Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight what is arguably the most unfair provision in the U.S. Tax Code: the marriage tax penalty. I want to thank you for your long term interest in bringing parity to the tax burden imposed on working married couples compared to a couple living together outside of marriage. This month President Clinton gave his State of the Union Address outlining many of the things he will spend the budget surplus on. House Republicans want to preserve 100% of the Social Security surplus for Social Security and Medicare and use the non-Social Security surplus for paying down the debt and to bring fairness to the tax code. A surplus provided by the bipartisan budget agreement which cut waste, put America's fiscal house in order, and held Washington's feet to the fire to balance the budget. While President Clinton parades a long list of new spending totaling $72 billion in new programs--we believe that a top priority after saving Social Security and paying down the national debt should be returning the budget surplus to America's families as additional middle-class tax relief. This Congress has given more tax relief to the middle class and working poor than any Congress of the last half century. I think the issue of the marriage penalty can best be framed by asking these questions: Do Americans feel it's fair that our tax code imposes a higher tax penalty on marriage? Do Americans feel it's fair that the average married working couple pays almost $1,400 more in taxes thatn a couple with almost identical income living together outside of marriage? Is it right that our tax code provides an incentive to get divorced? In fact, today the only form one can file to avoid the marriage tax penalty is paperwork for divorce. And that is just wrong! Since 1969, our tax laws have punished married couples when both spouses work. For no other reason than the decision to be joined in holy matrimony, more than 21 million couples a years are penalized. They pay more in taxes than they would if they were single. Not only is the marriage penalty unfair, it's wrong that our tax code punishes society's most basic institution. The marriage tax penalty exacts a disproportionate toll on working women and lower income couples with children. In mahy cases it is a working women's issue. Let me give you an example of how the marriage tax panalty unfairly affects middle class married working couples. For example, a machinist, at a Caterpillar manufacturing plant in my home district of Joliet, makes $30,500 a year in salary. His wife is a tenured elementary school teacher, also bringing home $30,500 a year in salary. If they would both file their taxes as singles, as individuals, they would pay 15%.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Again, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his comments, and his leadership. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) has been a real leader, one of the original leaders in our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, one of the items of unfinished business that we have decided under the leadership this year of House Speaker Dennis Hastert to make first out of the box, put on a fast track, to help families by addressing the need to make our Tax Code more fair and more simple, and we will benefit 56 million working Americans who will benefit by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. We have often asked over the last several years as House Republicans have worked to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code that 28 million married working couples pay more in taxes just because they are married. The average marriage tax penalty is $1,400 in higher taxes just because they are married. In the south side of Chicago, the south suburbs and rural communities that I represent in Illinois, $1,400 is one year's tuition at the local community college; it is three months of daycare at the local daycare center; it is 3,000 diapers for a newborn baby if they suffer the marriage tax penalty. I am so proud that this House has made it a priority once again. I was disappointed, in fact it broke my heart last year when President Clinton and Vice President Gore vetoed our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We sent to the President legislation which would wipe out the marriage tax penalty for a majority of those who suffer it. Unfortunately, because it was part of a package with a number of other initiatives, the President vetoed it. He said he wanted to spend the money on other things. Unfortunately, it fell victim to his desire to create new government programs. We believe, and our hope is, this year the President will join with us. He mentioned in the State of the Union the other night the need to address the marriage tax penalty. We want to take him at his word. He has now made a promise, and we want him to keep it. We are going to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. When you think about it, that $1,400 we are going to allow the average married couple to keep, that is going to be a big help to the folks back home. We believe that by sending the President stand-alone clean marriage tax elimination legislation, legislation that only has one item in it, which is our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, that we will help 28 million working married couples, because it should receive overwhelming bipartisan support. As I pointed out earlier, an overwhelming majority, almost 220 Republicans are cosponsoring the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, about a dozen Democrats. Hopefully more Democrats will join with us, because I believe our legislation that will move out of the Committee on Ways and Means this Wednesday will pass with overwhelming bipartisan support, and I believe that that signal that will be sent to the Senate will, of course, help the Senate maintain the discipline to move a bill quickly through the Senate to eliminate the marriage tax penalty; and, of course, then we can send it to the President, helping 28 million working married couples. Frankly, what better gift to give 28 million married working couples on Valentine's Day than passage of legislation out of this House, which wipes out the marriage tax penalty for 28 million married working couples. Let me again explain what the marriage tax penalty is for all those that are interested. And for my friends in the House I would like to point out, you know, the marriage tax penalty is a middle-class issue. It is a working family issue, because if you are a married couple and you work, you pay taxes, and if you are married, you pay higher taxes under our Tax Code. In Joliet, Illinois, I will give you an example of a machinist and a schoolteacher. A machinist who works at Caterpillar, they make big heavy equipment, those big tractors and bulldozers in Joliet, and the machinist that works there, he makes $31,500. As a single person this machinist at Caterpillar, at the Joliet Caterpillar plant, he pays at the 15 percent tax rate. He pays taxes at the most basic rate for average Americans, which is 15 percent. It is the lowest bracket in our Tax Code. But if he meets a schoolteacher with an identical income, a tenured schoolteacher with an identical income, $31,500, of course, she pays in the 15 percent bracket if she stays single and is single, but if this machinist and schoolteacher in Joliet, Illinois, decide to get married, they have to file jointly, which means they have to combine their incomes. Under our Tax Code today, this machinist and schoolteacher in Joliet, Illinois, they are pushed into the 28 percent tax bracket, and under our Tax Code, they pay almost $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they chose to get married. Now, if they chose not to get married and made the choice of living together, they would not pay that marriage tax penalty; or if they were married and chose to get divorced, they would save money. Those incentives are just in the wrong place. Now, under the proposal that the Committee on Ways and Means is going to act on on Wednesday, we are going to help this machinist in Joliet, Illinois, and this public schoolteacher in Joliet, Illinois, because we are going to pass legislation out of the Committee on Ways and Means and out of this House by Valentine's Day which will essentially wipe out the marriage tax penalty; and for couples, such as this machinist and schoolteacher, they will no longer be punished for being married with passage of our legislation that we are going to move out of the House the next couple of weeks. What we do is we double the standard deduction immediately so that joint filers have a standard deduction twice that for single filers. Now, if you itemize your taxes, and most people who itemize their taxes are homeowners and you itemize because you combine your property taxes with your mortgage interest, and if that totals more than the standard deduction, you itemize your taxes. But under our proposal that we are going to pass out of the House in the next couple of weeks, we double the standard deduction for joint filers to twice