Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), a strong proponent of engagement with China.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today, Representative Neal (D-MA) and I introduced the Small Business Welfare Benefits Protection Act which deals with Welfare Benefit Plans governed by Section 419A of the Tax Code. The Code currently allows a deduction for contributions to multiple employer welfare benefit plans. The purpose of this legislation is to provide some clarity to this section of the code in a fashion that protects pension tax law while allowing small businesses to provide important benefits, such as life and health insurance, long term care insurance and severance benefits to their employees. While any employer can utilize Section 419A plans, they allow small business to compete with large employers in attracting and retaining talented staff by enabling them to offer meaningful benefits like the ones I just mentioned. Section 419A plans are independently trusted and administered ensuring employees that the funds set aside for their benefit are there when they need them most, when a company is facing economic difficulties. This is the right policy and we should do everything in our power to encourage small businesses to protect their employees against the proverbial rainy day. In terms of clarifying the Code, my legislation would ensure that all full time employees benefit. The allowable deduction would be limited to the cost of the benefit for the year in which the deduction is taken. Finally, the bill would prevent an employer who terminates participation in plan from pilfering the assets of the plan at the expense of the rank and file employees. This legislation will ensure that 419A plans work the way they were intended to by Congress, namely for the employees, especially small business employees.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2299, Making Appropriations for the Department of Transportation for Fiscal Year 2002. H.R. 2299 is an important bill for Illinois, providing much needed funding for Metra Commuter Rail Service New Start Projects and the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railroad Bridge reconstruction. The legislation also directs the Federal Aviation Administration to make a priority of processing the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed South Suburban Chicago Third Airport and to help Lewis University Airport with much needed expansion. I would like to focus on the unique needs of Lewis University Airport today. Lewis University Airport is the busiest ``single-runway'' airport in Illinois with 104,000 annual aircraft landings and takeoffs. Located in Will County, Illinois, it serves as the only corporate airport in Illinois' fastest growing county. The airport is home to 295 based aircraft and over 35 regular visiting customers. Jet fuel sales-- an indicator of corporate aircraft use--have increased from 1,469 gallons sold in 1991 to 200,000 gallons sold in 2000. In less than a decade, jet sales have increased to 136 times the first year's sales. The existing 12,000 square yard apron has space for only 10 aircraft. The small size of the apron limits its use to only visiting aircraft arriving at the Airport's new terminal building. The apron is regularly over-filled with visiting corporate jets. There are no spaces available for based aircraft. To meet federal airport safety and design standards, the Airport must soon relocate 150 aircraft storage positions that are too close to the runway. The proposed terminal apron expansion will provide space for the relocation of these Airport residents. The proposed apron is part of a multi-phased development program of the Airport. The Runway 1-19 construction program is using innovative construction and land use techniques to save over $9,600,000 in federal airport development dollars. The project received recognition by the FAA with the award of one of the first projects funded under the FAA's Innovative Development Funding Program. In addition, Lewis University Airport is by far the closest and most convenient airport to the new ChicagoLand Motor Speedway, opening July 2001. This NASCAR Winston Cup race is expected to bring 200 to 300 aircraft to the Joliet/Will County area, providing a serious need to increase the apron capacity of the airport. Mr. Chairman, the House Transportation Appropriations Bill recognizes the importance of Lewis University Airport and encourages the Federal Aviation Administration to make its expansion a priority. This is good legislation for Illinois and the Nation's transportation infrastructure. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill and vote yes on the rule and final passage.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the rule. I stand in support of this legislation. I stand in support of this commonsense, balanced package of tax relief that will pass this house with bipartisan support today. If we think about it, if we look at the big picture, this does make a lot of common sense. We have, thanks to the fiscal responsibility of this Congress, and particularly this House, we have a projected surplus over the next decade of $5.6 trillion, a tax surplus of extra money. This package takes less than one-fourth of that tax surplus and uses it to help the average family in America, a $1.3 trillion tax cut. Our friends in the news media will of course try to determine who the winners are here. Clearly, the biggest winner is the taxpayer. The winners in this room are also those Republicans and Democrats who have worked together to provide tax relief for working families. I particularly want to commend my Democratic friends, those on the other side of the aisle, who set aside partisanship to work together with the President and with the Republicans to help families by lowering taxes. I also want to salute the President, who made education and tax relief the number one and two priority of his agenda for his presidency, because this week we passed his education proposal, and today we are going to send to his desk for signature into law his tax cut proposal. This is clearly a big victory for President Bush. But