Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, just in quick response to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), my good friend, I would say that not only will the bipartisan bill which she spoke against provide 5 million low-income working Americans receiving the earned income tax credit, significantly more relief, in fact, $400 a year, but that the proposal which the gentlewoman is in support of, the partisan Democratic substitute, that proposal would actually deny tax relief to millions of children throughout America, including her own district.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would note to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), my good friend, who spoke on behalf of the partisan Democratic alternative, that by voting for the partisan Democratic alternative against the bipartisan H.R. 6 that she would vote to deny 54,000 kids in the eighth district in California increased child tax credit relief. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), a leader on behalf of families.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Chief Mike Harshbarger who has retired from the Bourbonnais Fire Protection District after more than 31 years of service. Chief Harshbarger started with the Bourbonnais Fire Protection District on December 29, 1969 and retired on January 1, 2001. Much has changed in firefighting since Chief Harshbarger started. Firefighting has become more complex and technical. Training levels have escalated and technology keeps changing. When the Chief first started, all he needed was a coat, gloves, and a pair of boots. Today, training is needed to deal with many modern hazards. Chief Harshbarger has always subscribed to free thinking and is willing to listen to new ideas and suggestions. The Chief ran the fire department with the same philosophy as he ran his business, ``Our customers, the people of the district, are first and foremost.'' Chief Harshbarger rose to national recognition for his performance as head of the Amtrak rail crossing disaster scene on March 15, 1999. His work was chronicled in the August 2000, Readers Digest. Chief Harshbarger lives in Bourbonnais Township with his wife Ellie. The Chief is the second generation in his family to serve with the fire department. His father, Lyle, was a long-time member of the fire department. On October 12, 2000, the Kankakee Elks Lodge #627 named the Chief ``Citizen of the Year''. No one in the 100 years of the Lodge has ever received this award. Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to identify and recognize other institutions in their own districts whose actions have so greatly benefitted and strengthened America's communities.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this legislation. It is vitally important legislation. In representing the Chicago area, we are seeing tens of thousands of layoffs. I have families every day that tell me about their needs, their struggle to pay their high energy home heating bills. They are struggling to pay off their credit card bills. They are seeing their neighbors lose their jobs. And President Bush, as we know, inherited a weakening economy, and he is proposing that we move quickly to fix it and put some money back into the economy and protect jobs and help people pay off their bills. This legislation will provide real money for real people. I am pleased to point out and thank the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). This tax relief is retroactive, which means it will be effective this year, giving taxpayers, every taxpayer who pays taxes, the opportunity to have some extra money. That is a fine point about this bill. It is not targeted so that people are excluded or divided. It means if you pay taxes this rate reduction benefits everyone. It provides real money for real people. Mr. Speaker, I would note for a married couple with two kids, a combined income of $75,000, a machinist and schoolteacher, it will provide $1,600 in tax relief once fully phased in, $400 this year.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today I honor Joliet Junior College (JJC) as they celebrate their 100 year anniversary and the unveiling of the U.S. Postal Service post card honoring JJC. JJC is America's oldest public community college. It began in 1901 as an experimental postgraduate high school and was the ``brain child'' of J. Stanley Brown, Superintendent of Joliet Township High School, and William Rainey Harper, President of the University of Chicago. The college's initial enrollment was six students. Brown and Harper's innovation created a junior college that academically paralleled the first two years of a 4-year college or university. The junior college was designed to accommodate students who wanted to remain within the community and still pursue a college education that was affordable. Today, Brown and Harper's vision has spread across the nation and has become a vital part of our economic prosperity and our cultural awareness. Community Colleges have stood the test of time, meeting the challenges of recovery from depression and war, opening their doors to over 2.2 million veterans since World War II and teaching a generation of baby boomers. Now, our community colleges are faced with a myriad of new challenges as they enter their second century. On February 20, 2001, the United States Postal Service will issue and unveil a post card in honor of the 100th anniversary of JJC and to also honor all of America's Community Colleges. It is my hope that this post card will reaffirm to the American public the value of a good education and will remind us here in Joliet how lucky we are to have JJC in our backyard. Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to identify and recognize other institutions in their own districts whose actions have so greatly benefited and strengthened America's communities.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House today, and I wanted to take a few minutes to talk about not only the accomplishments of this Congress, but also to talk about a major issue of fairness, a fundamental issue of fairness in the Tax Code. I represent the south side of Chicago. I represent the south suburbs and Cook and Will, Grundy and Kankakee and La Salle Counties. This is a very, very diverse district of city and suburbs and country. The message that I have heard time and time again since I was a candidate for Congress in 1994 the first time, was that folks back home want us to look for solutions to the challenges that we face. I remember when I was first elected in 1994, we wanted to do some pretty radical things. We wanted to balance the budget, we wanted to reform the welfare system, we wanted to pay off the national debt, we wanted to stop the raid on Social Security and Medicare. We were called radical for having those kind of ideas and that kind of agenda. I am proud to say in the 6 past years that this Republican Congress has accomplished those very goals. Not only have we balanced the budget 4 years in a row, but we have paid down almost $600 billion of the national debt. And according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, we are projected to see a surplus of extra tax revenue, a tax surplus of almost $5.6 trillion over the next 10 years. Think about that. Our Federal budget this year is $1.9 trillion, but over the next 10 years we are expected to collect $5.6 trillion in more tax revenue than we are projected to spend. A huge surplus. I am also proud to say that we did something that our grandparents, many seniors and those who aspire to be seniors have complained about over the years, and that is we stopped the raid on Social Security. Three years ago, this Republican Congress took the initiative and passed legislation which locked away 100 percent of Social Security for Social Security. This past year we did the same for Medicare. And