that of singles, so that wipes out the marriage tax penalty for those who do not itemize. We do that immediately in the year 2001, this coming year. Next year we double the standard deduction for those who do not itemize. So they are helped quite a bit. I would point out by doubling the standard deduction for joint filers to twice those of singles, we also simplify the Tax Code, one of our other goals, because 3 million married working couples will no longer need to itemize their taxes because we double the standard deduction for joint filers to twice that of singles. So we simplify the paperwork they are required to file when they file taxes on April 15th. So it is a two-fer. We wipe out the marriage tax penalty, and we save them time on their taxes. Now, for many homeowners, in fact, an awful lot of homeowners, particularly in the suburbs of Chicago and rural areas that I represent, they itemize their taxes, because when you add together your property taxes, you add together your mortgage interest and some of the other items you might be able to itemize, charity deductions, they are more than the standard deduction, so you itemize your taxes. We help them as well. What we do in our proposal to help those who itemize their taxes in eliminating the marriage tax penalty is we widen the 15 percent bracket. Right now if you are single, you can make about $24,000 or $25,000 a year and be in the 15 percent tax bracket; but if you are married and you file jointly, you can only make about $44,000 a year. That is wrong, because if you choose to get married, you pay higher taxes because of that. So we double it under this legislation. We widen that bracket so those in the 15 percent bracket that are joint filers can earn twice as much in their combined income as single filers, wiping out their marriage tax penalty as well. That is good news for married working couples. We help those who itemize; we help those who do not itemize. One of the other points I would like to make as well, I am often asked, if you are going to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, does that mean you are going to raise taxes on single people in order to offset the loss of revenue for the Federal Government? Well, we have addressed that issue. Under the legislation that the Committee on Ways and Means is going to act on on Wednesday and this House is going to pass by Valentine's Day, we wipe out the marriage tax penalty for almost 28 million married working couples, and we make the Tax Code essentially neutral, so you pay no more in taxes if you are married or single, so two people with identical incomes in identical circumstances pay no more in taxes if they are single or married. That is fairness, bringing fairness to the Tax Code, because it responds to that fundamental question, and that is, is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code that you pay more in taxes just because you are married. I am so pleased and really pretty proud that the House leadership under the leadership of House Speaker Dennis Hastert has made elimination of the marriage tax penalty priority Number 1 when it comes to addressing the need to fix the Tax Code to make it fairer and simpler, and that we are going to give a Valentine's Day gift to 28 million married working couples by passing out of this House by Valentine's Day our legislation which will essentially wipe out the marriage tax penalty for a majority of those who suffer it. I often refer to this young couple that came and talked to me about the need to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and what it meant to them. Whenever we talk about the marriage tax penalty, I think of couples such as Michelle and Shad Hallihan, two public school teachers in Joliet, Illinois, who made the decision to get married; and they made that decision knowing full well that under our Tax Code they were going to pay more in taxes just because they are married. Well, it is young people like Michelle and Shad, as well as older folks who are retirees who suffer the marriage tax penalty, that we want to bring fairness to the Tax Code by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. I really believe that this year we have an opportunity. Unfortunately, the President and Vice President Gore vetoed last year our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty for a vast majority of those who suffer it, and it fell victim to the President's desire to spend more money on government programs. And while we wanted to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, we made a commitment last year that we were going to try again. I am pleased that this House in the next 2 weeks is going to vote on legislation which will wipe out the marriage tax penalty for a majority of those that suffer it. That is good news. That is good news for 28 million married working couples. Fifty-six million Americans who are married and work will benefit from this legislation, and they will see anywhere from $230 to almost $1,400 in marriage tax relief as a result of this legislation. That is good news. My hope is this entire House will vote yes. Now, there are 12 Democrats that have joined along with us, out of the 231 cosponsors of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act. The gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner) has been a real leader. My friend, a Democratic Member from Missouri, has been a real leader in the effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, and I am so proud to have her as a partner, and she has been able to bring about a dozen of her Democratic colleagues with her. My hope is and we want to extend an invitation to our Democratic friends to join with us and make this a bipartisan effort. The President said in his State of the Union speech the other night that we should address the marriage tax penalty. We want to take the President at his word, so that when we place on the President's desk a stand-alone bill, clean marriage tax elimination legislation, that he will sign it into law, because it is going to provide real relief and address the need to bring fairness to the Tax Code when it comes to marriage. You know, you think about it, our Tax Code has the incentives in the wrong place. We should be working to strengthen society's most basic institution. We can do that by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. My hope is over the next 2 weeks we will be able to garner overwhelming bipartisan support to send with a strong message to the Senate our desire to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I appreciate the comments of Chairman Roth of Delaware, who has been a real leader in working to bring tax relief for middle-class families. Again, as I pointed out earlier, Chairman Roth, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, praised the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) for the speedy start to open this issue. Of course, Mr. Archer is chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, part of our leadership here in the House. Chairman Roth indicated he intends to move shortly over the next few months similar legislation to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us keep this legislation on a fast track. There are 28 million married working couples, 56 million hard-working married people that are out there who need help. They need fairness in the Tax Code as it affects married people. We want to help them. My belief is we have a tremendous opportunity, a clean stand-alone effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It deserves overwhelming bipartisan support. It deserves to be signed into law. It is all about fairness. Let us bring fairness to the Tax Code. Help couples such as Michelle and Shad Hallihan, public school teachers in Joliet, as well as 28 million other working couples, by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to address this House and our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and bring fairness to the Tax Code.