who does it help? Clearly this tax cut helps everyone. If anyone pays taxes, they will receive relief. Under this proposal, the across- the-board tax cut helps every American taxpayer. All of us are concerned about the direction of the economy. The President inherited a weakening economy, and we are all committed to find a way to help ensure that we can boost this economy. Clearly the tax rebate, $300 for a single, $600 for a married couple, will put some extra cash in the hands of taxpayers so they can pay off some bills, as well as have extra spending money to meet the needs of their family. That clearly will help our economy. I also want to note that this legislation helps bring about tax fairness. We have often talked in this House about the need to address the marriage tax penalty. Beginning in 2002, next year, we begin providing relief for the married tax penalty suffered by 28 million married working couples who pay on average $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married. Low-income couples who participate in the earned income tax credit will see their marriage tax penalty relieved. Lower-income families who do not itemize but use the standard deduction to pay their taxes will see marriage tax relief. And middle- class families who itemize their taxes because they own a home will see marriage tax relief. It is a commonsense package. It deserves bipartisan support. I am proud to stand here in support of the biggest tax cut we have had in a long time.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I have been enjoying some of the rhetoric I have been hearing from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle today. Clearly, when it comes to a rise in energy prices, the policies of my friends on the left side of the aisle is very simple, and that is called pass the buck. They talk about the California energy crisis. Who has been in charge in California? A Democratic governor, a Democratic State legislature. Who prevented the power plants from being built over the last decade? A Democratic governor, a Democratic State legislature. Of course, we at the national level in Chicago are seeing over $2 gasoline. Why? Because a Democratic administration in the White House failed for 8 years to do anything about energy. We have a new President that has been in office now for 4\1/2\ months, 5 months. He inherited clearly serious energy problems. He has now come forward with an energy proposal which deserves bipartisan support. The bottom line is we need to conserve. We need to find new domestic sources, and we must reduce our independence on imported oil.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) my friend and colleague, for their help and support in moving forward House Concurrent Resolution 56, a Sense of Congress Resolution recognizing the 60th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor and honoring the sacrifices of those who gave their lives and perished the morning of December 7, 1941, and those who survived and fought gallantly in the face of attack by the imperial Japanese forces. House Concurrent Resolution 56 expresses the sense of the Congress regarding National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day. On December 7, 1941, a day President Roosevelt said would live in infamy, the Imperial Japanese Navy and Air Force attacked units of the Armed Forces of the United States stationed at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. 2,403 members of the Armed Forces of the United States were killed in the attack on Pearl Harbor. House Concurrent Resolution 56 pays tribute to the American men and women who died and gave their lives at Pearl Harbor as well as the more than 12,000 members of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association, who survived the attack that December morning. As my colleagues know, Madam Speaker, December 7, 2001, will mark the 60th anniversary of the attack which thrust the United States into the war in the Pacific. As Congress approaches this Memorial Day recess, I can think of no greater message this body can send to our veterans than to pay tribute to this important day of remembrance. Over the coming months, survivors and family members of those who defended Pearl Harbor, will take part in ceremonies and services in each of the 50 States, with a national reunion planned for December 7, 2001 on the island of Oahu. In fact, Madam Speaker, this coming weekend, Hollywood will also help tell the story of the attack on Pearl Harbor with a blockbuster movie based on the events of that day. During the 103rd Congress, the President signed into law legislation designating every December 7 as National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day. As part of this legislation, the President shall issue a yearly proclamation calling attention to the attack on Pearl Harbor and designates that U.S. flags should be flown at half staff. It is my hope, Madam Speaker, that activities planned nationwide this year and our actions today and each year will tell the story of Pearl Harbor to future generations to ensure that those who fought at Pearl Harbor are never forgotten. Lastly, Madam Speaker, I would also like to pay special recognition to a friend of mine, a gentleman by the name of Richard Foltynewicz, from my district in Ottawa, Illinois. Richard is a Pearl Harbor survivor and has served as past president of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association. I first met Richard Foltynewicz in 1985 in the Grunde County Corn Festival Parade, and I can say from personal experience that his vigilance in keeping the memory of Pearl Harbor alive is making a great difference in the history of our Nation. I wish to thank people like Richard Foltynewicz for their leadership as well as their assistance in crafting this special legislation. Madam Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 56 is supported by 30 bipartisan cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. I ask every Member of the House support this resolution; that each and every one of us remembers the sacrifices of those who served at Pearl Harbor as we mark Memorial Day next week.