yesterday we did it again for the coming budget year. We passed the Social Security and Medicare lockbox, setting aside 100 percent of the Social Security and Medicare trust fund surpluses for Social Security and Medicare to use those dollars not only to run our current program of Social Security and Medicare, but to set them aside as we modernize those programs to assure that Social Security and Medicare are there for future generations. When it comes to welfare reform, I am proud to say that we reformed welfare. I remember when I was first elected we had more children living in poverty than ever before in our Nation's history and the highest rates of teenage illegitimacy. Clearly, our Nation's welfare system was failing. We passed welfare reform. Took us three times before we were able to convince the President to sign it into law, but he finally signed it into law in 1996. And since then we have seen our Nation's welfare rolls drop. In fact, in States like Illinois they have been cut in half, with almost 6 million former welfare recipients now on the tax rolls as working taxpayers. Clearly fundamental changes. Think about it. We have balanced the budget, we have stopped the raid on Social Security, we have stopped the raid on Medicare, we have paid on the national debt $600 billion, and we are on track to eliminate our Nation's debt by the year 2009, and we also reformed and made fundamental changes to our Nation's welfare system. One of our other priorities, of course, has been the issue of bringing fairness to the Tax Code. Now, I was proud that as a key part of the Contract With America we enacted the child tax credit. In States like Illinois, that meant an extra $3 billion in tax relief that stayed in the pocketbooks of Illinois taxpayers rather than going to Washington to be spent by Washington from that $500-per-child tax credit alone. But there are other issues in the Tax Code that we need to address that are important to families. I thought Valentine's Day was an appropriate day to raise this issue. It is an issue of fundamental fairness. Is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code 25 million married working couples, husband and wife both in the workforce, pay on average $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married? It just does not seem right, it does not seem fair that if a man and a woman who are both in the workforce decide to get married that they have to pay higher taxes if they make that choice. The only way today to avoid the marriage tax penalty, if you are still single, is to not get married. And if you are married, the only form you can file to avoid the marriage tax penalty is to file for divorce. Well, that is wrong that under our Tax Code married working couples pay higher taxes than identical couples who live together outside of marriage. That is just wrong. I am proud to say that this Republican Congress has made elimination of the marriage tax penalty a priority, and it is only appropriate that on this day, on Valentine's Day, that we deliver a valentine to the 25 million married working couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty and let them know that we want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It is wrong that married couples should have to pay higher taxes. I am proud to say that our current President, President Bush, agrees that elimination of the marriage tax penalty needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, the previous President vetoed our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, because last year we sent the Marriage Tax Elimination Act to President Clinton. He vetoed the bill. And of course that means 25 million couples still suffer that penalty. During the campaign last fall, then-candidate Bush said had he received the bill, had he been President, he would have signed it into law. So we have an opportunity with our new President to work towards our goal of eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Let me explain how the marriage tax penalty works. The marriage tax penalty occurs when a man and a woman, husband and wife, both are in the workforce. When they marry, they file their taxes jointly, which means they combine their incomes, and that usually pushes them into a higher tax bracket. Let me give an example of a married couple from the district I represent in the south suburbs of Chicago. This is Shad and Michelle Hallihan, two public school teachers from Joliet, Illinois. They actually live in a little town called Manhattan, but they are public school teachers in the Joliet area. They have a combined income of about $65,000. They now have a little boy named Ben. When they file their taxes, with their combined income, and after they do the personal exemptions and all the other provisions they have, they pay an average marriage tax penalty of almost $1,400. And as Shad and Michelle have pointed out to me, for Shad and Michelle Hallihan and for the average married working couple, $1,400 is real money to the folks back home in Illinois. Here in Washington, $1,400 out of a $1.9 trillion budget, it is a drop in the bucket. But for real people and real communities in places like Illinois, $1,400 is a year's tuition at Joliet Junior College, it is 3 months of day care for the Hallihan family for their little child while they are teaching at school, it is 4,000 diapers for their infant. It is real money for real people. And people like Shad and Michelle Hallihan and 25 million other married working couples suffer the marriage tax penalty, and unfortunately they continue to suffer the marriage tax penalty because our previous President vetoed our legislation to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I am proud to say today that we announced our plans to reintroduce the Marriage Tax Elimination Act for this Congress, legislation that as of today has over 230 bipartisan cosponsors. Now, I would point out that we need 218 votes to pass a bill; a majority of the House is 218. So a bipartisan majority of the House is cosponsoring our legislation to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. For couples like Shad and Michelle Hallihan, we would help them by eliminating that marriage tax penalty with the Marriage Tax Elimination Act. We note that our proposal does a number of things. Number one is, in the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, we essentially wipe out the overwhelming majority of the marriage tax penalty by, number one, broadening the brackets. There are five tax brackets, and we broaden each of them so that married couples, joint filers, can earn twice as much as a single filer in that same tax bracket and stay within each bracket paying the same rate. That helps those that itemize their tax, couples like Shad and Michelle Hallihan, that happen to be homeowners. Second, we double the standard deduction for joint filers twice that for singles. That will help married couples who do not itemize their taxes, usually middle class families, if you own a home, you itemize your taxes, but if you do not itemize your taxes, you use a standard deduction. So we help them, those who could not itemize by doubling the standard deduction. We recognize the alternative minimum tax has a consequence when you adjust the rate brackets and we make a fix in our legislation that ensures that, even though we are adjusting for the marriage tax penalty, families like Shad and Michelle can continue to qualify for the child tax credit. And last, for low-income working families who qualify for that earned income tax credit, we adjust the marriage tax penalty there, as well. In fact, by adjusting the income threshold for married couples by $2,000, we provide for the average family of four eligible for the earned income credit about an extra $400 a year in extra income that they can use by eliminating the marriage tax penalty in the earned income