Mr. WELLER. The gentleman pointed out something that is so true. That is, that this year as we work to balance the budget for the fourth year in a row, we are going to be adopting a plan that once again sets aside 100 percent of Social Security for Social Security, walling off the Social Security trust fund so it cannot be used for anything else, stopping the raid on Social Security. Again which is one of the Republican priorities. We are also going to, of course, strengthen our schools; and we are going to pay down the national debt. But as we work to address the issue of fairness in the tax code, I find in the south side of Chicago and in the south suburbs that I have the privilege of representing in Illinois, people say, ``My tax burden is too high.'' They point out that 40 percent of the average Illinois family's income goes to government in Washington, in the State capital, the local courthouse, of course in local, State and Federal taxes and that it is the highest tax burden in peacetime history. Only at the end of World War II has our tax burden on our Nation been higher than it is today. They complain about that. They are unhappy that this tax burden is so high. They are frustrated because they feel they can better spend those dollars. The other point they always make to me is they are frustrated about how complicated and unfair the tax code is. They think it is wrong that under our tax code that 28 million married working couples pay higher taxes just because they are married. That is wrong. Think about it, $1,400, one year's college tuition. The gentleman from Minnesota also brought up another point. It is not just young couples, like Shad and Michelle Hallihan, but it is older Americans, retirees; and they have two pensions that they are collecting, and with their two pensions they are paying a marriage tax penalty. If you think about it, those in their later years, health care costs are higher for them at that time, they are concerned about prescription drugs, and one of the priorities for this Republican Congress this year is passing a prescription drug benefit under Medicare that takes care of those 15 million seniors who do not have prescription drug coverage. Well, by eliminating the marriage tax penalty for senior citizens who suffer it, they will have more of their own money to keep to meet their own needs, rather than going to Washington. It is just wrong. We have all heard the story about the elderly couple that decided to get divorced because they found they could save money. That is wrong, that under our Tax Code, the incentives are to get divorced, rather than to get married, or not to get married in the first place. We want to strengthen families in our country, and that is why elimination of the marriage tax penalty is so important. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. WELLER. The gentleman from Virginia made a good point. The marriage tax penalty is an issue that is faced by average, middle class Americans. If you pay the average marriage tax penalty, you make about $62,000 a year in combined income, between two hardworking Americans, husband and wife, joined together in marriage who under our tax code they file, they file jointly when they are married, are now paying the marriage tax penalty. It is very much a middle class issue. Of course, a proposal that we are going to be acting on in the Committee on Ways and Means on Wednesday and the House voting on by Valentine's Day, of course, will also help low- income families as well. As I pointed out, we are working to address the marriage tax penalty, but for those who participate in the earned income credit, a program to help particularly families with children make ends meet, those who work hard, have low incomes and ensure that they have got enough to get by to take care of the kids' and their families' needs. We are not only working to help the middle class but we are also helping lower income working families as well with this initiative this House is going to vote on.

Mr. WELLER. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his leadership and efforts on working to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. When we think about it, $1,400 in Washington, D.C. is a drop in the bucket. There are always those, particularly on the far left side of things, who think that we should keep this money in Washington. They think that $1,400 really does not matter much back in Illinois or Minnesota or in Virginia; and, of course, that is really nothing here when they spend billions of dollars in the Congress. But let me just share with my colleagues what $1,400 means in the south suburbs, in the south side of Chicago: $1,400 is 3 months of child care at a local day care center in Joliet, Illinois. It is a year at Joliet Junior College, our local community college, 1 year's college tuition. $1400, the average marriage tax penalty, is 4 months of car payments for the average family. It is school clothes for the kids. As Michelle Hallihan pointed out, that $1,000 marriage tax penalty that Shad and Michelle Hallihan, two public school teachers in Joliet, Illinois, that they have to pay just because they are married, that $1,000 is 3,000 diapers for their newborn child. Of course it is a family vacation. It is a computer for the kids to help them in their school. It is several months of health insurance premiums. It is a down payment for many first-time homebuyers on a home. It is also a majority of the contribution to an IRA. It is real money for real people. For some in Washington, it is no big deal. But for folks in Minnesota and Virginia and Illinois and all across this country, 56 million married people, it is real money, $1,400, the average marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) pointed out, there has been fundamental change over the last 5 years, balancing the budget, cutting taxes for the middle class. We, of course, passed welfare reform into law, the first real welfare reform in a generation. In my home State of Illinois, we have seen a 50-percent, one-half of our welfare roles have been cut in half as a result of welfare reform. We reformed the Internal Revenue Service, shifting the burden of proof off the backs of taxpayers onto the IRS. That is a fundamental change. We also did something this past year that was very much in response to what I hear from the folks back home in Illinois. We stopped the raid on Social Security. For the first time in 30 years, we balanced the budget without spending one dime of Social Security, setting aside $137 billion of Social Security for Social Security and Medicare, a big fundamental change. I am also asked about what are people doing about paying down the national debt. We have paid down $350 billion of the national debt. We are going to adopt a budget later this year that is going to eliminate the national debt over the next 13 to 15 to 20 years. That will be another fundamental change. That is why I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) who has been another real strong leader in our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and help 28 million married working couples. When we think about that, 28 million married working couples, that means 56 million working Americans suffer higher taxes just because they are married. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) for his leadership and for his participation tonight in explaining the marriage tax penalty, what it is and why it is wrong and what we are going to do about it. I look back, in listening to my colleague's comments, to 5 years ago when he and I were elected as part of the Class of 1994; and if we think about it back then, think of the issues that were facing us. Congress and the President had just imposed the biggest tax increase in the history of this country on the American people, putting the tax burden at the highest level it had ever been in peacetime history. The Federal Government was looking at $200 billion to $300 billion in deficit spending for the foreseeable future. More children were living in poverty than ever before. There was a rogue IRS running amuck amongst families and small business. We brought about some fundamental changes during the last 5 years. We balanced the budget for the first time in 28 years. We cut taxes for the middle class for the first time in 16 years. And in the State I represent, in Illinois, 3 million Illinois children now benefit from that $500-per-child tax credit that was part of our middle-class tax relief. Remember all those times we were told time and time again that it was radical, it was crazy, how can you balance the budget and cut taxes at the same time?

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for her leadership and efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. In suburban districts like my colleague from Illinois, we have many homeowners; and one of the provisions that is so important in our legislation that the committee will be acting on on Wednesday and the House voting on around Valentine's Day is that we help those who itemize who suffer the marriage tax penalty, as well. If they own a home and they have to pay mortgage interest and they pay property taxes and they combine those two, that usually causes them to itemize their taxes. So I appreciate very much her leadership. One other area I would like to point out that is so important about the legislation that we will be acting on in the Committee on Ways and Means and the House voting on within the next 2 weeks is that we help 28 million married working couples, and also we help those poor families, working families, who participate in earned income tax credit by working to offset a marriage tax credit that they suffer, as well. So low-income families and low-income working families benefit from the legislation that we are passing, as well. Another thing I would like to point out is that people often say, if the House moves quickly and the House is really showing leadership on this, is the Senate going to act on it, too? I would like to point out, too, that Chairman Roth of the Senate Finance Committee today praised the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) for the speedy start of the House in this effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and that he intends to move similar legislation in the coming months. That is good news because we want to make elimination of the marriage tax penalty our top priority first out of the box and on a fast track to help 28 million married working couples. Mr. Speaker, I see the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), my friend, who has been a tremendous leader here on this effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and who is one of the first ones to say this is something that the House needs to do. I want to thank him for that. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, this is a great opportunity this evening to talk about an issue that many of us have raised in this Congress over the last several years. That is an issue that really is a fundamental issue of fairness, an issue of fairness that the American people have been asking some pretty basic questions about over the last several years. I represent the south side of Chicago, the south suburbs in Cook and Will Counties, as well as bedroom communities and farm communities in Illinois. And I found, whether I was in the steel workers union hall in Hegwish or a neighborhood in Chicago or at the local legion post in Joliet or the local grain elevator in Tonica, people often ask a basic question: Is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code that the average married working couple pays higher taxes just because they are married? They say why do the folks in Washington allow a Tax Code to be in place that tells us that if we choose to get married and work, we are going to pay more in taxes? Mr. Speaker, they are stunned when they learn that 28 million married working couples pay an average $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married. Clearly, the marriage tax penalty suffered by working married people is fundamentally wrong and something we should change. I am so pleased that the leadership of this House, the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), has made reduction and elimination of the marriage tax penalty the first priority this year. First out of the box and on a fast track as a tax-related initiative to help middle-class families. The marriage tax penalty has been in place for almost 30 years, and no one has gone back to fix it. I am pleased this Republican Congress has made a decision to bring fairness to the Tax Code by working to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. The marriage tax penalty is something that affects real people. I have a photo here of a young couple from Joliet, Illinois, Shad and Michelle Hallihan, two school teachers. They teach in the local public schools in Joliet. Shad and Michelle suffer a marriage tax penalty of almost a thousand dollars because they are married. They recently had a child, a baby. And as Michelle Hallihan pointed out to me, she said that $1,000 the marriage tax penalty that they suffer, that is 3,000 diapers that they can buy for their child that goes to Uncle Sam instead of taking care of their child. It is real money. Mr. Speaker, $1,400 in Joliet, Illinois, where Shad and Michelle live is one year's tuition at Joliet Community College, and it is 3 months of day care at a local day care center. Let me explain how it came about. Our Tax Code has grown more complicated and since the late 1960s, married working couples, moms and dads, husbands and wives with two incomes have paid higher taxes just because they are married. Of course, we have made this a priority, and I would like to announce, of course, this Wednesday, the Committee on Ways and Means is going to be marking up, committee action will occur on legislation essentially to wipe out the marriage tax penalty for almost 28 million married work couples. A real change that is going to help people. Mr. Speaker, this is how the marriage tax penalty works. Take a machinist and a school teacher in the south suburbs of Chicago. They have identical incomes. This machinist is making $31,500 as a single person. Under our Tax Code, he is going to be taxed at 15 percent rate. So he meets a school teacher, a gal with an identical income of $31,500, and they choose to get married. And at the point they choose to get married, they begin filing their taxes jointly. When we file our taxes jointly, we combine our two incomes. In this case, this machinist and school teacher who previously were taxed at 15 percent, because they chose to get married, their combined income pushes their combined income to $63,000. They pay almost $1,400 more in higher taxes because they are pushed, under our Tax Code, into the 28 percent tax bracket, the higher tax bracket. That is wrong, but today that is the current situation for working married couples. So, really, the incentives is in the wrong place. Marriage is one of the most basic institutions in our society, and our Tax Code punishes marriage. I would point out that had this machinist and school teacher chose to live together outside of marriage, they would not suffer that extra tax. Only when they choose to get married do they pay that higher tax. And I think we all agree, that is wrong that we impose higher taxes on married working people. I am proud to say that the House Republican leadership, under the leadership of Speaker Hastert, has made elimination of the marriage tax penalty our first initiative in an effort to bring fairness to the Tax Code and lower the tax burden on working families. This afternoon, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) unveiled the legislation that will provide tax relief for 28 million married working couples. It is similar, almost identical in many ways, to the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, H.R. 6, legislation that we introduced earlier this year which now has 230 cosponsors, and overwhelming majority of Republicans; and I am pleased that 12 Democrats have joined with us in an effort to make this a bipartisan proposal. Mr. Speaker, let me briefly share what the proposal that we will be working on in the Committee on Ways and Means on Wednesday will do. It is the goal of the House to act and approve and send to the Senate by February 14, Valentine's Day, our effort to wipe out the marriage tax penalty. Think about it. What better Valentine's Day gift to give 28 million married working people than elimination of the marriage tax penalty. This legislation will essentially wipe out the marriage tax penalty for almost everybody who suffers it. That will be a big change in our Tax Code. The legislation that we will be acting on and voting out of the House in the next couple of weeks will help 28 million married working couples. For those who do not itemize their taxes, they will see immediately $230 dollars in marriage tax relief. For those who itemize because they own a home, they will see $1,400 marriage tax relief under this legislation. I would point out that this makes a big difference. Under our plan, we provide immediate marriage tax relief in 2001, next year, helping millions of couples. And because we double the standard deduction for those who do not itemize for joint filers to twice that of singles, 3 million married working couples will see their Tax Code simplified because they will no longer need to itemize and fill out extra forms. So we make filing for taxes easier. And for those who do itemize, primarily homeowners, they will see marriage tax relief as well. Twenty-eight million married work couples will see up to $1,400 in marriage tax relief as a result of what the Committee on Ways and Means will approve on Wednesday, and I expect that an overwhelming majority of this House will see it approved before Valentine's Day. What a great Valentine's Day gift that we can give 28 million married working couples, elimination of the marriage tax penalty. I am joined by a number of my colleagues today who have been real leaders in the effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. As I pointed out earlier, of the 435 Members of this House, we need 217 to pass a bill. So an overwhelming majority of the House have joined in cosponsoring this bill. I am joined today by a number of cosponsors of this legislation who have stepped forward and fought hard to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert). I appreciate her participating in today's special order.