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, this is a great day. We are doing something, and the question to ask as we work on this legislation is, is it not about time? If you think about it, I think this is the third or the fourth time we have passed this legislation out of the House, and we finally have a President now that will sign it into law. It has been a bipartisan effort over the last several years. My friends, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) have done a great job working with the committee and showing leadership in assembling a great package that will help millions of middle-class Americans and families save for their retirement. I think it is a tremendous achievement, recognizing that when individual retirement accounts were created way back in the early 1980s, that the limit was set at $2,000. If you factor in inflation, it should be well over $5,000 today. We accomplish that goal by phasing in an increase in the contribution level for IRAs to $5,000. There are two other provisions that I want to highlight, and I really want to commend the leadership on our committee for including these two provisions in this package. Those are provisions that deal with catch- up provisions, which will help working moms and empty-nesters, as well as the 415 provisions, which will help 10 million building tradesmen and women across America. Let me point out, the catch-up provisions, why are they important? I always use my sister Pat as an example. She is now teaching school, but when her children, when she and Rich decided to have kids, she took some time out of the workforce to be home with the children; and then once the kids were in school, she went back into the workforce. During that period of time, my sister Pat and my brother-in-law Rich, they were not able to make contributions to their IRAs because their income was essentially cut in half and their expenses were up because they had children. Under this legislation, once they turn 50 they can make an extra contribution, which they are, they can make an extra contribution to their 401(k) of $5,000, and we immediately allow, once this legislation is signed into law, someone age 50 or older to contribute up to $5,000, recognizing the $5,000 increase is phased in over 3 years. So if you are age 50, you benefit immediately, allowing you the opportunity to make up. The 415 provision, people like Larry Correl, a laborer from La Salle County, will now see his full pension as a result of this legislation.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in Springfield, Illinois on April 24, 2001 in order to testify on the merits of the proposed South Suburban Third Airport before the Illinois House Aviation Committee. As a result, I was unable to cast votes for Roll Call votes numbered 85 and 86. Had I been able to be present for votes, I would have voted nay on Roll Call vote number 85, the Motion to Instruct Conferees on H. Con. Res. 83, The Congressional Budget for Fiscal Year 2002. I would have voted yea on Roll Call vote number 86, on motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 428 as amended, concerning the participation of Taiwan in the World Health Organization. Mr. Speaker, I missed these votes because I believe that the development of the South Suburban Third Airport is vitally important to Illinois economy and the Nation's aviation infrastructure. I testified in support of developing the proposed South Suburban Airport and Governor Ryan's appropriation request of $15 million for land acquisition. If the State of Illinois is to remain economically competitive, the air capacity must be increased. Governor George Ryan's decision to move forward with land acquisition shows bold leadership to achieve both. Seventeen years ago, the Federal Aviation Administration ordered the States of Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and the City of Chicago to evaluate the region's future aviation needs and to determine possible solutions. The Chicago Area Capacity Study was formed by Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Chicago to look for a new site. That study concluded in 1988 that Chicago needed a supplemental airport to relieve overcrowding at O'Hare and Midway. Subsequent studies found there was a need for additional capacity by the year 2000, and that the supplemental capacity should be located at a new South Suburban Airport. As we now know, the results of that study accurately foretold the future. In 2000, Chicago hit aviation gridlock as the runways, airspace and ground transportation network near the airports reached capacity. Today, peak travel times to and from O'Hare and Downtown often exceed one hour. Remote parking access to or from the terminals can often take 35 to 45 minutes. The gridlock at O'Hare and Midway not only affects Chicago and its suburbs, but the entire state and nation. When air capacity is limited, airlines focus on the most profitable routes (international route) and ignore less lucrative business (short-range domestic routes). As we have seen, the process of dumping short lower-profit flights in favor of long, higher profit ones has already begun at O'Hare. In the past two years, O'Hare eliminated service to 13 Midwestern markets, but added service to more than 20 foreign cities. This shift