; as a member of the Governor's task forces on long-term care insurance and long-term care reimbursement; as a trustee of the Mennonite School of Nursing and as the past McLean County chairman of the American Heart Association. Another key aspect of Mr. Warner's leadership was his interest in the providing of educational opportunities for young people--as demonstrated by his work as the fund-raising chairman for the innovative Challenger Learning Center for Science and Math; his service on Illinois State University's Board of Director's legislative committee; his presidency of the Redbird Education and Scholarship Fun at Illinois State University and his membership on the Board of Directors of the Illinois Wesleyan University Association. Mr. Warner's wide-ranging interest in charitable and community service work was perhaps a natural extension of his strong spiritual beliefs which led to his directorship of the United Campus Christian Foundation and his leadership role as the ruling elder of the First United Presbyterian Church. As an exemplary citizen and veteran of the United States Army, Mr. Warner believed in playing a very active role in the political process. His role included both work at the grassroots level as a Republican Precinct Committeeman with leadership service as the Chairman of the McLean County Republican Party. Mr. Speaker, despite the tragic circumstances, I am proud to offer to you the fellow Members of the House of Representatives the extraordinary life of Mr. Joseph Warner as the ultimate example to us all of American citizenship and service.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and urge Members to join me in supporting this bill today.

Mr. WELLER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today I stand in support of this legislation. As my colleagues know, I am very disappointed in the drafting of this legislation, particularly in regards to the south suburban airport at Peotone. But I believe it is in the best interests to move this process forward, particularly in the hope that in conference between the House and Senate, we can improve upon the language for Peotone. Air travel is expected to double in the next 10 to 15 years. We need to expand O'Hare, we need to build Peotone to accommodate the doubling of air travel. As we know, expanding O'Hare alone will not accommodate that growth in aviation. We need a south suburban third airport at Peotone. The governor and the mayor of Chicago have come to an agreement regarding the construction of Peotone, as well as expansion of O'Hare, and this legislation does not fully reflect that agreement, which has been the concern that I have had. But I spoke with the governor yesterday personally, and he asked me to support this legislation so it can move forward and move towards conference. In that spirit, I support this legislation today. Let me take a moment to discuss the importance of the south suburban third airport at Peotone. The south suburban third airport at Peotone will be a complement to O'Hare. And I will note that while they are pouring concrete and ripping up concrete, it is difficult to land airplanes, so we need a third airport to serve while O'Hare is expanded over the next 10 to 15 years. I would note that the south suburban third airport can be constructed in 4 to 5 years. It can be constructed for $500-600 million, compared to $13 billion. And from a local standpoint, for the 2.5 million of us who reside within 45 minutes of the Peotone site, it will generate over 200,000 jobs. Mr. Speaker, we need the south suburban third airport at Peotone to expand aviation capacity, and I believe by moving this legislation forward, we can move towards that goal. People often ask what is the status of the construction of the airport at Peotone. Just recently, the FAA released their EIS approval of FAA record of decision signing. They investigated and reviewed seven proposed sites for a third airport, and they said that the Peotone site is the best one. They gave their blessing for the State to continue moving forward with what we call land banking, and the State legislature and the governor have made the decision to move forward to acquire 4,000 acres of the 24,000 eventually needed for the purpose of land banking. That is an important step. We need to move this legislative process forward, and while I am disappointed in this language, I want to make it clear that I was strongly in opposition to this bill this past week, and should this bill come back without the provisions that we need to build a south suburban third airport, I will just as strongly oppose it when it comes back from the conference.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I stand here in strong support of legislation that is pro-family and pro-senior, legislation that will help families struggling to find long-term care needs. Mr. Speaker, if we look at the statistics, only 10 percent of Americans today have long-term care insurance, what some of us would call nursing home insurance. Many would suggest, well, do not worry about it right now; just, when the time comes if you need nursing home care, somebody else will pick up the tab. Well, we have learned how expensive nursing home care is for an average family. When we think about it, one could be a 16-year-old in a motorcycle accident and require long-term care if that tragedy were to occur. This is good legislation. I commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) for stepping forward to offer a solution that will help families and provide an incentive to purchase long-term care insurance. It is an above-the-line deduction for eligible, long-term care insurance premiums. When we think about it, this legislation is targeted to moderate and middle income families, individuals between the income levels, adjusted gross income level of $20,000 to $40,000, or if you are married, twice that. There is no marriage penalty here; all will be eligible for this above-the-line deduction. It helps the middle class, those who struggle the most. Because if you are poor, Medicaid picks up the tab; if you are rich, you can afford it. It is the middle class that struggles the most with nursing home care costs. I also want to commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) for including in this legislation help for those families who take care of mom or dad or a loved one at home. We receive a $3,000 personal exemption for our dependents and spouses under our Tax Code today. Well, this legislation creates a new one. If you have a parent living at home or someone, a loved one that is at home who requires long-term care needs and you are taking care of that family member at home, you get a personal exemption which, once phased in, will equal $2,500. That is leadership, and that is helping families, particularly middle and moderate-income families who some day will be seniors.