Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, I have the privilege of representing one of America's most diverse Congressional districts, representing the South Side of Chicago and the South Bushes, Cook and Will Counties, bedroom communities as well as farm towns and corn fields. When you represent such a diverse district as city and suburbs and country, you learn to listen. You listen to the common message. One common message that we are hearing from back home is that we should be working together to solve the challenges that we face. As I look back as one of those who was elected in 1994 to come to Washington to change how Washington works, I am proud to say we have listened to that message and we have held together and we have held firm even those who said that we should not be doing what we are doing, those who opposed our efforts to balance the budget and cut taxes for the middle class, to reform the welfare system and also to restructure the IRS. I am proud to say in the last 4\1/2\ years, this Republican Congress has made a big difference. Balancing the budget for the first time in 28 years, cutting taxes for the middle class for the first time in 16 years, reforming our welfare system for the first time in a generation, and for the first time ever, taming the tax collector by restructuring the IRS. Those are big accomplishments and much appreciated by the folks back home in Illinois but they tell me that's history now, what are you going to do next? They ask us to respond to the questions, the common concerns that we are often asked. While Republicans are committed to strengthening our schools and strengthening Medicare and Social Security and paying down the national debt and, of course, lowering the tax burden, we also want to respond to some of those big concerns and big questions that I hear, whether at the union hall or the VFW, the Chamber of Commerce or down at a coffee shop on Main Street or a local grain elevator. That is one of those questions that the first question I often hear is a pretty basic one and, that is, when are you folks in Washington going to stop raiding the Social Security trust fund, when are you going to stop dipping into Social Security and spending Social Security on other things? I am proud to say, Madam Speaker, that the Republicans in this Congress have made a commitment that for the first time since the 1960s when LBJ, President Johnson, began a bad habit that is hard to break in Washington, we are walling off the Social Security trust fund. This year is the first year that our budget has been balanced without dipping into Social Security. We want to continue that. That is why I am proud to say the Congressional Budget Office on September 30 of this year stated in a letter to Speaker Hastert that the Republican balanced budget does not spend one dime of the Social Security trust fund. We are committed to stopping the raid on the Social Security trust fund. I would also point out that with the Social Security Medicare lockbox that Republicans are proposing, we set aside $200 billion more for Social Security and Medicare than the President's budget alone. I would also point out, Madam Speaker, that we are responding to another important question that we hear from folks back home in the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs, and that is how come nobody ever talks about the national debt, how come no one ever talks about the need to pay town that national debt that ran up all those years that Washington had deficit spending? I am proud to say that last year we paid down $50 billion of the national debt, this year we are going to pay down a hundred billion dollars, and under the Republican budget plan we paid down almost $2.2 trillion of the national debt, over two-thirds of our national debt over the next 10 years. Madam Speaker, the third question that I often hear back home is when are we going to do something about taxes. People tell me their taxes are too high, they are too complicated, they are unfair. They are frustrated that our tax burden on American today is at its highest level in peace time history. Forty percent of the average family's income goes to government. In fact, 21 percent of our gross domestic product, 21 percent of our economy, goes to Federal Government and taxes, and that is too high. We passed earlier this year a measure to address the need to lower taxes, particularly for the middle class, and we had legislation which would have eliminated the marriage tax penalty for the majority of those who suffer, that would have eliminated the death tax on small businesses and family farmers, that would have rewarded those who save for retirement, those who save for their children's and college education and also would have rewarded providing health care coverage for one's employees as well as their family, and unfortunately President Clinton vetoed that effort to help families by bringing fairness to the Tax Code, and he stated, and he was very blunt; he said he vetoed this tax cut because he wanted to spend that money instead. That is really what this is all about over the next week or so as we wrap up this legislative session. President Clinton has made it very clear he wants to spend a lot more money than Republicans do, and he says that we can do it if we increase taxes, and the President says we could do it if we raid the Social Security Trust Fund. Madam Speaker, I very proud last week when this House of Representatives cast a vote 419 to 0, which means that every member who cast a vote voted in opposition to the President's proposal for $238 billion in tax increases. That is a very clear message to the President that we oppose his tax increases, and I also want to point out that this House also went on record in opposition to the President's plan to raid Social Security. We need to oppose his tax increases, we need to stop the raid on Social Security, but we can balance the budget without those.