has hurt the downstate Illinois economy and limited transportation options for its residents. Chicago's capacity problems are well-documented. Numerous studies, including ones by the USDOT, the FAA, IDOT and the City of Chicago, conclude that Chicago needs new runways. The question is where. The Greater Rockford Airport was once considered a possible third airport site. While Rockford is very important to the northern Illinois area, the Illinois Department of Transportation eliminated it as a third airport site in the 1988 study for the following reasons: It was deemed to Gary Indiana Municipal Airport also has been considered. However, Gary has very little room to grow. Expanding Gary to a size comparable to the Peotone site would require relocating the Indiana Tollway, the Calumet River, 47 miles of railroads, 1,000 acres of wetlands, several toxic landfills, and about 24,000 residents. The $20 billion cost of expanding Gary would make it virtually impossible for an airline to charge reasonable fares, whereas, the cost of the Peotone site would result in ticket prices comparable to O'Hare. The Proposed South Suburban Airport would be safer due to its parallel-runway design and ability for future growth. Further, the South Suburban Airport is less expensive than other options. The cost of an inaugural South Suburban Airport is approximately $560 million, compared to $1.5 billion for building one runway at O'Hare. The third airport can also be built sooner than adding an additional runway at O'Hare. The airport can be operational in 4 to 5 years, but it would take 8 to 15 years to design and build an additional runway at O'Hare. The South Suburban Airport would be cleaner than the existing airports as it would be sufficient in size to absorb noise and air pollution. It has road and rail access, but less ground congestion. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify why I missed Roll Call Votes on April 24, 2001 and to further explain the importance of the proposed South Suburban Airport.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today, Representative Neal and I have introduced legislation which will update the existing depreciation schedules for high tech assets. Currently, businesses must depreciate much of their high tech equipment over a 5 year period. This bill would allow businesses to expense these assets. The 5 year depreciation lifetime for tax purposes is outdated since many companies today must update their computers as quickly as every 14 months in order to stay technologically current. We allow businesses to expense their computers, peripheral equipment, servers, networks, wireless telecommunications equipment, software, high tech medical equipment and copiers in this bill. This will stimulate the economy! According to a study conducted by the Printing Industries of America, printers would purchase 20 percent more computers if the depreciation schedules reflected the actual life of the equipment. It is time to update an outdated tax code to reflect the realities of today's technology-based workplace. A 5 year depreciation schedule for high tech equipment is no longer realistic. This legislation will allow every company, from the neighborhood real estate office, to the local hospital, to the local bank to fully depreciate, or expense, their high tech equipment during the tax year in which the equipment is purchased. As a result, these companies will no longer be forced to keep their equipment ``on the books'' for tax purposes long after its useful life has become obsolete. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with you and my colleagues to get this important pro-business legislation signed into law.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), who has been a real leader in the effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and help families by expanding tax credits.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, of course I would note that this bipartisan bill, combined with the rate reduction that we already passed out of this House of Representatives, put almost $600 in the pockets of the average family of four this year, if we include the child tax credit, which is retroactive, plus the rate reduction. This is a bipartisan bill. My good friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), has been a partner in this effort to eliminate the tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say, in recognition that we have a bipartisan proposal before us today, supported by Democrats and Republicans, that it is a great opportunity to work to eliminate the marriage tax penalty for 25 million couples and help millions of children throughout America by increasing and doubling the child tax credit. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the most junior member of the Committee on Ways and Means, who, by the way, is a newlywed himself, to close on our side.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have a bipartisan bill, H.R. 6, before us that eliminates the marriage tax penalty, as well as doubles the child tax credit. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the House majority leader.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, we have one remaining speaker on behalf of our legislation. Has the minority concluded?