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 3, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back here for another session of good and hard work. I represent a pretty diverse district. I represent the south side of Chicago, the south suburbs, and Cook and Will counties, a lot of industrial as well as farm communities. And even though this district that I represent is so very, very diverse, I find there is a common message; and that is the folks back home want us to come here, Republicans and Democrats, and work together to find solutions to the challenges that we face. That is why I am so proud that over the last 5 years we have done so many things we were told we could not do. We balanced the budget for the first time in 28 years. We gave a middle-class tax cut for the first time in 16 years. We reformed our welfare system for the first time in a generation. And a great accomplishment just this past year was we stopped the raid on Social Security for the first time in 30 years. That is progress on our agenda, and we are continuing to move forward to find better ways to help find solutions. Our agenda is pretty simple, paying down the public national debt, saving Social Security and Medicare, helping our local schools. And we also want to bring fairness to the Tax Code. That is one of the issues I want to talk about today. Because I believe that as we work to bring fairness to the Tax Code, particularly to middle-class working families, that we should focus first on the most unfair consequence of our current complicated Tax Code and that is the marriage tax penalty which is suffered by almost 21 million married, working couples. Let me explain what the marriage tax penalty is. Under our current Tax Code, if they are married, both husband and wife are working, they pay more in taxes than they do if they stay single. Let me give this example, a marriage tax penalty example: A machinist and a schoolteacher, middle-class working folks in Joliet, Illinois, with a combined income of $63,000 pay more. And here is how they do it. If they have a machinist making $31,500, he is in the 15 percent tax bracket. If he marries a schoolteacher with an identical income of $31,500, under our Tax Code they file jointly. Their combined income of $63,000 pushes them into the 28 percent tax bracket. And for this machinist and schoolteacher, they pay the average marriage tax penalty of almost $1,400 more just because they are married under our Tax Code. Now, if they chose to live together instead of getting married, they would have saved that $1,400. Our Tax Code punishes them if they choose to get married. That is just wrong. It is a pretty fair question: Is it right, is it fair that, under our Tax Code, this machinist and schoolteacher in Joliet, Illinois, pay more in higher taxes? Let me give my colleagues another example here of two schoolteachers also of Joliet, Illinois, Michelle and Shad Hallihan. They were just married in the last couple of years, a wonderful young couple. I have had a chance to sit down and talk with them. And, of course, I have a nice wedding photo. The point is that Shad has taught a little longer than Michelle, and he makes $38,000 a year. His wife Michelle makes $23,500. Because they chose to get married, to live together in holy matrimony, they suffer the marriage tax penalty because their combined income when they file jointly pushes them into the 28 percent tax bracket. For them, for Michelle and Shad Hallihan in Joliet, Illinois, two schoolteachers, they pay almost a thousand dollars more. Michelle has pointed out to me, since they have just had a baby, that is almost 3,000 diapers that $1,000 of marriage tax penalty would pay for in that family if they were allowed to keep it. Now, the Republicans in this Congress believe that eliminating the marriage tax penalty should be a priority; and we believe that, in this era of budget surpluses, when the Federal Government is taking in more than we have been spending, that we should give some of it back. We want to focus that on bringing fairness to the Tax Code. This past year we sent to the President legislation that would have wiped out the marriage tax penalty for people like Michelle and Shad Hallihan. Unfortunately, the President and Vice President Gore chose to veto that legislation because they wanted to spend the money on new Government programs. My colleagues, should it not be a priority to help people like Michelle and Shad Hallihan, married working couples who work hard and who are unfairly treated by our Tax Code? We have legislation today which now has 230 cosponsors, a bipartisan majority of this House, that is cosponsoring the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, H.R. 6, cosponsored by myself and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Danner) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) as well as 230 Members of the House. That is why it is so important, we want to bring fairness to the Tax Code. That is why I am so pleased that the leadership of this House, led by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, has made a decision to move a stand-alone piece of legislation, a stand-alone bill, which wipes out the marriage tax penalty for the vast majority of those who suffer. In the next few weeks, the Speaker intends to bring that legislation to the floor. That is good news as we work to bring fairness to the Tax Code by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. I was just informed earlier today that the President in his State of the Union Speech tonight is going to discuss eliminating the marriage tax penalty. That is good news. Because it is time to make it a bipartisan effort. And while the President and Vice President Gore vetoed the legislation last year, he is now coming our way. I am very pleased. Let us make it a bipartisan effort. Let us wipe out the marriage tax penalty and let us send the President a stand-alone bill and let us bring fairness to the Tax Code.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER. Yes. This resolution does not address the merits of the legislation, which many Members on both sides of the aisle support. What it does is preserve the prerogatives of the House revenue- affecting measures originating in the House under the Constitution.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 393) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is necessary to return to the Senate the bill, S. 4, which contravenes the constitutional requirement that revenue measures shall originate in the House of Representatives. Section 202 of the bill authorizes members of the Armed Forces to participate in the Federal Thrift Savings Plan and permits them to contribute any part of a special or incentive pay that they might receive. However, it also effectively provides that the limitations of Internal Revenue Code section 415 will not apply to those extra contributions. Thus, the provision allows certain members of the uniformed services to avoid the negative tax consequences that would otherwise result in their extra contributions to the TSP. Accordingly, the provision is revenue affecting in a constitutional sense. There are numerous precedents for this action I am requesting. I want to emphasize that this action speaks solely to the constitutional prerogative of the House and not to the merits of the Senate bill. Proposed action today is procedural in nature, and it is necessary to preserve the prerogatives of the House to originate revenue measures, makes clear to the Senate that the appropriate procedure for dealing with revenue measures is for the House to act first on a revenue bill and for the Senate to accept it or amend it as it sees fit. This resolution is necessary to return to the Senate the bill S. 4, the ``Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999.'' S. 4 contravenes the constitutional requirement that revenue measures shall originate in the House of Representatives. S. 4 would provide a variety of benefits to members of the Armed Forces. I strongly support our Armed Forces and agree that we need to modernize our military and compensate our officers and enlisted personnel fairly. However, S. 4, as passed by the Senate, would not only increase the compensation of members of the Armed Forces. It would also modify the tax treatment of some of their compensation. This change in tax treatment causes S. 4 to violate the Origination Clause of the United States Constitution. Section 202 of the bill generally authorizes members of the Armed Forces to participate in the Federal Thrift Savings Plan. In particular, section 202 of the bill adds a new section 8440e to Title 5 of the United States Code. New section 8440e generally permits members of the uniformed services or Ready Reserve who are authorized to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan to contribute up to 5 percent of their basic pay to the Thrift Savings Plan. In addition, subsection (d) of new section 8440e permits members of the uniformed services to contribute to the Thrift Savings Plan any part of their special or incentive pay they receive under section 308, 308a through 308h, or 318 of title 37. The subsection further provides in effect that the limitations of Internal Revenue Code section 415 will not apply to such contribution. Code section 415 generally provides limitations on benefits and contributions under qualified employee benefit plans. Thus, the effect of subsection (d) of new section 8440e is to override the limits on the Thrift Savings Plan contribution imposed by Internal Revenue Code section 415. By overriding Code section 415, the provision allows certain members of the uniformed services to avoid the negative tax consequences that would result from such contributions. Accordingly, the provision is revenue-affecting in a constitutional senses. Plainly, allowing members of the Armed Forces