credit, as well. The bottom line is we wanted to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We feel it is fundamentally wrong that you should pay higher taxes just because you are married. Now, President Bush has stepped forward because he recognizes, and we are very thankful that we have a President who agrees, we need to address the marriage tax penalty. And President Bush has a very balanced approach to cutting taxes. He says, out of a $5.6 trillion surplus that we should take about a fourth of that, $1.6 trillion, and use that to lower taxes, stimulate the economy, and bring fairness to the Tax Code. The centerpiece of his tax cut, of course, is changing the rates and going from our current five rates to four rates. And of course, in addition to that rate reduction, which he feels is very important, and I agree with him, to stimulate this economy, he also attaches to it a proposal which will help reduce the marriage tax penalty, a second- earner deduction. Now, that is an important step forward. But I would note that the President's plan provides only about $700 in marriage tax relief; and, of course, the marriage tax penalty on average is $1,400. So his proposal only does about one-half of what we need to do if we really want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. So our hope is that, over the next few weeks, next few months, as we work to move the President's tax proposal through the Congress, particularly as we work to stimulate and revitalize our economy, that we can address the need to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, as well. I and several members of the Committee on Ways and Means have met with the President. We have also met with the Treasury Secretary, Secretary O'Neill, and other representatives in the administration to talk about the need to do more to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We believe that really the way we can do more is when we adopt the President's rate reduction plan, which simplifies the Tax Code and lowers taxes for all Americans, that we also adjust the brackets in the President's plan so that we eliminate the marriage tax penalty. And that can be phased in. In the same way that the President proposes with his rate reduction, we can make the adjustments for the marriage tax penalty, and we believe it should be done at the same time. It only makes sense when you adjust the rates to deal with marriage penalty at the same time. So, my colleagues, I want to share with you that we feel this should be a bipartisan priority. And I am proud to say that 230 Members of this House are now cosponsors of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act. I particularly want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia), who is the lead Democratic cosponsor of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act. He and the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Ms. Capito) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Kerns) have taken the lead in working together with us to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We want it to be a bipartisan effort. There is no reason that Republicans and Democrats cannot work together with the Bush Administration to eliminate the most unfair consequence of our complicated Tax Code, and that is the marriage tax penalty. My colleagues, we need fast action on the President's tax cut. And here is why I believe it is important that we need fast action. I have watched the nightly news, just like my neighbors have, over the last several weeks in the Chicago area. We have seen tens of thousands of our neighbors losing their jobs because of the weak economy that President Bush inherited from his predecessor. Unfortunately, companies like Montgomery Ward are going out of business. LTV Steel has declared bankruptcy. Lucent and Motorola and Outboard Marine and other companies in the Chicago area are announcing massive layoffs. And those individuals are telling me they are having a hard time finding a new job. Well, if we want to stimulate the economy, Congress needs to set politics aside and move quickly, move quickly. We need fast action to cut taxes, to put more money in people's pockets, to help families pay their high home heating bills, to help families pay off their credit card bills, to put confidence back in the minds of the decision-makers in business as well as consumers about their future of our economy. I believe, as we move quickly, not only should we lower taxes for all, but we need to address the need to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I am proud of the way that the President has balanced his tax plan. Because if you look at the President's tax plan, you will note that under his proposal that the biggest beneficiaries are moderate and middle class taxpayers, because they see the greatest proportion of their income returned in tax relief, meaning that moderate, middle income, taxpaying families will have the biggest portion of their income back essentially as a pay raise, an extra few weeks' pay, an extra end-of-the-year bonus that they can use to meet their needs. I am proud to say he is doing that. And for a family making $50,000 a year, President Bush's proposal would provide an extra $2,000 in higher take-home pay. That is an extra three weeks' pay under the President's plan. Now, if they are making $40,000 a year, it is about $1,600 more in higher take-home pay because of lower taxes. So that is pretty meaningful if you think about it. And at the end of the day, when his plan is done, higher income Americans will pay a higher proportion of the income tax burden. So if you are concerned about who gets what and who pays more, low, moderate, middle income families will see a greater proportion of their income back in tax relief and, at the end of the day, wealthier Americans will pay a higher proportion of the overall tax burden. So if that is important for you, it is something to think about. But for a family making $50,000 a year, a married couple with two kids, they will see an extra $1,600 to $2,000 in higher take-home pay under the President's plan. At the same time we reduce rates for all Americans, we believe that we should eliminate the marriage tax penalty, as well. We want to help couples like Shad and Michelle Hallihan, two public school teachers who work hard every day, to ensure that the children of the Joliet-Will County area have a bright future. We also want families like Shad and Michelle Hallihan to have a bright future as well by ensuring that Shad and Michelle Hallihan get to keep what is theirs. It is wrong that when they chose to get married that they had to pay higher taxes. That is just wrong. We believe, by adoption of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, we can eliminate the marriage tax penalty, and we want to work with President Bush and Democrats and Republicans, both in the House and the Senate to get the job done this time. I was so proud last year when we passed the Marriage Tax Elimination Act out of this House and the Senate. It broke the hearts of 25 million married working couples when President Clinton vetoed the bill. But it is a new day. It is a new time of opportunity. We now have a chance to do the right thing, and that is, to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It is important to say that, here on Valentine's Day, what better valentine can we give 25 million married working couples than to eliminate the marriage tax penalty? Let us work together. We have 230 cosponsors today. Hopefully, we will have more tomorrow.