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia. I consider myself a good friend of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), but he is wrong by offering this amendment today. We all feel we are supporters of our public employees. Here is a situation: I, as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, have a request in to the tax staff all the time, and sometimes they do not move fast enough, I think, or give me the response that I want; but I am not going to threaten their pay raise or threaten to take away their money, or to cut the number of staff in the Joint Committee on Taxation if they do not give me the result that I want. The gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and, of course, I assume the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Bachus), would say the same thing, the Democrat who is the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation says the report is going through the process and we are going to receive it. But if I am not going to get the answer I want when I request a revenue estimate on the proposal I have, whether it is to eliminate the marriage tax penalty or any other issue, I am not going to threaten the staff and threaten to take away their cost-of-living increase. That is what this amendment does. If we adopt this amendment, we are taking away a cost-of-living increase for public servants, nonpartisan public servants. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Monical's Pizza Corporation for receiving the 2002 Employer of Choice Award from the National Restaurant Association Educational Foundation. Monical's Pizza Corporation (Monical's,) is located in Bradley, Illinois and is within my 11th Congressional District. The Employer of Choice Awards are a component of the Industry of Choice Program. The initiative identifies critical areas to he be addressed in the restaurant and food service industry to improve retention and operating performance. The winners of the award are recognized for their ``best practices'' and are held up as models for others to follow. Monical's employs 950 people in over 50 locations located throughout Central Illinois with three in Indiana and one in Wisconsin. In 1997, Harry Bond, President of Monical's, began restructuring the company based on Harvard Business School's ``Service Profit Chain''. The ``Service Profit Chain'' is based on the idea of employee and guest satisfaction as the key to success and continued growth. Team leaders, support staff, restaurant managers as well as employees, have embraced the guest, and employee focused idea. Monical's has one of the lowest turnover rates in the industry. Many of their employees have been with them for over two decades. According to President Harry Bond, ``The company is constantly striving to improve planning and operations with the help of team members and their ideas. The best ideas come from our own staff. Monical's believes in hiring the best people and keeping them happy and productive.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to identify and recognize other companies in their own districts whose actions have so greatly benefitted and strengthened America's communities and workforce.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hayworth and the Kildee amendment to strike the Wolf language from this appropriations bill. Like my friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), I stand in strong support of the first Americans; and I believe they need to be given every opportunity as we work to ensure that they are full Americans. Our Constitution, as I have learned over the years, gives full sovereignty to our Native American tribes; and I think we all respect their efforts to be self-determined and self-sufficient. The question is, Why do we need one more commission? Now, a lot of times when we talk to the tribes and they wonder, because they have already had 70 of these kinds of commissions, and what good is one more group of guys in suits carrying brief cases saying, we are here from Washington and we are here to help and we are going to study you and we need you to fill out these forms. We are going to take you away from all of your other activities, so, hopefully, we can get some results that we want for whatever our agenda is. I have great respect for the gentleman from Virginia. I have admired his perseverance. He is a leading opponent of commercial gaming in America, and I have admired his perseverance about that, and that is what this is all about. What this study is being proposed for is to eliminate Indian gaming. That is the agenda here. Whether we support Indian gaming or not, the tribes have the right, under our national laws, to be able to engage in commercial gaming activities. If it is going to be discussed whether or not to take it away, it should be fully and thoroughly discussed in the Committee on Resources, which has jurisdiction over this language. It is the authorizing committee of this language. I would note that the Committee on Resources has not held a hearing on this bill and has not moved this legislation, probably because they recognize there have already been 70 other studies. Now, if one opposes gaming, I would note that the National Gaming Impact Study Commission and National Indian Gaming Commission have already thoroughly discussed these issues. Please vote for the Hayworth-Kildee amendment. It is the right thing to do. Let us not harass the tribes any more.