to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan causes a reduction in revenues as a budget scorekeeping matter, since contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan reduce the taxable incomes of participants by operation of the existing tax laws, and therefore their tax liabilities. However, the reduction in Federal revenues is viewed as an indirect effect of the provision since the provision does not attempt to specify or modify the tax rules that would otherwise apply to the provision, and therefore does not offend the constitutional requirement. Rather, new subsection (d) offends the Origination Clause because it directly amends the internal revenue laws. Subsection (d) overrides the limitations imposed by Code section 415, thereby directly modifying the tax liability of individuals who would otherwise be subject to its limits. Such a provision is plainly revenue-affecting and therefore constitutes a revenue measure in the constitutional sense. Accordingly, I am asking that the House insist on its constitutional prerogatives. There are numerous precedents for the action I am requesting. For example, on July 21, 1994, the House returned to the Senate S. 1030, containing a provision exempting certain veteran payments from taxation. On October 7, 1994, the House returned to the Senate S. 1216, containing provisions exempting certain settlement income from taxation. On September 27, 1996, the House returned to the Senate S. 1311, containing a provision that overrode the Federal income tax rules governing recognition of tax-exempt status. I want to emphasize that this action speaks solely to the constitutional prerogative of the House and not to the merits of the Senate bill. The proposed action today is procedural in nature and is necessary to preserve the prerogatives of the House to originate revenue measures. It makes clear to the Senate that the appropriate procedure for dealing with revenue measures is for the House to act first on a revenue bill and for the Senate to accept it or amend it as it sees fit.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 394) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is necessary to return to the Senate the bill S. 1232 which contravenes the constitutional requirement that revenue measures shall originate in the House of Representatives. Section 401 of the bill provides that no Federal retirement plan involved in the corrections under the bill shall fail to be treated as a tax-qualified retirement plan by reason of the correction. The bill also provides that no amount shall be includable in the income of any individual for Federal tax purposes because of fund transfers or government contributions made pursuant to the bill. Accordingly, section 401 is revenue affecting in a constitutional sense and the bill therefore violates the origination requirement. There are numerous precedents for the action I am requesting. I want to emphasize this action speaks solely to the constitutional prerogative of the House and not to the merits of the Senate bill. The proposed action today is procedural in nature and is necessary to preserve the prerogatives of the House to originate revenue measures. It makes clear to the Senate that the appropriate procedure for dealing with revenue measures is for the House to act first on a revenue bill, for the Senate to accept it or amend it as it sees fit. This resolution is necessary to return to the Senate the bill S. 1232, which contravenes the constitutional requirement that revenue measures shall originate in the House of Representatives. The bill provides that no Federal retirement plan involved in the corrections under the bill shall fail to be treated as a tax-qualified retirement plan by reason of the correction. The bill also provides that no amounts shall be includible in the income of any individual for Federal tax purposes because of fund transfers or government contributions made pursuant to the bill. Therefore, the bill violates the origination requirement. Section 401 of the bill provides generally that no government retirement plan shall fail to be treated as a tax-qualified plan under the Internal Revenue Code for any failure to follow plan terms, or any actions taken under the bill to correct errors in misclassification of Federal employees into the wrong Federal retirement system. In general, Federal retirement plans are subject to the same rules that apply to tax-qualified retirement plans maintained by private sector employers. For example, tax-qualified retirement plans are afforded special tax treatment under the Code. These advantages include the fact that plan participants pay no current income tax on amounts contributed on their behalf, and the fact that earnings of the plan are tax-exempt. Because of Section 401 of the bill, Federal retirement plans and participants in those plans would retain these advantages even if actions are taken pursuant to the bill that would otherwise jeopardize this favorable tax treatment. The Federal retirement plans are also subject to the rules applicable to tax-qualified plans that limit the amount of contributions and benefits that may be provided to a participant under a tax-qualified plan. For example, section 415 of the Code limits that amount of annual contributions that may be made to a defined contribution plan, and the amount of annual benefits that are payable from a defined benefit plan. If amounts are contributed or benefits are paid that exceed these limits, plan participants could be subject to unfavorable tax consequences. Section 401 of the bill would permit the Federal government to make-up contributions on behalf of an employee without violating applicable limits on contributions and benefits for the year in which the make-up contribution was made. Section 401 also provides that no amounts shall be includible in the taxable income of participants in Federal retirement plans because of fund transfers or government contributions made pursuant to the bill. Without this provision, amounts transferred from fund to fund or otherwise contributed by the government could be subject to income tax under the Internal Revenue Code. Accordingly, Section 401 is revenue-affecting in a constitutional sense. There are numerous precedents for the action I am requesting. For example, on July 21, 1994, the House returned to the Senate S. 1030, containing a provision exempting certain veteran payments from taxation. On October 7, 1994, the House returned to the Senate S. 1216, containing provisions exempting certain settlement income from taxation. I want to emphasize that this action speaks solely to the constitutional prerogative of the House and not to the merits of the Senate bill. The proposed action today is procedural in nature and is necessary to preserve the prerogatives of the House to originate revenue measures. It makes clear to the Senate that the appropriate procedure for dealing with revenue measures is for the House to act first on a revenue bill and for the Senate to accept it or amend it as it sees fit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin my comments by just again praising the leadership of our committee's chairman for his efforts in putting together this good package that we are voting on today, a package that deserves bipartisan support, as well as the good ranking member for his efforts in making this a bipartisan effort today. Mr. Speaker, this is a big victory for a lot of folks back home. The disabled are big winners with the ticket to work provisions in this bill, legislation that helps the disabled enter the workforce and keep their health care benefits. I really want to commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) for his hard work and efforts on this. It is also a victory for the taxpayers. This Congress said no to the President's $238 billion in tax increases. This Congress said no to the President's plan to raid the Social Security Trust Fund by $340 billion. I do want to express my biggest disappointment for this year and that is when the President vetoed our efforts to help 28 million married working couples when the President vetoed our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. This legislation is good legislation. It helps folks back home in Illinois. There are three provisions I would like to highlight. Of course, the 5-year extension of the research and development tax credit. That is so important in Illinois, a multiyear commitment to providing this incentive for research into cancer, research into biotechnology, to increase food productivity, to increase the opportunity to grow our new economy, particularly in high technology since Illinois ranks fourth in technology. I also would note that Puerto Rico is included with this extension of the R&D tax credit, extension of the work opportunity tax credit. We want welfare reform to work. If we want welfare reform to work, of course we want to ensure that there is a job for those on welfare. The work opportunity tax credits help contribute to a 50 percent reduction in the welfare rolls in Illinois. We extend it for 2\1/2\ years. Third and last, I want to note the brownfields tax incentive, a provision that many of us worked on to include in the 1997 budget act. This is successfully working. Of course we extend it. I would point out that the district I represent on the South Side of Chicago, that the former Republic Steel property, the largest brownfield in Illinois, the largest new industrial park in Illinois benefited from this brownfields tax incentive. This is good legislation, and it deserves bipartisan support.