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, let me share with my colleagues a headline from the front page of one of the leading newspapers in the country. Today the front page headline in The Washington Times says, ``House Clobbers Clinton Tax Boost.'' That is right. Did my colleagues know that Bill Clinton and Al Gore wanted to raise taxes again? In fact, yesterday this House voted on the $238-billion Clinton-Gore tax increase. And even House Democrats who joined with Bill Clinton and Al Gore in 1993 giving our Nation the biggest tax hike in the history of our country voted against another round of tax increases. The question I am asked also besides the Bill Clinton tax increases is, is it true that Bill Clinton wants to raid Social Security again? And we recall earlier in the President's budget that he submitted to Congress he called for setting aside 62 percent of Social Security for Social Security and taking the other 38 percent, almost $340 billion of Social Security, and spending it on other things. I would point out this House has rejected that, as well. My colleagues, we can balance the budget without increasing taxes. We can balance the budget without raiding Social Security.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, let me first begin by commending my seat mate, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), for his leadership on shepherding this important legislation, which is in response to a question that I have heard often back home. I remember when representatives of the Will County Center for Independent Living came into my office shortly after I was elected and they said, We understand that under current laws and under current rules that it is really difficult, if you are disabled, to work; that there are limitations that make it hard for us to participate in the workforce, and they asked for help. I am pleased that this Congress, this House, is moving forward with this ticket to work legislation, legislation designed to give those with disabilities the full opportunity to participate in today's workforce. Unfortunately, our current system makes it difficult, in fact, to the point of difficulty where many of those who are disabled are discouraged and, in fact, almost afraid to seek work. They are most concerned that they will lose their benefits they currently have and wondering if they have further health conditions, what it means for them. This legislation addresses that, giving those with disabilities a full ticket, punching their ticket so they have the opportunity to work. It deserves bipartisan support. I commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) for his leadership and I urge a bipartisan yes vote.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, just in response to my friend from Washington State here, October 1, the Congressional Budget Office stated that the Republican budget that is now moving through this process, the Republican balanced budget does not touch one dime of Social Security, the first time in 30 years. Mr. Speaker, is it true? Is it true that Bill Clinton once again wants to raise taxes? Is it true that Bill Clinton wants to raise taxes on Americans by $238 billion? I looked back earlier this year when the President proposed this budget, he not only proposed $238 billion in tax increases, but he proposed taking 62 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund for Social Security and then almost 40 percent, or 38 percent, of the Social Security Trust Fund to spend on other things. Now, the folks back home say they want the raid on Social Security to stop. The Republicans, as we worked through the balanced budget process, have made it very clear. We oppose Bill Clinton's taxes increases; we oppose Bill Clinton's proposal to raid the Social Security Trust Fund. I plan to vote ``no'' on Bill Clinton's $238 billion tax hike. This House has an opportunity today. If you support the President's tax hikes, vote ``aye,'' if you oppose them, vote ``no.'' Let us take a stand.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Veterans of Foreign Wars John Martin Steel Post 6049 of Morris, Illinois as it celebrates the 100th year anniversary of the VFW and the 75th year anniversary of the Ladies' Auxiliary. On May 8, 1942, Private John Martin Steel was killed in the South Pacific. Private Steel served aboard the aircraft carrier Lexington with an anti-aircraft battalion when it was sunk. Private Steel was the first local man to be killed in the Second World War. Almost a year to the day later, the USS Steel, a destroyer escort, was launched on May 4, 1943. The charter of this VFW Post was obtained in 1947. Among the Charter Members: William G. Stratton, former Governor of Illinois; James R. Washburn, former Mayor of Morris and Illinois State Representative; August Black, a prominent attorney; William Sackett, newspaper owner; and Clark Davis, former Coroner. Not only were these men Charter Members, as you can see, they were also pillars of the community who provided great leadership. Today, along with honoring the men, we also acknowledge the important role of the Ladies' Auxiliary. The assistance of this organization has been critical to the members of the VFW for the past 75 years. These ladies serve as the mortar in the foundation of the VFW. Post 6049 is fortunate to have the resources of a Ladies' Auxiliary. The naming of this VFW Post after Private John Martin Steel honors his service and his ultimate sacrifice for our country. Not only does the naming of this post honor Private Steel, it also reminds us of all of the veterans who fought for our freedom overseas. It reminds us of the brave individuals who shipped off to far away lands and put their lives on the line to insure the American way of life. It reminds us, Mr. Speaker, that freedom is not free. And it reminds us that these courageous Americans should all be remembered and should all be honored. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is fitting and appropriate to honor the service of the men of the Veterans of Foreign Wars John Martin Steel Post 6049 in Morris, Illinois and the Ladies' Auxiliary. They have shown leadership for their country and community for the last 52 years. Without them, the community would have no backbone; but because of their service we are strong, courageous and proud of a free America.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise not only in support of the rule, but also in support of this conference report. I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for his leadership in putting together a good bill. I would also like to note that this legislation is historical from a veteran's standpoint. The fact that we are providing $1.7 billion more in funding for veterans health care this year, historically the largest increase in veterans health care in history, it says that veterans are a priority. Particularly as our veterans reach retirement age, particularly as so many of our veterans are now World War II and Korea veterans at the age where health care is a greater need, we are making that commitment. I salute the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies for producing this good bill. Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of other provisions that I also want to acknowledge and express my appreciation for this House in producing some real results. I represent the south side of Chicago in the south suburbs. We have a project in this part of Illinois which is so important, not only to residents in the City of Chicago, but the south suburbs because it provides flood relief as well as protects the drinking water of people of Chicago and the entire Chicago metropolitan area. That is the Deep Tunnel Project, a flood control project which prevents, when there is heavy rains and storm water, prevents, frankly, raw sewage from being flushed out into Lake Michigan, which is a source of drinking water. This House continues to make a commitment to complete this important environmental project. I want to thank the subcommittee for the $5 million that was included to continue development of this project to protect our Lake Michigan drinking water. Second, I also want to commend this House for overturning the President's recommendation on Federal veterans' nursing home grant funding. The President's budget recommended slashing this important program which provides matching grants to the States to develop and operate nursing homes for our veterans. I would point out that State homes provide a savings in providing health care. In fact, the State homes for veterans costs about $40 per day per patient, whereas VA nursing care is about $255 a day. So it is a bargain. The President, in his budget, proposed cutting by more than half this important program. It is currently funded at $90 million. The President proposed cutting it to $40 million. I am pleased that this House disagreed. I am pleased that this House restored funding for veterans nursing home grants. It is important to States like Illinois. Illinois has a lot of veterans in need of nursing home care. In fact, in my own district, La Salle Veterans Home has over 200 veterans on a waiting list. Imagine this, if one has a friend or relative, a family member who is in need of nursing home care, and the waiting list is over a year, maybe a year and a half they have to wait in order to have access to this veterans home. This is good legislation. We restored the funding.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for his help and assistance in moving this legislation forward. Mr. Speaker, it is a simple question. Is it right that Federal law enforcement animals, dogs and horses, have no more protection under the law than a computer or a government desk? Is it right that if one maims or kills a drug sniffing dog that they are held no more accountable than if they smash a chair? Well, under current law that is true. It is exactly the case, and our federal law enforcement animals, both dogs and horses, are afforded no more protection under the law than a piece of furniture. Today these highly-trained animals are covered under the same statutes that deal with the destruction of government property. While this is a tool, the problem with the destruction of government property statute is that it is very hard to prosecute in cases where a dog or horse is injured or assaulted but not killed. Additionally, the current statute does not include any mandatory jail time for those who would injure or kill these valuable animals. Our legislation cosponsored with my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), H.R. 1791, the Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act which was drafted in