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today is the first day we are in session in the week. Usually on the first day we deal with noncontroversial issues, something called the Suspension Calendar. It is my understanding we have almost 15 pieces of legislation before us today on what is normally a noncontroversial day. But I want to draw the attention of my colleagues to a very controversial piece of legislation that is on the Suspension Calendar, and I want to ask my colleagues to join me in opposition to this legislation, legislation which, frankly, breaks a bipartisan agreement back in my home State in Illinois. I am referring to H.R. 3479, legislation that is before us that we in the Chicago area know as the O'Hare bill, legislation that federally mandates construction of O'Hare and expansion of O'Hare. I want to ask my colleagues to join me today in opposition to this legislation. Let me explain why. I stand here in strong support of O'Hare. I stand in strong support of Midway. I also believe we need to build a third airport to serve the Chicago region. As we know, air travel is going to double over the coming decade, and O'Hare and Midway in the Chicago area are today at capacity. We need to rebuild and modernize O'Hare, but we also need to build a third airport in south suburban Peotone to serve the Chicago region. This past year, Governor Ryan and Mayor Daley entered into a historic agreement which provided for the reconfiguration and expansion of O'Hare, as well as development of Chicago's south suburban airport near Peotone, Illinois. My colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), introduced legislation which originally would have codified this agreement into law, modernizing O'Hare, and pushing development of a south suburban airport. I had originally stood here and stated time after time that I wanted to support this legislation and that I was ready to cosponsor the bill if it truly reflected the integrity of the agreement between the Governor and the mayor. However, this legislation, H.R. 3479, which will be before us this afternoon, does not reflect the agreement between the Governor and the mayor. In fact, the Governor has indicated he does not support the bill today in its current form. That is why I think it is important to note that H.R. 3479 breaks the bipartisan agreement between Governor Ryan and Mayor Daley on O'Hare. That is why I ask my colleagues to join me in opposition to this bill today. My hope is that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will go back and move legislation again, and bring it back to the floor, which truly reflects the bipartisan agreement which expands O'Hare as well as moves forward on construction of an airport at Peotone. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, as I noticed, breaks the agreement between the mayor and the Governor. I would note that the legislation, H.R. 3479, has no language in it which reflects the agreement that the Governor and mayor agreed to, which moves forward with the construction of a third airport at Peotone. The legislation takes away the State of Illinois's rights and undercuts the authority of the State of Illinois to make its own decisions regarding air travel. H.R. 3479 completely ignores the needs of the south suburbs of Chicago, where 2.5 million people live within 45 minutes of the proposed airport at Peotone. Additionally, I would note that failure to develop Peotone would shortchange the entire Chicago region by forfeiting almost 250,000 new jobs. Unfortunately, H.R. 3479 does not pay any heed to the studies that have, since the 1980s, consistently shown that Chicago, the region, and our Nation will have aviation gridlock, and the best solution is a new airport, a third airport to serve the Chicago region. Both the Governor and mayor recognized these studies when they reached their agreement last year. I would note that the bill that will be before us today breaks the agreement between the mayor and the Governor and does not reflect the integrity of the agreement. Nevertheless, the bill imposes a Federal solution on a State problem and does not have the full support of the Illinois delegation nor the people of Illinois, who will be most impacted by the legislation. In fact, the three members of the Illinois delegation most affected by H.R. 3479, the gentlemen from Illinois, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Jackson, and myself, stand in opposition to this bill this afternoon. I support Chicago-O'Hare and believe it needs to be expanded and modernized to be a safer airport with more capacity, but expanding O'Hare is not enough. It will not solve the capacity problem or face it in the future. Even with the development of a south suburban airport, O'Hare can still expect a 40 percent increase in passenger load, so they are still going to increase their business. Air travel is expected to double in the next 15 years. Expanding O'Hare will take 12 to 15 years, and we know we cannot land airplanes while pouring concrete. The south suburban airport at Peotone could be expanding capacity in just 4 to 5 years as a complement to O'Hare expansion. However, this legislation will kill any development of a south suburban airport and keep Chicago aviation gridlocked for years to come. Mr. Speaker, we need a bipartisan solution. The mayor and the Governor came together with an agreement. The bill before us today, H.R. 3479, fails to honor that agreement; in fact, it breaks the agreement between the mayor and the Governor. I urge opposition to this bill and ask that my colleagues join me in voting ``no.''

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting what we have before us today. Usually Suspension Calendar legislation is noncontroversial; but today we have a proposal which most people say only affects Illinois, so most Members may not be paying attention to it. But I think it is important to note that this legislation splits the Illinois delegation right down the middle. I stand in opposition to this legislation, and I also urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation with the hope that it is defeated and that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will revisit this legislation and produce legislation that truly recognizes the bipartisan agreement between Mayor Daley and Governor Ryan. I support O'Hare expansion, and I support a third airport at Peotone. As we all know, air travel will double in the coming decade. O'Hare and Midway Airports are at capacity. We need to rebuild and modernize O'Hare, and we need to build the South Suburban Airport near Peotone. Governor Ryan and Mayor Daley entered into a historic agreement last year which would provide for the reconfiguration and expansion of Chicago O'Hare and the development of the Chicago South Suburban Airport located near Peotone, Illinois. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) introduced legislation which would originally have codified this agreement into law, modernizing O'Hare and pushing development of a south suburban airport. I had originally hoped to cosponsor and support this legislation, if it truly reflected the integrity of the agreement between the Governor and the mayor. However, I would note that that is not the bill that is before us today. It is also important to note that the Governor of Illinois does not support this bill in its current form. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the bill that is before us today is only a fragment of the original legislation and represents none of the compromise that was reached between the Governor and the mayor. Rather, the legislation that is proposed before us today is an attempt to force the Congress to take an unprecedented step in mandating that Chicago O'Hare be rebuilt, as the mayor demanded, while completely ignoring the Governor's side of the agreement, the Governor's side of the agreement that a south suburban airport should also be built. As such, the Governor of Illinois, as I noted earlier, does not support this bill in its current form and as it is currently written. We ask that language moving for the construction of a south suburban third airport be added to this legislation. This legislation breaks the agreement of the mayor and the Governor, as I have noted here in my chart. There is nothing in this legislation that reflects the agreement to promote the development of a south suburban airport. This legislation takes away Illinois State's rights, and it undercuts the authority of the State of Illinois to make its own decisions regarding air travel. The legislation completely ignores the needs of the south suburbs of Chicago, where 2.5 million Illinois residents live within 45 minutes of the proposed airport site. Additionally, I would note that failure to develop Peotone will shortchange the entire Chicago region by forfeiting almost 250,000 new jobs. Unfortunately, H.R. 3479 does not pay heed to the studies that since the 1980s have consistently shown that Chicago, our region, and the Nation will have aviation gridlock in the near future, and that the best solution is a south suburban third airport. The Governor and mayor recognized these studies when they reached their agreement this past year. Nevertheless, the bill imposes a Federal solution on a State problem and does not have the full support of the entire delegation, nor the people of Illinois, who are most impacted. In fact, the four Members of the Illinois delegation most impacted in their own districts by H.R. 3479 stand in opposition today, the gentlemen from Illinois, Mr. Crane, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Jackson, and myself. Mr. Speaker, I support Chicago O'Hare, and I believe that it needs to be expanded and modernized to be a safer airport with more capacity; but expanding O'Hare alone will not solve the capacity needs of the future. Even with the development of a south suburban airport, O'Hare could still expect a 40 percent increase in passenger load. Air travel is expected to double in the next 10 to 15 years. Expanding O'Hare will take 12 to 15 years, and we cannot land an airplane while we are pouring concrete. The South Suburban Airport at Peotone could be expanding capacity and up and running in 4 to 5 years as a complement to O'Hare expansion. However, this legislation stifles any development of the South Suburban Airport and keeps Chicago aviation gridlocked for the next decade. Aviation is a key part of our economy for Chicago and our Nation. We must expand our capacity to accommodate the growth in aviation by building a third airport in Chicago's south suburbs, as well as expanding O'Hare. H.R. 3479 fails this goal and should be defeated. I urge my colleagues to join me by voting ``no'' and asking the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to produce a bill that reflects the historic agreement between Mayor Daley and Governor Ryan, working towards building a south suburban third airport as well as expansion of O'Hare. Again, the legislation before us today breaks the bipartisan agreement between Governor Ryan and Mayor Daley. I ask for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor in anger and outrage about the corporate scandals that we have seen in the newspapers over the last several months. I am outraged about Enron, Martha Stewart's insider trading, Global Crossing and the other companies that are demonstrating a lack of good faith in the free enterprise system, which I support. I stand in strong support of free enterprise and small business and giving every American worker the opportunity to move up the economic ladder. I commend what President Bush stated yesterday in his efforts to root out corporate corruption. If we support free enterprise, we want to clean out the bad apples. Unfortunately, the greed of the 1990s has come home to roost. Mr. Speaker, the House has acted. In April the House of Representatives passed accounting reform. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives passed pension reform to protect the pensions of American workers. Unfortunately, the Senate is only today beginning to act. My hope is the House and Senate can work quickly together to pass accounting reforms, pass legislation to protect America's pensions. I would note that the Democratic leader of the House, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), who yesterday called on the House to act, voted against accounting reforms in April. It is time for real reform. Fortunately, the House has acted. My hope is the Senate will act, and we will get the job done.