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing one of America's most diverse districts, representing the south side of Chicago, the south suburbs in Cook and Will Counties, bedroom communities like Morris and a lot of cornfields and farm towns, too. When one represents such a diverse district, they learn to listen. I find even though I represent city and suburbs and country, that there is a common message and that message is we want to change how Washington works. They want us to work together to find solutions and meet the challenges that we face. Now, a question is often asked from a historical perspective: Has this Congress in the last 5 years of the Republican majority responded to that call to change how Washington works and, of course, look for solutions and enact solutions to the challenges that we face? I am proud to say that in the last 5 years, we have. I was told when I was first elected to Congress there is no way we can balance the budget. They failed to do it for 28 years. There is no way we can cut taxes and balance the budget at the same time. They told us that the welfare system which had put more children in poverty than ever before had failed for a long time so nobody can fix that either, but I am proud to say that we did. We balanced the budget for the first time in 28 years and now we are debating what to do with the projected $3 trillion surplus. We cut taxes for the middle class and, in my home State, that first middle class tax cut in 16 years now means that 3 million Illinois children qualify for the $500 per child tax credit. That is $1.5 billion a year that stays home in Illinois, helping Illinois families, rather than being spent here in Washington. We enacted the first real welfare reform in over a generation, emphasizing work and family and responsibility. As a result of that, Illinois' welfare rolls have been cut in half. Those are successes, accomplishments that I am proud of and proud to be part of. That is pretty good. People often say the budget was balanced, taxes for the middle class were cut, welfare reform was enacted, but that is history. What is going to be done next? Our agenda here in the Republican majority is a simple agenda. We want to strengthen our local schools. We want to pay down the national debt. We want to lower taxes for middle class families. We also want to strengthen our retirement security system of Medicare and Social Security. Our agenda responds to the concerns that I often hear. Whether in the union halls, the steel working union halls in the 10th Ward of Chicago or the VFW or Legions in Joliet or the grain elevators in Tonica or Ottawa, I am often asked several questions. One of the most basic questions I am asked time and time again is, when are the folks in Washington going to stop spending the Social Security surplus? When are the folks in Washington going to break that bad habit that has gone on for 30 years, where Washington has dipped into the Social Security trust fund, raided the Social Security trust fund to spend on other things? I am proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that our goal as Republicans is to stop the raid on Social Security. I am proud to say that the White House has recognized this. At the beginning of the year, of course, the President called for spending 62 percent of the Social Security surplus on Social Security and then the other 38 percent on other priorities. Well, we said no; it is time to stop the raid on Social Security. I was pleased to see this quote here from the chief of staff of the President when they finally recognized that Republicans were serious about stopping the raid on Social Security. Let me quote John Podesta, chief of staff to the President. The Republican's key goal is not to spend the Social Security surplus. Republicans want to stop the raid on Social Security. I am pleased to say that just a few weeks ago that the Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, issued a letter saying that the budget that we have enacted, the budget that we have passed even though the President vetoed part of it, did not spend one dime of the Social Security trust fund. The other question I am often asked by folks back home is no one ever talks about paying down the national debt. Washington spent beyond its means for 28 years, running up a $3.4 trillion national debt. Is it not time to start paying that off? I am proud to say that over the last 2 years we have made a down payment on paying down the national debt. We paid down $150 billion of the public debt over the last 2 years; $50 billion 2 years ago, $100 billion this past year. This coming year we expect to pay down $150 billion and over the next 10 years we should pay down two-thirds of the national debt, $2.2 trillion. It is an important step as we work to pay down the debt which is so important if we consider our future for America's children. The third question I am often asked is, and folks get frustrated, they are frustrated that our Nation's tax burden is so high, that only in time of war, in World War II, at the end of World War II, was the tax burden higher than it is today. Forty percent of the average Illinois' income goes to Washington and Springfield. Unfortunately, the President vetoed our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. My hope is we will come back and do that. Mr. Speaker, let us stop the raid on Social Security. Let us balance the budget. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us help our schools and let us strengthen Social Security and Medicare.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule as well as H.R. 3073, the ``Fathers Count Act of 1999.'' This is pretty important legislation, fundamentally important legislation. We were successful in doing something 3 years ago in 1997 we were told we could not do when I came to Congress in 1994; and that is, we reformed our welfare system, a system that was failing so bad that more children were in poverty in 1993 and in 1994 than ever before in history. One of the reasons that so many children were in poverty was because their fathers were not involved in the families. And when the father was not involved, the family's income was a lot less and the struggling, working mom trying to make ends meet and raise children was having a hard time. We passed into law in 1997 the first major welfare reform in over a generation that emphasized work and family and responsibility. Clearly it is one of the great successes of this Congress, because we have seen a drop in the welfare rolls in my home State of Illinois of over 50 percent, meaning more families are now paying taxes and in the work rolls and successfully participating in society. Well, this legislation, the ``Fathers Count Act of 1999,'' is the next logical step. Let us remember, the old welfare was biased against dad. The old welfare system discouraged dad from being involved in the family. In fact, it rewarded the family if dad stayed away. We have changed that successfully over the last several years. This legislation is the next step. What is great about this legislation is that it reinforces marriage, the most important basic institution of our society, and it promotes better parenting, encourages and rewards the payment of child support. More children are in poverty today in Illinois because of the lack of the payment of child support, and we want to turn that around. But, also, this increases the father's income and encourages and rewards fathers for being involved in family. It is good legislation. I just listened to the argument of my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), who believes that we should deny faith-based organizations the opportunity to be part of this program. I think of Restoration Ministries in Harvey, Illinois, a program that successfully has worked over the last decade to identify men in the community, particularly in urban communities in the Southside of Chicago, and help give them the opportunity to participate in society. It has been a successful program. I think Restoration Ministries is one of those programs which works that we should enlist in our effort to involve fathers in this program. The fact that 75 percent of the funds, under this program, will go to faith-based organizations, whether they are Jewish or Muslim or Christian or other faiths, is a right step because they care and they want to be involved. Organizations like Restoration Ministries are successful because the people that are involved believe in their programs, they want to help people, they are part of the community. Let us enlist them. I would also point out that this idea has bipartisan support. Not only do we have the leading Presidential candidate on the Republican side saying they support this, but the leading candidate on the Democratic side supporting this, as well.