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today I honor Joliet Township High Schools (JTHS) as they celebrate their 100 year anniversary. The Joliet Township High Schools began when the first school building's foundation was laid in the year 1900. JTHS was dedicated on April 4, 1901 and the original building was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in August of 1982. Today, Joliet Township High School has two campuses: Joliet West on Larkin Avenue and Joliet Central on East Jefferson Street. When the building was originally dedicated, it was not only a high school but also the first home of Joliet Junior College. In 1902 the school enrollment was 125 students, but by 1917 the school had doubled in size. When it comes to student support, Joliet Township High School has a great tradition of serving our country. During World War I, 34 students and 5 faculty members served the United States, and that number tripled during World War II. And, whenever a troop train came through Joliet, you could count on the high school band performing for them. This high school has a rich tradition of student excellence. The high school has been recognized throughout the State of Illinois and the Nation not only in academic achievement, but in extra-curricular activities as well. From winning the National Band Title eight times, to winning the State Drama Competition six times, and most recently the 2000 Girls Softball State Title; Joliet Township High School has a tradition that spans 100 years. Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to identify and recognize other institutions in their own districts whose actions have so greatly benefitted and strengthened America's communities.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask an important fundamental issue of fairness that particularly affects the middle class, and that is the question, is it right, is it fair that, under our Tax Code, a married working couple, a couple with two incomes, pay higher taxes just because they are married? Is it right that 28 million married working couples pay on average $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married, $1,400 more than an identical couple that chooses to live together outside of marriage? That is wrong. I was proud when this House and Senate last year sent H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, to the White House to be signed into law. Unfortunately, President Clinton at that time vetoed our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. But we have an opportunity. President Bush has indicated during his campaign he would sign into law the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, a bipartisan effort to wipe out the marriage tax penalty. Let us pursue this opportunity. As we work to provide broad-based, real fundamental tax relief for working families, let us remember middle class working couples, and let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, let me ask a question of fairness and that is a pretty fundamental issue of fairness and that is, is it right, is it fair, that under our Tax Code that married working couples pay higher taxes just because they are married? Is it right, is it fair, that two working people, a husband and wife, both in the workforce, pay on average $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married, $1,400 more than an identical couple that lives together outside of marriage? I think we all agree that it is wrong that 26 million married working couples on average pay $1,400 more just because they are married. It is called the marriage tax penalty. I was proud that this House and the Senate last year sent to the President legislation with bipartisan support wiping out the marriage tax penalty for almost everyone who suffers it. Unfortunately, it fell victim to the President's veto. Well, we have an opportunity this year to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, an opportunity to work together in a bipartisan way and send to our new President, President Bush, who indicates he will sign into law our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, to get the job done this year. I want to extend the invitation to my colleagues to join with us to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, than you for this opportunity to offer my support and thanks for a provision included in H.R. 5662 which extends the existing brownfields cleanup tax incentive through January 1, 2004, and removes the targeting requirement. My colleagues Nancy Johnson, Bill Coyne and I have worked hard to ensure that the current law tax provision be extended and made eligible for brownfield cleanups in all communities across the nation. I am pleased that we have accomplished this in this bill and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Brownfield sites exist throughout our districts--abandoned eyesores that blight our communities and drag down local economies. Many brownfield properties are located in prime business locations near critical infrastructure, including transportation, and close to a productive workforce. These sites need to be put back into productive use, contributing to the economy and producing good paying jobs where they are needed most. The first step towards doing this is to remediate these sites environmentally. This U.S. Conference of Mayors estimates that there are over 400,000 brownfields sites across the country. We clearly should not limit the treatment of Section 198 to merely targeted areas. Development of these sites will help restore many blighted areas, create jobs where unemployment is high and ease pressure to develop beyond the fringes of communities. Small, urban centered businesses often benefit most directly by this redevelopment. Currently, many of these brownfield sites do not meet the existing targeting requirements and are not cleaned up because they cannot take advantage of the Section 198 brownfields expensing provision. U.S. EPA estimates that the existing provision will ultimately clean-up only 14,000 brownfields nationwide, but GAO estimates that more than 420,000 brownfields exist. Clearly, the current provision needs to reach further into our communities. I am pleased that H.R. 5662 will solve this problem. By expanding the existing provision, more disadvantaged communities in urban, suburban and rural areas can take advantage of the expensing provision and revitalize their brownfield sites. This would offer important economic and environmental improvements for these communities. The U.S. Conference of Mayors recently completed a survey of 187 large and small cities throughout the Nation, including Chicago, Houston, New York and Miami. According to the responses to this survey, the 187 cities estimated that if their 21,000 existing brownfield sites were redeveloped, this would bring additional tax revenues of up to $2.4 billion annually and could create up to 550,000 jobs. In Chicago alone, developing 2,000 brownfield sites would mean $78 million in additional tax revenue to the city and 34,000 new jobs. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the inclusion of this provision in H.R. 5662 which will extend the existing brownfields expensing provision through January 1, 2004, and remove the targeting requirement. This provision is pro-environmental and pro-community legislation and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan legislation. I want to salute the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and particularly the Speaker of the House for bringing this important legislation to the floor. I also want to take a moment and salute my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw). We know it was because of the gentleman from Florida's leadership that this legislation to restore the Everglades is on the House floor today. I want to salute the gentleman from Florida and thank him for his leadership. It is the little things that mean a lot for a lot of communities. I want to thank the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure under the gentleman from Pennsylvania as well as this House for their bipartisan support for three things that matter a lot to the folks back home in Illinois, three projects that mean a lot to the communities that I represent. I want to thank this House for their support in our efforts to restore the channel adjacent to Ballard's Island outside of Marseilles on the Illinois River. We, of course, recognize that in this legislation. You have also provided the opportunity for the Ottowa YMCA and its effort to serve thousands of Illinois Valley residents by allowing it to have an easement on property currently owned by the Army Corps of Engineers. Last, I want to thank this body for transferring property currently owned by the Army Corps of Engineers to the Joliet Park District for a new headquarters. I urge bipartisan support for this legislation.