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to briefly address the House on an issue, I believe, of importance to 36 million married working couples. This past year the House of Representatives and President Bush had a great accomplishment, that was, that we cut taxes across the board, benefiting every taxpaying American. In fact, over 100 million households have seen their Federal taxes lowered as a result of what we call the Bush tax cut; 3.9 million American families with children no longer pay Federal income taxes as a result of the Bush tax cut. We eliminate the marriage tax penalty; we wipe out the death tax; we make it easier to save for retirement as well as for education. Unfortunately, because of a quirk or an arcane rule over in the other body, the Bush tax cut ended up being a temporary measure. That means if we fail to make permanent the Bush tax cut, taxes will go back up for over 100 million American taxpaying households. I want to draw attention to one of the provisions, a provision which many of us have worked on over the last several years that is a fundamental issue of fairness and something we call the marriage tax penalty. Unfortunately, prior to the Bush tax cut being signed into law, 36 million married working couples paid higher taxes just because they are married. They paid higher taxes because when both husband and wife are in the workforce and you combine your income and you file jointly, it pushes you into a higher tax bracket and that creates the marriage tax penalty. If we allow the Bush tax cut to expire, 36 million married couples will pay about $1,700 more in higher taxes as a result of the marriage penalty being restored. That is a $42 billion tax increase. Let me introduce a couple from the district that I represent in the south suburbs of Chicago, from Joliet, Illinois, Jose and Magdalena Castillo, their son Eduardo, their daughter Carolina. They live in Joliet, Illinois, they are hard-working Americans, and they suffered the marriage tax penalty prior to the Bush tax cut being signed into law. The marriage tax penalty for Jose and Magdalena Castillo was about $1,150. There are some people here in Washington who think that we should allow the marriage tax penalty provision to expire because they want to spend that money here in Washington. For the, $1,150 is chump change here in Washington; but for a couple such as Jose and Magdalena Castillo of Joliet, Illinois, a hard-working couple that benefits from the marriage tax relief in the Bush tax cut, $1,150, that is several months' worth of child care for Eduardo and Carolina while they are at work. That is several months' worth of car payments. It is a significant amount of money they could set aside in their IRA or their education savings account for retirement or for their children's education. We need to make permanent the marriage tax penalty relief that this House passed this past year and was signed into law by President Bush. I am proud to say that just a few weeks ago the House of Representatives passed overwhelmingly, every House Republican voted ``yes'' and I also want to note that 60 Democrats broke with their leadership and joined with the Republicans in voting to make permanent the marriage tax relief provisions that we passed and were signed into law this past year. As a result of making it permanent, we will see protection for Jose and Magdalena Castillo. We will also see that Jose and Magdalena Castillo and 36 million couples like them will no longer pay the marriage tax penalty ever. That is why we need to make it permanent. Again, during this year as we debate whether or not to make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, there will be those on the other side who argue they need to spend the money here in Washington, that $1,150 for Jose and Magdalena Castillo does not really matter because it is really not a lot of money. The bottom line is it is a fairness issue. Is it right or is it wrong that under our Tax Code that a couple who choose to get married should suffer higher taxes? I think it is wrong that we would want to punish society's most basic institution. The bottom line is, this House of Representatives has voted overwhelmingly to make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. My hope is that the Senate and the House will join together, that we will have bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, and that we will send to the President this year legislation to permanently eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Because if we do not, couples such as Jose and Magdalena Castillo of Joliet, Illinois, will see a $1,150 tax increase just because they are married if we fail to make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. And if you add up all the couples across America who benefit from the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, 36 million married working couples, it would be a $42 billion tax increase overall. Let us protect Jose and Magdalena Castillo. Let us permanently eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us work together and let us get it done this year.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say tonight we have an opportunity to provide prescription drug coverage under Medicare for our senior citizens. Tonight we are seeing an example of two different kinds of debate. Some people want to offer partisan rhetoric for political purposes. Others want to offer policy, policy which gives a solution to the challenge we have. The bottom line is we want to provide prescription drug coverage for our seniors. It was quoted earlier this year, one of the advisers to the Democratic leadership said, ``One of the biggest worries that our policy people had was that they would actually write a good bill.'' We have a good bill before us. This is a bill that increases funding for Medicare by $350 billion, provides prescription drug coverage under Medicare, lowers the cost of prescription drugs now, guarantees all senior citizens prescription drug coverage, improves Medicare with more choices and more savings, and strengthens Medicare for the future. The question is: What does that mean for the average senior citizen? The bottom line is under the plan that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) is managing before the House of Representatives, we have an opportunity to save for senior citizens real money. The overall out- of-pocket drug costs would fall by as much as 70 percent according to the Department of Human Services with the plan we have before us today. According to a Health and Human Services study released this week, the House Republican plan would provide real relief for seniors and disabled Americans. Those who now pay full retail prices would typically see the cost of each prescription cut by 60 to 85 percent. Their overall out-of-pocket drug costs would fall as much as 70 percent, all in exchange for an affordable premium of $34 a month. It is projected that the average senior would save $940 a year as a result of this plan. We have a plan that takes $18 billion out of the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies and saves the average senior $940. It deserves bipartisan support.