cooperative effort with United States Border Patrol, United States Customs Service, United States Park Police, and other agencies as well as the Humane Society of the United States will address these problems. H.R. 1791 will use the same fine structure as the current destruction of government property statute but will add two sections to current law, one for assaults on police animals and one for disablement, disfigurement or death of the animal. For the lesser assault violation, offenders will be subject for a fine of up to $1,000 with mandatory jail time of up to 1 year. For the more serious offense of death or disfigurement, violators will be subject to a fine in excess of $1,000 with mandatory jail time ranging from 1 to 10 years. All federal law enforcement animals and all three branches of government will be covered by H.R. 1791 from the horses used in law enforcement here in Washington on the mall or at the Grand Canyon to agricultural inspection canines and drug-sniffing dogs used by the Customs Service and Border Patrol. These are highly trained animals and they are often a human officer's first line of defense when fighting crime. Federal canines, Federal police dogs cost the taxpayers up to $20,000 to train, up to $3500 to purchase and over a thousand dollars a year to feed and keep healthy every year. Park police tells me that it costs them almost $2,500 a year also to keep their horses maintained and healthy as well. To illustrate the value of these animals who are a human officer's first line of defense in fighting drugs and other crimes, let me give these statistics: In 1998 alone, 164 canine teams of the Border Patrol apprehended over 32,000 illegal aliens, uncovered over 4 tons of cocaine, 150 tons of marijuana, and over $2 million in illegal drug moneys. Customs Service canines have had similar success with 627 canine teams serving over 75 locations nationwide including most of our international airports and port cities. Customs Service has canine teams stationed at O'Hare Airport, my home State of Illinois, and it has also come to my attention that the Eleventh Congressional District which I have the privilege of representing is a source where federal law enforcement agencies go to get canines from local breeders in my home State of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, just take a moment and listen to the people who know firsthand the value of these animals. Russ Hess, Executive Director of the United States Police Canine Association wrote me back in May, and I quote, the increase in assault on law enforcement animals is at an all time high. In 1998, we had eight dogs killed in the line of duty. The passage of H.R. 1791 will increase the penalty for injuring or killing these valuable animals. Wayne Pacelle, of the Humane Society of the United States, writes quote, Officers often spend more hours of the day with their police animals than with family. As the first line of defense for an officer, police animals daily put themselves in dangerous positions on behalf of their officer and ultimately our communities as a whole. Mr. Speaker, this is not ground breaking legislation. In fact, we here in the Congress at the Federal level are behind the eight ball. Already 27 States have similar laws on the books to protect their local and State law enforcement animals particularly police dogs. Fortunately, attacks on our federal law enforcement animals are not widespread; but, unfortunately, they are on the rise. In fact, just last week my office received a call from the United States Park Police because one of their dogs, one of their canines, was injured by a suspect attempting to flee arrest. Passage of H.R. 1791 sends a strong message to the thugs who will think of causing harm to our law enforcement animals. Let us make it clear. Someone hits or kills a law enforcement animal, they go to jail just as if they hit any other law federal enforcement officer. Mr. Speaker, this is good bipartisan legislation with a wide spectrum of support. I particularly want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) who both serve on the Committee on the Judiciary and helped move this legislation along. I also want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and their staffs for their quick action on H.R. 1791. I also want to thank the assistance of director Carl Newcombe, the Customs Service Canine Center; associate chief, Bill Carter; and Manny Flores of the United States Border Patrol; Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society; Russ Hess, United States Police Canine Association; and the officers of the Park Police and the U.S. Capitol Police who have helped with this legislation. Mr. Speaker, our federal law enforcement has asked for this tool. I ask that this House answer their call and pass H.R. 1791 today. Please vote to hold accountable those who would maim, wound, or kill a police dog or police horse, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, there is an important question that we should be asking every day; and that is, is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code a married, working couple, a husband and wife, with two incomes pays higher taxes just because they are married? Is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code 21 million married, working couples pay on average $1,400 more just because they are married? Back home in the south suburbs of Chicago, a machinist and a school teacher making a combined income of $62,000 pay on average $1,400. That is 1 year's tuition at Joliet Junior