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday afternoon, October 28, 2000, I had a family matter to attend to in my district and I was unable to cast votes on two Motions to Instruct the Conferees on H.R. 4577, the Labor-Health and Human Services Appropriations Act for FY2001. The first Motion to Instruct the Conferees, which passed the House by a vote of 305-18, instructed that the highest level of funding for Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) be enacted. Mr. Speaker, I fully support this Motion to Instruct the Conferees and had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yes. I have long been a strong supporter of the LIHEAP program. As you know, the LIHEAP program was fully funded in the preliminary conference agreement at the President's requested funding level of $1.1 billion for fiscal year 2001, plus an additional $300 million for emergencies. It is my understanding that recent negotiations on H.R. 4577 resulted in an additional $300 million for LIHEAP, bringing the FY 2001 total to $1.7 billion. Additionally, Republicans have agreed to advance-fund another $1.4 billion for FY2002, so that States can begin to plan for next year. The President requested a total of only $1.1 billion for LIHEAP this year, therefore we are $600 million over the President's funding request. Again, Mr. Speaker, I fully support the LIHEAP program and these increased funding levels. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on the Motion to Instruct the Conferees to help my constituents in Chicago and Chicago's South Suburbs cope with rising heating costs and the upcoming winter. The second Motion to Instruct the Conferees on H.R. 4577 failed to pass the House by a vote of 150-159. This motion would have instructed the Conferees to agree with President Clinton's proposals on classroom size reduction and school construction. Mr. Speaker, I have long been an advocate of making educating America's children one of our top priorities here in Congress. Preliminary funding levels for H.R. 4577 included more than $43 billion for federal education funding. This is $562 million more than the President requested and $5 billion more than last year. Special Education Grants would be funded at $6.3 billion, $1 billion over the President's request. Impact Aid would be funded at $1.3 billion, $258 million more than the President's request, and $78.5 million more than last year. Head Start is increased $33 million over the President's request bringing total FY01 funding to $6.3 billion. Certainly, I believe that education should be a top priority, as should smaller classrooms and neighborhood schools that are not falling apart. Had I been present for the vote, I would have supported the motion to instruct which encourages the conferees to work with the bipartisan proposal on school construction and efforts being led by Congresswoman Nancy Johnson on this issue.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 572 and 573 I was unable to be present. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, On behalf of Representatives Mark Foley, Robert Matsui, and Xavier Becerra, I would like to express our continued interest in an issue designed to increase the production of independent films and television programming in the United States. As the Members know, the 1990's have seen an accelerating departure of U.S. financed films and television programs to Canada, Mexico and other foreign countries. The trend has become so pronounced that a new phrase has been coined to describe the impact--``runaway productions.'' Next year, we intend address this issue, look for reasonable and responsible legislative remedies and work with our trading partners to reverse the trend of filmings outside the U.S. solely for economic reasons. These efforts are supported by a diverse group of entertainment trade associations and guilds and would be targeted at productions costing between $500,000 and $10 million. The impact of runaway productions has been profound. Runaway production means fewer employment opportunities for individuals directly employed in the U.S. film and television industry. Runaway productions also significantly reduce the business opportunities for the film and television service industries like hotels, restaurants and catering businesses, post production services providing editing and music scoring, equipment rental and transport companies, electrical contractors and many others who service or supply the entertainment industry. Moreover, these job losses are not limited to Hollywood or Southern California. Many states have seen once thriving film and television industries depart, leaving behind unemployed technicians and craftspersons, business losses and reduced local tax receipts. States like Illinois, Texas and Florida have been particularly hard hit, but even the state of Minnesota, for example, has just experienced its worst year in the past eleven for film and television production. In addition, the individuals whose jobs are lost usually are highly skilled workers who cannot replace their income with work in another sector. Where are the jobs going? A surprising number are going to Canada. According to Statistics Canada, for example, independent film and television and video production was up 16 percent in 1997-98, the most recent year for which Canadian statistics are available. In British Columbia, alone, film and television production has increased five-fold since the late 1980s to over $700 million annually. Moreover, full-time Canadian employment in the film and television industry increased by 63 percent from the 1992-93 to 1997-98. The rising trend in Canadian film and television production exacerbates the runaway production problem because Canadian film and television crews and actors obtain the training necessary to accommodate even more productions. More U.S. film and television production in Canada and elsewhere in the world means less production in the U.S. The U.S. production share of Movies of the Week broadcast on U.S. television declined from 62 to 41 percent between 1994-95 and 1999-2000 representing a loss of $727 million in U.S. production expenditures. Estimates of overall job loss in the U.S. film and television industry run as high as 23,500 in 1998 alone. To select just one of many examples that demonstrate the impact of this disturbing trend on employment, aggregate wages for musicians performing on film scores in 1999 declined by more than 30 percent from the previous year. Runaway production is due, in large part, to the concerted efforts of governments to attract U.S. film production. Canada has been particularly successful in this regard. For example, the combination of federal and provincial tax credits in the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario exceed 30 percent of wages paid in connection with a production. The sheer size of these credits has increasingly attracted productions to Canada that might otherwise have stayed in the U.S. We look forward to working with our colleagues next year in an effort to keep independent U.S. film and television production here at home in the United States.