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, just a brief response to my friend from Ohio's partisan comments. It is always interesting that some will criticize campaign contributions, when their own party has solicited and accepted campaign contributions from the same industries or interests. So hypocrisy is nothing new in Washington D.C. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk this morning about an issue of fairness, fundamental fairness. Let me begin by just drawing attention to what we in Washington and around the country call the Bush tax cut. Last year, with the leadership of the House Republican majority, we passed through the House and Senate, and the President signed into law, an across-the-board tax cut that cut taxes for every American. Over 100 million Americans saw their taxes lowered. We eliminated the death tax, the marriage tax penalty, and we made it easier to save for retirement and for college education. Unfortunately, because of a quirk in the rules of the archaic rules of the other body, that tax cut had to be temporary. As we debate various issues before the Congress, it is always interesting that in the Congress historically it has been easy to raise taxes permanently, it has been easy to increase spending permanently, but it is very difficult to cut taxes permanently. Today I want to talk a little bit about one issue that I have been very involved in, an issue of fairness, and that is, is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code millions of married working couples where a husband and wife are both in the workforce and because they are married, they pay higher taxes? We call it the marriage tax penalty. On average, the marriage tax penalty today is about $1,700. Where you have a husband and wife both in the workforce, they pay on average about $1,700 in higher taxes just because they are married. We thought it was wrong that under our Tax Code society's most basic institution, which is marriage, was being punished. I have a couple here that is from the district that I represent, Jose and Magdalena Castillo, their son Eduardo, daughter Carolina. They live in Joliet, Illinois. They are laborers, construction workers. In the case of Jose and Magdalena Castillo, prior to the Bush tax cut being signed into law they paid about $1,150 more in higher taxes. The reason that a married couple where you have both the man and the woman in the workforce and your taxes are higher because you are married is because, in the case of Jose and Magdalena, like millions of other married working couples, they file jointly, which means that you combine your income. That pushed them into a higher tax bracket and cost them $1,150 in higher taxes. In Joliett, Illinois, $1,150 is several months' worth of car payments; it is several months of daycare for Eduardo and Carolina while mom and dad are at work. It is real money for real people. I was proud that one of the centerpieces of the Bush tax cut this past year, signed into law last June by President Bush a little over a year ago, was our legislation to eliminate and wipe out the marriage tax penalty. Unfortunately, because this provision was temporary, unless we make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, that we make permanent the Bush tax cut, 36 million married working couples, like Jose and Magdalena Castillo of Joliet, Illinois, will see their marriage penalty come back, where they are going to end up paying higher taxes just because they are married. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 36 million married working couples will see a tax increase of almost $42 billion unless Congress makes permanent our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I was very proud, just 2 weeks ago this House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way to make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. Every House Republican voted ``yes,'' and even though the Democratic leadership argued against our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, 60 Democrats broke ranks with their leadership and joined with House Republicans to vote to make permanent our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. My hope is both the House and Senate will be able to accomplish elimination of the marriage tax penalty permanently and that we will be able to get this legislation to the President this year. It is a priority. When you think about it, in Washington, D.C., the marriage tax penalty suffered by Jose and Magdalena Castillo of $1,150, that is pennies. That is chump change in Washington, D.C. But to the real people back home, in the south Suburbs of Chicago, in Joliet Illinois, $1,150 is real money. In the case of Eduardo and Carolina, for their children they could set that money aside for their college education in education savings accounts. Mr. Speaker, let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty permanently; and let us hope the Senate joins with the House, that we do it in a bipartisan way and get it done this year.