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and I also support the amendment by Mr. Young to fully fund the Wye aid package for Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinians. The United States has an obligation to support our very loyal and only democratic ally in the Middle East, Israel. We have a key responsibility to work toward long term security for Israel and the Middle East. The United States and Israel have a special relationship. Israel embodies the values and ideals of America and Americans. The democratic values and interests are shared by both democracies. Peace in the Middle East is an issue which is personally important to me. I have traveled to Israel 3 times in my Congressional career. I have monitored Palestinian elections with Jimmy Carter and have been honored to serve as co-chair of the House Republican Israel Caucus for two sessions. By fully funding the Wye aid package, the United States will be doing it's part to promote stability in the Middle East. Israel is fully implementing the Wye River Agreement and will begin final talks with the Palestinians shortly. Israel is taking real risks for peace, and with the challenges that it will face in the coming weeks they must know that America stands with them. Mr. Young's amendment would have no net impact on the deficit in FY 2000. The outlays are offset by a reduction of $407 million in early disbursal for Israel's regular military assistance. Congress can play a vital role in demonstrating America's commitment to Israel and to peace in the Middle East. With this legislation, we will be giving Israel the resources it needs to achieve its long deserved peace. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to fully support the foreign Operations Appropriations Act and vote ``yes'' on the amendment to fully fund the Wye aid package.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to represent one of our Nation's most diverse congressional districts. I represent the South Side of Chicago, the south suburbs in Cook and Will Counties, a lot of bedroom communities and a lot of cornfields and farm towns, too. When you represent such a diverse district, city, suburbs, and country, you have to learn to listen. I find there is one very common message that I hear back home. I heard it back in 1994 when I was elected and they sent me here to change how Washington works. I continue to hear it. They want us to work together to meet the challenges that we face here in Washington, as well as at home. I am pretty proud that over the last 4\1/2\ years this Republican majority has worked to keep our commitments to change how Washington works. When we think about it, when we came to Washington the Congress, which was controlled by the Democrats at that time, passed the biggest tax increase in the history of our country. It was considering having a government takeover of our health care system. We had massive deficits of $200 to $300 billion a year. When we think about it, there have been fundamental changes that have occurred since then. In fact, in the last 4\1/2\ years, this Republican Congress has done some things we were told we could not do. We have balanced the budget for the first time in 28 years. That is now producing an estimated $3 trillion surplus of estimated money. We cut taxes for the middle class for the first time in 16 years. Now 3 million children in my State of Illinois now qualify for that $500 per child tax credit. We have reformed welfare for the first time in a generation. The welfare rolls in Illinois have dropped by one-half. We tamed the tax collector, reforming the IRS, shifting the burden of proof off the backs of the taxpayer and onto the IRS. That is pretty good. Of course, in this Republican majority we are now committed to moving forward with a better agenda, an agenda to help our local schools, keep the budget balanced, pay down our national debt, strengthen social security and Medicare, and of course, lower the tax burden for working families. That is our commitment, because we are responding to questions that I hear back at home at the union hall and the VFW, the local Chamber of Commerce. People often ask me, when are you folks going to make another change in Washington? Now that you have balanced the budget, when are you going to stop the raid on social security? Ever since LBJ needed to finance the Vietnam War effort and grow government with the Great Society, Washington has dipped into the social security trust fund to spend on other things. In our Republican balanced budget, we want to set aside 100 percent of social security for social security. I am disappointed to note that in the President's budget, he only wants to set aside 62 percent, meaning that he wants to spend 38 percent of social security on other things. If we add that all up, over 10 years, that raid on social security totals $340 billion. I am also asked back home, when are folks going to start talking about paying down the national debt? I am pretty proud that last year we paid down $50 billion of the national debt, above and beyond what was expected. This year we are going to pay down $100 billion of the national debt, above and beyond what is expected. Under the Republican balanced budget, we pay down over $2.2 trillion of the national debt, over two-thirds of the national debt, over the next 10 years. That is progress, paying down the national debt. I am also often asked, what about taxes? Taxes are too high. Forty percent of the average family's income goes to government today. Twenty-one percent of our economy is consumed by the Federal Government. That tax burden is too high, too unfair, too complicated. Unfortunately, the President vetoed our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty on married working couples, to eliminate the death tax on family farmers, family businesses, because he wanted to spend the money. Now he says he wants to raise taxes by $238 billion so he can spend more. That is really what we are getting down to in the last few days of this session of Congress. We are getting down to some real fundamental issues. If we look at the President's budget and the Democratic budget, as well as the Republican budget, there is a big difference. We had a key vote last week. We chose between government waste and social security. We made a commitment that we are willing to cut waste, fraud, and abuse in government by 1 percent, reducing the Federal budget 1 cent on the dollar in order to stop the raid on social security. That is a fundamental, key vote, because when we think about it, do we want to waste our dollars, or protect social security? We voted in the Republican majority to save social security. What I was very concerned about is recently the leader of the Democrats, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) said, and I will quote, ``I understand that there is a feeling now that since we have a surplus and since we have to get ready for the baby boomers, that we really ought to try to spend as little bit as possible.'' What is interesting is he is saying he is willing to spend social security on other things. Our commitment is to stop the raid on social security. That is an important commitment, because when folks pay into their retirement security plan, called social security, they expect when it is their turn it is going to be there. Washington has been raiding the social security trust fund for far too long. I was very pleased to note that the Chief of Staff to the President understands what we want to do. The Republicans' key goal is not spend the social security surplus. Let us work together. We can work in a bipartisan way. Let us stop the raid on social security, let us balance the budget and stop the raid on social security.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, this is what it is all about today. We are making a choice: Government waste, or Social Security. This is what it is all about. My friends on the other side of the aisle for 30 years raided the Social Security trust fund and ran up massive deficits. We are putting a stop to that practice, because we want to stop the raid on Social Security, and we think it is about time. Let me ask this question: Is there anyone who honestly believes that there is not 1 percent waste, fraud and abuse in the Federal Government? Folks back home in the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs believe there is a lot more than just 1 percent of the Federal Government budget going to waste. We think it is time to eliminate it. That is what it is all about today. We are going to vote today to cut government waste in order to protect the Social Security trust fund. Now, there is an alternative. As you know, the Bill Clinton Democratic budget calls for a $238 billion tax increase as an alternative to cutting government waste. Let us stop the raid on Social Security. Let us cut government waste. We have that opportunity today.