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support, not only of this rule, but of this legislation. This afternoon, we are going to vote on a pretty modest package of tax relief as well as a very generous contribution of additional funding for reimbursements for Medicare. That is what this legislation contains. So the most important provisions are provisions such as those which help working people, working families where we allow people to set aside more for retirement, more for their savings, by increasing what one contributes to their IRA from $2,000 to $5,000, if one has a 401(k), increasing it from its current level from $10,000 to $15,000, tax savings to help one save for the future. I also note that we have special provisions which will benefit working moms. I think of my sister Pat, who does not want everybody to know, but she is over 50. She has taken a few years out of the workforce. Now she is back in the workforce, a little extra income. She can make up her missed contributions to her IRA and 401(k) she was not able to make when she was at home with the kids. That is a good provision to help working moms and working people. I also want to point out this legislation helps the entrepreneurs, the self-employed. A lot of people have talked about it. This legislation does it. We give 100 percent deductibility for the self- employed for their health insurances. Corporations have gotten it for years. The self-employed only get 60 percent. It is time we give them 100 percent. I also want to point out another large group of working folks that benefit. We repeal the section 415 limits that have penalized 10 million building trade union members, building tradesmen and people who have their pensions limited unfairly because of section 415. I think of Larry Kohr from La Salle County, Illinois, a retired laborer who currently gets about $16,000 a year. He will receive almost $30,000, what he should be receiving for his pension, thanks to this legislation. That is good for working folks. As we work to revitalize our blighted communities, I am proud to say that we expand the low-income housing tax credit, a key initiative that Ronald Reagan signed into law that enlists the private sector to, of course, create affordable housing for working poor and low-income families. As a result of this, we will probably see another 30,000 units of affordable housing provided every year as a result of the increase from the low-income housing tax credit. Something else that is important in the Chicago area. We have about 2,000 brownfields. These are old industrial sites. Every community has one, but we have about 2,000 in the Chicago region. Of course, because of the financial costs of the environmental cleanup, private investors are hesitant to buy that old industrial park on the side of town, so that old industrial park just sits there and blights the community. We expand the current brownfields tax incentive, which means that every community in America, whether a middle-class community, a suburban community, a rural community, or the big cities, if they have a brownfield, a private investor can fully deduct, 100 percent, the environmental cleanup costs. That will help the communities, and it is good for the environment. Lastly, I want to point out something that is pretty important. For a lot of us, our biggest employers in town are our local hospitals, our nursing homes, our home health care. We care about health care in this House, and we want to ensure that we have quality affordable health care. Because of the way the Health Care Financing Administration has interpreted the Balanced Budget Act, they have squeezed our local hospitals, they have squeezed our local nursing homes, they have squeezed and hurt home health care. They have pushed providers out of Medicare+Choice. Because of the pressure of the Health Care Financing Administration, this Congress last year set aside an additional $16 billion to increase reimbursements for local hospitals and nursing homes as well as home health care to help our seniors and to help families. That is good news, but I want to point out we need to do more, and I really want to salute the leadership in this House for realizing that we need to do more in Medicare. We provide $28 billion of additional reimbursements to help ensure that we provide quality health care to our local hospitals, our local nursing homes, our local home health care, and ensure that seniors have a choice in Medicare by ensuring that we have providers that get fair reimbursement for participating in Medicare+Choice. This is good legislation. We are hearing the usual rhetoric on the other side, the partisan rhetoric. We are 12 days from election. We expect that. But this is good legislation that helps a lot of people all throughout America. It helps people save for retirement, it revitalizes communities, and ensures we have quality health care in our local communities. The bottom line is it is a good bill, and it is legislation that comes at a modest cost that will help a lot of people. I urge bipartisan support.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of this legislation which deserves bipartisan support. I have heard a lot of claims on both sides about support for expanding IRA's and retirement savings. It is in this bill. I hear a lot of claims about support for increasing reimbursements for our local hospitals and nursing homes and home health care providers. Well, there is $28 billion worth in this bill. I hear a lot of claims about support on both sides of the aisle in support of increasing the minimum wage. We do that in this legislation. In fact, 98 percent of this bill we voted in favor of already. Let me point out, there are important provisions that help the little folks. There is 10 million building tradespeople, cement finishers, operating engineers, carpenters, laborers, who right now have their pensions limited because of the section 415. I have had many colleagues on the other side of the aisle come up and say, ``Are we going to get it in the bill?'' I hope they will vote for it, because this is their opportunity to help those 10 million building tradespeople get their full pension. I also want to point out that we have tax incentives in here for brownfields, cleaning up environmental cleanup which allow every community in the America to benefit from that incentive.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 3926, bipartisan legislation I introduced with Representatives Lipinski, Biggert, and Gutierrez. H.R. 3926 will increase the authorization cap of the Illinois and Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor from $250,000 to $1,000,000. The Illinois and Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor was the first park of its kind, established by Congress in 1984. Created for the historical and cultural importance of the Illinois and Michigan Canal, it was a ``partnership park'' which involved local decision making and input combined with federal designation and support. The corridor is special for many reasons; it includes valuable natural resources, state and local parks, transportation networks, cities and towns, rural and industrial uses, wildlife preserves and nature activities such as hiking, fishing, canoeing and camping. The heritage corridor has been critical to preserving historic sites that played a critical role in the history of Illinois and the nation. The I&M Canal was the first of the man-made waterways that established the corridor as a nationally significant transportation network. Much of the canal still exists along with the towns and cities and farms surrounding it. In fact, the canal encompasses five counties stretching from Chicago to LaSalle-Peru. Among the first visionaries of the Canal was Louis Joliet who conceptualized a system for bringing together the Great Lakes and the Mississippi as early as 1673. Plans and funding were developed in 1827 and the route of the canal