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Leonard Hoffman for his years of service in the educational system. Mr. Hoffman, who retires this year, has served the educational system since August 25, 1969. Leonard began his career at Channahon Elementary School and has taught every subject except Science. He has also served as Union President, Union Vice-President and building representative. Always striving for excellence, Leonard initiated special school activities to keep the students active and interested in learning. One special activity is called the President's Test. The President's Test required students to be able to name the Presidents in order. Fifth grade students need to pass the President's Test to be ``eligible to go into sixth grade.'' This involved many practice sessions for the students and time for encouragement and positive reinforcement from the teachers. The President's Test has become an important ``rite of passage'' for the students. Other activities initiated by Mr. Hoffman include the Campbell's soup label saving program which provides funds to purchase new library books and audiovisual equipment. The students celebrated President Washington's birthday by making tri-cornered hats and making a button toy similar to those of that era. A history lesson on the Boston Tea Party included drinking tea and eating biscuits. Arbor Day was celebrated by Mr. Hoffman giving each student seedling trees to take home and plant. There are adults in the community that still talk about ``their trees''. Leonard Hoffman was born on February 25, 1947 in Morris, Illinois to Judge and Mrs. Leonard (Erb) Hoffman. He graduated from Illinois Wesleyan University in 1969 with a Bachelor of Science in Education. In 1973, Leonard received his Master's Degree in Education from Northern Illinois University. Leonard married Carol Collins Hoffman on March 9, 1974. They are the proud parents of Martha Hoffman. Leonard has also given his time and energy to the whole community. He is a member of the board of directors of the First National Bank of Dwight and a charter member of the First Bank of Channahon. Currently serving as Vice President, Leonard is one of the original trustees of Three River's Library system. He is also a Life Loyal Member of Sigma Chi Fraternity and a member of the Channahon Methodist Church. Leonard is best remembered for an often-cited quotation he learned from his first grade teacher, Miss Canaday, ``Directions are your friends, they tell you what to do''. In fact, you would not be able to find a former student of Leonard's that would not be able to remember this statement. His daughter, Martha, is now using this statement with her students. Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to identify and recognize others in their own districts whose actions have so greatly benefitted and strengthened America's communities.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time to speak on behalf of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I rise in support of passage of the permanency of the retirement savings provisions of what we call the Bush tax cut. First, let me comment very briefly and to the point on my colleague's remarks just prior to my speech. I think it is simple. If those in business break the law, they should go to jail. If we are probusiness, we enforce the law, and lawbreakers are held accountable. Unfortunately, the ethnics of the 1990s have come home to roost with Enron and Global Crossing and other companies which broke the law. Again, if they broke the law, they should be held accountable and should go to jail. Today I speak in support of the Retirement Savings Security Act of 2002, legislation which is so meaningful because it has a real impact on working middle-class families on the south side of Chicago, which I have the privilege of representing. What we call the Bush tax cut benefits 100 million taxpayers who saw their taxes lowered. We eliminate the marriage tax penalty and the death tax. We increase opportunities for savings for education and retirement. Today we are focused on making permanent the retirement savings component of the Bush tax cut. Unfortunately because of an arcane rule over in the Senate, it had to be temporary. If you think about it, all the good things that we did in the Bush tax cut to help working middle-class families, they expire unless we do something. It is interesting that in the Congress it is easy to increase taxes permanently, it is easy to increase spending permanently, but when you want to lower taxes or cut taxes, you can only do it on a temporary basis. That is just not right. We believe that increasing opportunity for retirement savings should be permanent and that the increases in the contribution limits for individual retirement accounts from $2,000 to $5,000 should be made permanent. Otherwise it goes back down to $2,000. And the increases in retirement accounts, of 401(k) accounts, which benefit millions of middle-class workers across America, that go from 10- to 15-, that, if it expires, goes back to 10-. Who is hurt? Working middle-class families. All the more reason we should make the Bush tax cut permanent, particularly the retirement savings component. I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for their leadership on assembling this package which was included by President Bush in his package. There are two provisions I want to draw attention to, one which is something that I really saw illustrated in my own family. My sister Pat is a teacher and for years has taught in public schools. When she and her husband Rich, who is a farmer, decided they wanted to have children, they had three kids, Matt and Sarah and Christy, they decided that she would take time out of the work force and stay home and raise the children until they were old enough to go to school. What happened in that case is the family income was cut in half. They did not have any money to set aside in retirement savings. They were just basically making ends meet, so they were not able to set aside money for retirement savings. Something that is really unique about this legislation is we allow people like my sister Pat and brother-in-law Rich, now in this case empty-nesters, or working women who go back into the work force, once they reach age 50 or older, we allow them to make what we call a catch- up contribution. They immediately can put up to $5,000 into their individual retirement account to make up for what they missed. If they have a 401(k) account, they can put an additional $5,000 above the 15-. That is meaningful. If this expires, they lose that opportunity. Second, I want to draw attention to something that benefits millions of building trades people, union members across this country. That deals with the 415 provision that is in the legislation. It was brought to my attention by a couple by the name of Larry and Lori Kohr from Peru, Illinois, retired laborers, this 415 cap which said regardless of how much you contribute into your multiemployer