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I note that the bipartisan plan before us, H.R. 6, combined with the rate reduction we passed earlier this year, will put $600 in the pockets of the average family of four this year. I also note in the minority leader's district that his partisan Democratic alternative would deny relief to 102,000 children in his own district, the Third District of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), the distinguished House Republican Conference Chairman.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) for his leadership in the committee in working to move this legislation quickly to the floor. Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to do something bipartisan today, an opportunity for Democrats, Republicans to join together to help the American family. What is the bottom line? We have legislation today before us that wipes out the marriage tax penalty for the vast majority of those who suffer it and also increases the child tax credit, helping families with children, two good things that deserve strong bipartisan support. I want to invite my Democratic friends to join with House Republicans in doing this and would point out that, last year, we passed legislation which wiped out the marriage tax penalty. In fact, last year, we passed it twice. Unfortunately, it fell victim to President Clinton's veto. But I would note that 51 Democrats joined with us in our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. This year, our legislation has 230 cosponsors, 15 Democrats. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) has been a leader in working to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I want to thank him for his effort in working to build bipartisan support for effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. What is the bottom line? Is it right, is it fair that, under our Tax Code, 25 million married working couples on average pay $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married? Is that right? Is that fair? Of course not. While twice we have sent legislation to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, I believe the third time will be the charm because we have a President that says he will sign this legislation into law this time. Let me introduce a couple that many in this House have gotten to know as I have discussed the marriage tax penalty over the last several years, Shad and Michelle Hallihan, two public schoolteachers from Will County, the Joliet area in Will County. Their combined income is about $65,000. Their marriage tax penalty is a little between $900 to a $1,000 a year, a little bit less than average. But they suffer the marriage tax penalty because they chose to get married. They have two incomes. They file jointly. It pushes them into a higher tax bracket, creating the marriage tax penalty. Our legislation will eliminate the marriage tax penalty for Shad and Michelle Hallihan. Only the bipartisan bill, H.R. 6, will eliminate the marriage tax penalty for Shad and Michelle Hallihan, because they are homeowners. They itemize their taxes. The alternative will not. So clearly, if we want to help couples, middle-class couples like Shad and Michelle Hallihan, we should eliminate the marriage tax penalties. Since we have been working on this legislation to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, Shad and Michelle have had a baby. They got married at the time we introduced the bill 3 years ago. They now have a child, little Ben. So they qualify for the child tax credit. It is $500 today. Under our legislation, not only do we eliminate the marriage tax penalty for Shad and Michelle Hallihan, but they get the benefit from the child tax credit increase. This year it is $500. With the passage of this legislation into law, this year it will be a $600 increase in the child tax credit, which means Shad and Michelle will see as a result of this legislation somewhere between $1,500 and $2,000 in tax relief by eliminating the marriage tax penalty by providing for a bigger child tax credit. Let us vote from a bipartisan way. I invite Democrats to join with us. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us help families with children.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I note to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), the previous speaker, that if she votes against this bipartisan effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, that 88,000 taxpayers in the 11th District of Ohio will continue to suffer the marriage tax penalty, and over 71,000 children will not be eligible for the increase in the doubling tax credit. Let us be fair. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty and increase the child tax credit. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note for my colleague from Washington State that the two provisions of the President's tax plan that this House has already passed will provide this year for the average family of four $600 in tax relief, almost $400 from the rate reduction and, for two children, $200 in additional family tax credits. I would also note that while my good friend takes credit for some ideas, the marriage tax penalty, his proposal, was phased in over 10 years when he offered it. I would also note that we incorporated his idea, though we do it immediately, into this bill. So I hope he will join with us and make it a bipartisan effort. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia), and would note in doing so that this simply reinforces the fact that this is a bipartisan proposal. I congratulate him on his good work. He has been a leader on the Democratic side of the aisle with regard to this bill.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I note to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who spoke on behalf of the Democratic substitute, that the proposal he speaks in favor of would deny help for almost 60,000 children in his district in Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), who discussed the consequences of alternative minimum tax. Of course, the alternative minimum tax was increased with the 1993 tax increase that President Clinton and the Democratic majority enacted back in 1993. I would note that their proposal provides actually less AMT relief than our proposal that we are offering today. I would note that in the marriage penalty relief that is in H.R. 6 that taxpayers are held harmless. They do not see the consequences of AMT, the alternative minimum tax, under our proposal. So that is a good thing and a step forward. Of course, I would note that in my friend's district that almost 100,000 children would be denied relief and help under the proposal which he supports. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the dean of the Illinois Delegation and a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would note to my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), that his argument in favor of the Democrat substitute indicates that he will vote to deny over 100,000 children in his district the help that is provided in the bipartisan bill that is before us. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), who is one of the key bipartisan supporters of H.R. 6 before us today.