was settled upon. Twenty-one years later, the canal was opened for traffic for the first time--but this was only a beginning. The canal would grow substantially over the coming decades as it was influenced by enormous economic growth. In turn, the canal spurred its own economic growth and became the economic center of the region. The 97-mile canal was dug by hand, largely from immigrant Irish labor out of rock and was a minimum of 6 feet deep and 60 feet wide. The Canal helped to build Chicago and was the center of not only industrial growth but also agricultural growth. Mining industries grew along the canal and plants to process farm products were built. The canal also fostered the growth of the wallpaper and watch industry. Towns developed around the rapidly growing canal area and tolls on products shipped on the canal generated $1 million for the state. Shipping on the Canal peaked in 1882 then began a gradual decline due to rail and other forms of traffic. The I&M Canal closed in 1933 after the development of the Illinois Waterway, but in that same year the Civilian Conservation Corps began work that created many of the parks and trails that line the canal today. In 1974, the 60 mile section from Joliet to LaSalle was designated the Illinois & Michigan Canal State Trial under the stewardship of the Illinois Department of Conservation. Now as the Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor, the canal continues to provide unparalleled cultural and recreational opportunities for residents and visitors. A partnership exists between The Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor Commission, the Canal Corridor Association, the Heritage Corridor Convention and Visitors Bureau and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources which ensures the continuing development of the canal and its resources. The I&M Canal needs to be able to access additional funds for many worthwhile projects including heritage tourism projects, heritage education, and preservation and conservation. An increase in the authorization cap will allow the possibility of increased funding, providing the development and improvement of parks and museums across the canal. Teachers will be able to be trained and student resources will be developed and enhanced. Vital historic resources such as the I&M Canal, architecture, landscapes and Native American archaeological sites will be preserved and revitalized. Mr. Speaker, 16 heritage corridors have been created since the Illinois and Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor, and all but three have received $1,000,000 authorization caps. It is time to bring the Illinois and Michigan Canal in line with these other heritage areas and provide it the opportunity for additional funding. I thank Chairmen Young and Hansen for allowing this bill to come to the floor today and I thank all cosponsors of this legislation and urge its passage.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for S. 2796, the Water Resources development act of 2000. This historic legislation will provide funding for valuable projects across our nation and the 11th Congressional District of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that three projects that are very important to my constituents were included in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA). Legislative language was included in the bill which will ensure the continuation of valuable work by the Army Corps of Engineers at Ballard's Island in the Illinois River; the Ottawa YMCA will have land transferred to it from the Army Corps of Engineers for expansion of its facilities; and the Joliet Park district will have land transferred to it for use as their regional headquarters. Ballard's Island is a natural and historic treasure located in the Illinois River. However, the side channel around Ballard's Island has become severely clogged with sand and silt due to the Army Corps of Engineers erection of a closure structure at the end of the side channel of Ballard's Island in the 1940s. This side channel has since become increasingly clogged with sand and silt, the problem becoming severe over the past three decades. The original depth of the side channel was 19 feet but today it has been reduced to two feet, making the channel completely unusable. This channel was once a thriving and vibrant aquatic ecosystem, but it is now so choked with mud and sediment that it no longer supports the plants and animals it used to and it is no longer productive for local citizens. To solve these problems, the Army Corps is prepared to begin a Section 1135 Preliminary Restoration Plan for solving the river's woes. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources will be the 25% non- federal sponsor for this project. However, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources has already begun work on removing sediment from the channel through a $250,000 state appropriation. The legislative language included in this bill will ensure that the valuable work already begun on the river will continue and its habitat and ecosystem restored. This is a victory for the people who live on and love this river who have watched it slowly die--their river will be returned to them. Two other projects in this bill will help the people of Ottawa and Joliet, Illinois. The Ottawa YMCA is an outstanding community organization which already provides health and recreational services to hundreds of Illinois Valley families. In fact, because of the growing demand for these services, the Ottawa YMCA has launched a capital campaign to raise funds to expand its current facilities. Earlier this year, with construction about to begin on the $1.3 million expansion project, YMCA officials learned that the U.S. Government was granted an easement in 1933 on the very piece of property intended as the site for the YMCA's expansion project. This easement, although never utilized, was intended for use in conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers Illinois Waterway Project. On September 19, 2000 with legislative language provided to me by the Rock Island Army Corps district, I introduced H.R. 5216, a bill to convey the Army Corps easement back to the YMCA, ensuring that there will be no further questions about the land used by the YMCA for its expansion. I am pleased that H.R. 5216 was included in the Water Resources Development Act and that the good work of the Ottawa YMCA will be able to continue. WRDA also provides a new home for the Joliet Park District. The Army Corps of Engineers currently owns property located at 622 Railroad Street in Joliet, Illinois. The property has served several functions in its official use but has recently been vacated. This property is no longer used or needed by the Army Corps of Engineers and is in the process of being deemed ``excess.'' The Joliet Park District has requested use of the land and buildings for its new location for its headquarters. The Park District currently has its headquarters and maintenance facilities in two separate, small locations on opposite sides of the City of Joliet. The approval of this property transfer will allow the Park District to increase its efficiency and save time and funds which can be much better used to the improvement of parks and recreation facilities. I am pleased that the Water Resources Development Act included H.R. 5389, legislation I introduced that conveys the land from the Army Corps of Engineers to the Joliet Park District. Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation and I commend Chairmen Boehlert and Shuster for their work and efforts on this legislation. I urge passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 by my colleagues.