pension funds, which is usually a building trade unions pension fund, that there is a cap on how much you can receive. That cap was originally put in place for high-paid executives and public employees. Over the years it was all removed, all those caps, except for working men and women in the building trades. One of the priorities we in the Republican Congress made was removing that cap, so that people like Larry and Lori Kohr can get their full pension. They contribute more, they qualify for more, they should get their full pension. Prior to our cap, Larry and Lori Kohr only received about $19,500 a year, half of what they really should have received. Thanks to the Bush tax cut, by removing the 415 provision, Larry Kohr now receives a $39,500 pension. His pension was almost doubled as a result of removing that unfair cap. Think about it. If this is not made permanent, Larry and Lori Kohr will see their pension cut in half once again. So let us help working men and women. Let us help those who benefit from the 415 provisions, and the working moms, and the empty-nesters who benefit from the catch-up provisions by making this permanent. That is why I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for his leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor. It deserves overwhelming bipartisan support. Let us make the retirement savings provisions permanent.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the base bill, the Portman legislation, to make permanent the retirement savings provisions in what we call or label the Bush tax cut. I am proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that there are good things in the Bush tax cut to help working middle-class families save for retirement. We are going to hear some partisan rhetoric on the other side, but the bottom line is, the question before us is, do we make permanent the opportunity to set aside more in a voluntary way for retirement, particularly in your 401(k) and in your IRA, and, if you are a building trades person, to be able to get more in your pension fund. I would note in the legislation before us today that we increased the Bush tax cut from $2,000 to $5,000, the amount that one can set aside in an IRA. When this provision expires, we go back to $2,000. Also in the 401(k)s, we increase from $11,000 to $15,000 the amount that can be set aside in the 401(k). If we fail to make it permanent, that is gone as well. Something that benefits those who I call the working moms or the empty- nesters is that we allow those age 50 and older to make an extra contribution to their IRA or 401(k). Someone in a 401(k) can add an additional $5,000. So if one is returning to the workforce when the kids are out of college, and you have a little extra money, you can make up those missed contributions when your income was a little less and you had a lot of expenses. I also want to note that the building trades support making permanent the Bush tax cuts retirement savings provisions. They stand in support of this legislation. They have sent a letter to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) endorsing making permanent the Bush tax cuts provisions on retirement savings. The reason is because there is a provision there which helps millions, almost 9 million working middle-class building trades people, members of building trade unions, carpenters and laborers and operating engineers, cement finishers and others, electricians, who, because of the leadership of the House Republican majority, saw an artificial cap removed that essentially, in many cases, in the case of a constituent of mine, cut in half the pension that they receive. We remove that cap, and they get the full pension they qualify for. In the case of Lori and Larry Kohr, their pension goes from $20,000 to almost $40,000, doubling the amount they have; and it is what they deserve because of the hours they work. Let us make the Bush tax cuts and the retirement savings permanent, and set aside the partisan rhetoric. Let us vote in a bipartisan way.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to Mr. Michael Clinch on the occasion of his retirement after an exceptional career as Superintendent of Ottawa Township High School District #140 in Ottawa, Illinois. For the past thirty-five years, Superintendent Clinch has served the citizens and students of Ottawa in an outstanding fashion--beginning his career at Ottawa Township High School as a business teacher and moving up the chain of responsibility until his appointment in 1989 as Superintendent. Upon taking office in January, 1995 as the 11th Congressional District's Representative in the United States Congress, virtually the first community project brought to my attention was the need to complete the more than decade old effort to protect Ottawa Township High School from the frequent flooding of the Fox and Illinois Rivers with the construction of a levee around the School property. Largely because of both the unfailing determination of Superintendent Clinch to finally complete this vital project as well as the invaluable cooperation of Superintendent Clinch with my office, a compromise was reached with concerned neighbors of the High School and the multi- million dollar levee constructed under the auspices of the Corps of Engineers. Today, the levee provides for the safety of students and staff while protecting the millions of dollars which the taxpayers of Ottawa have invested in their High School--while at the same time saving the High School an estimated average of $200,000 per year in flooding damages. Superintendent Michael Clinch's career is marked by meritorious examples of this type of strong and visionary leadership ranging from the merger with Marseilles High School in 1990 shortly after his appointment as Superintendent to the recently confirmed multi-million dollar upgrading and expansion of Ottawa Township High School's buildings and classrooms. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am proud and pleased to be able to offer to my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives the example of Superintendent Michael Clinch as a modern day education leader able to combine an ironclad commitment to educational excellence with the rare ability to meet head-on and successfully resolve a wide variety of tough challenges.