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation, along with my colleagues Representatives Foley, Becerra, Matsui, Ramstad, Rogan, Sensenbrenner, English, John Lewis, Coyne, Condit, Berman, Waxman, Sessions, Maloney, and Tubbs-Jones, to provide for a small business tax credit for digital postproduction. These small businesses standardize film, television, music and technology products for mass consumption by electronically enhancing the master copy. Postproduction companies need help dealing with a government mandate which, without our assistance, may put many of these small, technology related businesses out of business. On December 24, 1996, the FCC mandated a new terrestrial Digital Television standard, replacing the one that existed for 50 years. While adopting an Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) standard, the FCC did not designate a single transmission format. As a result, the postproduction industry has already invested in millions of dollars worth of equipment to be used in creating High Definition (HD) Broadcasting. Without HD broadcasting, the U.S. will be surrendering the advanced research and technological position which has sustained the preeminence of the American entertainment and information industry. The FCC specifically chose not to mandate a single digital display format. I agree that diversity in formats is a logical way to proceed by allowing the marketplace to decide on the best format(s). However, for the postproduction process the complexities created by the requirement to support these new standards has exponentially increased the cost and complexity of their transition to digital television in the short run. The legislation will help to keep the domestic digital postproduction industry strong. The proposed tax credit would provide for a 20 percent credit for current capital expenses incurred for digital postproduction machinery and equipment less a floor equal to their average annual gross receipts from digital postproduction services for the prior four years. The taxpayer would reduce the depreciable basis of the equipment by the credit claimed. Additionally, the credit would sunset at the effective date of the FCC mandate. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask for bipartisan support for the Data Act, and let me tell my colleagues why. Over 100 million Americans today are on line using the Internet. Seven Americans go on line every second for the first time. There is great opportunity, whether in e-commerce or the technology sector, for millions of Americans. But millions of Americans are not participating, and that is called the digital divide. I am pleased the private sector has stepped forward to address the so-called digital divide, because educators tell us they notice a difference in the classroom between children who have a computer at home and those who do not in their being able to do their homework and compete in the class. Ford, Intel, Delta and American Airlines have announced plans to provide 600,000 families computers and Internet access. Think about that. The janitor, the laborer, the assembly line worker, the baggage handler, their children having computers and Internet access just like the CEO's kids. That is a great opportunity. But here is the hitch. The IRS wants to tax it. That is right, the IRS wants to tax those workers who accept those computers. For a worker making $27,000 a year that is $200 in taxes they would have to pay. We have a solution, the Data Act, legislation making sure that these employer-provided computers and Internet access are tax exempt for the workers. It is called the Data Act. I would ask for bipartisan support. Please join as a cosponsor and help us pass the Data Act.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, the Internet and the new economy offers great opportunity. We have over 100 million Americans that are online. Every second, seven more Americans go online. There are now 4.8 million Americans employed in the technology sector. That is more than auto and steel and oil combined. So there is a tremendous amount of opportunity. Unfortunately, when I talk with my educators, teachers, school administrators, and school board members back home, they tell me they notice a difference in the classroom when children have a computer and Internet access at home and those who do not. Many call that the digital divide. I am pleased to say that the private sector has been stepping forward. Ford, Intel, Delta, American Airlines have stepped forward and are now offering to their employees, as an employee benefit, a computer and Internet access for use at home, benefitting 600,000 families. That is going to help. Think about it. The laborer, the assembly line worker, the baggage handler, the flight attendant, their children having a computer and Internet access at home to do their schoolwork just like the CEO and the manager's child. Here is the catch, though. The IRS wants to tax that computer provided to that employee. And, of course, we need to stop that. Let us pass the data act. I ask for cosponsorship and bipartisan support.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, this is important legislation that we are voting on today. I strongly support setting aside 90 percent of the projected budget surplus to pay down the national debt. Of course, our goal is not only to build on the $360 billion in debt retirement we have already accomplished in the last 3 years, but to pay off the national debt by the year 2010. I also want to stand in strong support of this legislation which locks away 100 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund for Social Security and locks away 100 percent of the Medicare Trust Fund for Medicare. That is an important commitment not only for today's seniors but for future generations. My colleagues, I also stand in strong support of this legislation which makes it easier for America's workers and small businesses to set aside money for their own retirement. Efforts to expand what Americans can contribute to their IRAs and 401(k)s can make a big difference to many millions of working Americans. I also want to note that this legislation includes two very important provisions: Catch-up provisions that allow individuals to make additional contributions to 401(k)s or IRAs if they are over 50. That helps working moms. And the repeal of 415 limits, which helps 10 million working Americans in the building trades.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, let me share some statistics with my colleagues. Over 100 million Americans today are online, and seven new Americans go on line every second. One-third of all new jobs today are created in the technology sector, and in my home State of Illinois, salaries of technology workers are 59 percent higher than other traditional jobs. There is great opportunity in this new economy, but educators tell me they notice the difference back home in our schools between those children who have computers and Internet access at home and those who do not. When we ask why they do not, they always say that the cost is the biggest challenge. Well, the private sector, Ford, Intel, Delta and American Airlines have stepped forward to provide Internet-accessed computers for their employees. Unfortunately, the IRS wants to tax it. For a worker making $27,000 a year, that means $200 in higher taxes, just because their employer provides them with a computer. Think about that. The janitor, the assembly line worker, the laborer, their children having Internet access and a computer at home to do their school work. Mr. Speaker, it is good policy; and I am glad to see the private sector stepping forward. That is why I want to ask my colleagues to join with me in cosponsoring the DDATA Act, legislation that clarifies that employer- provided computers and Internet access are tax free, treated the same way as an employer-provided pension or health care benefit. The DDATA Act is pro worker, pro education, and pro technology. Let us stop the IRS from taxing these kinds of employer benefits.