College. That is 3 months' daycare at a local day-care center. The question of the day, my colleagues, is why did President Clinton and Al Gore veto our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty? Is it because the President and Al Gore want to spend that money rather than eliminating the marriage tax penalty? When Bill Clinton and Al Gore vetoed our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, they broke the hearts of 21 million hard-working, married, working couples who should have their marriage tax penalty eliminated. Mr. Speaker, let us work together, let us work in a bipartisan way to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. I also rise in support and plan to vote for several of the initiatives to make health care more affordable and to provide protections for patients. It is interesting, my colleagues on the other side use a code word called ``pay-fors.'' What the code word ``pay-fors'' really means is tax increase. They always want to increase taxes. That is their first choice every time. My colleagues, there are a number of facts out here that are so important. In my home State of Illinois, 15 percent of the workers and families and people of my home State lack health insurance. It is an increase over last year. And if we look at it from a national perspective, 44 million Americans do not have health insurance. That is an increase of 1 million over last year. And the question is, why? And the answer to that question is because health care coverage is not affordable and they also do not have access. In fact, they say that for every 1 percent increase in health care costs 400,000 Americans lose their coverage. And if we look at those 44 million Americans who do not have coverage, 85 percent of them are self-employed people or workers for small businesses unable to find affordable rates of insurance. That is why this rule is so important, because the access in choice legislation of quality care through the uninsured legislation provides answers and solutions that have been debated over the years in this House but never signed into law. We make it easier for small businesses to go together and in a cooperative fashion purchase health insurance in greater numbers, bringing their rates down through a cooperative purchasing effort, making it more affordable, and helping their workers have health care coverage. We give something to the self-employed that corporate America already has. We allow the self-employed under this legislation to deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premium costs. We also give uninsured workers who do not have coverage provided by their employers a 100- percent deduction for their health insurance premium costs, too. That is fair. I was pleased that the Committee on Ways and Means in the House and Senate voted to do this earlier this year. Unfortunately, the President vetoed it. My colleagues, let us make health care more affordable and more accessible. Vote aye on the rule.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, is it true that Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and House Democrats want to raise taxes one more time? Mr. Speaker, is it true that Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and House Democrats want to raid Social Security one more time? Is it true that those who cheered Bill Clinton's reckless and irresponsible veto of the Republican efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty want to raise taxes one more time? We can balance the budget. We must balance the budget without the Clinton-Gore tax hike. Let us not forget that Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and House Democrats gave America our biggest tax hike in history in 1993. Our goal as Republicans is to wall off the Social Security Trust Fund, to stop the raid on Social Security, because we believe 100 percent of Social Security should go for retirement, Social Security, and Medicare. We can save Social Security. We can help our local schools. We can lower the tax burden by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. We can pay down the national debt, all without raising taxes, all without dipping into Social Security. No more tax increases. No more raids on Social Security. Let us balance the budget. Let us bring spending under control.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, remember when? Remember when the Democrats controlled the White House and were in the majority in the House and Senate? Remember those days of spend and spend and spend? And what did they give us? The biggest tax hike in the history of our country. Why? Because they wanted to spend the money. And remember when they were in control, how they raided the Social Security trust fund? Well, they are back at it again. Today in Congress Daily, what is on the front page? ``Democrats push for a tax increase.'' President Clinton's budget calls for a $180 billion tax increase. Now House and Senate Democrats want even more in tax increases, and they also support President Clinton's budget, which calls for raiding Social Security, 40 percent of Social Security going for other programs. Republicans say no. Let us put a stop to spending beyond our means. Let us stop the raid on Social Security. One hundred percent of Social Security for Social Security-Medicare. Let us stop the raid on Social Security. It is all about spending.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for yielding me some time. But I want to express my disappointment that the President who gave our country the biggest tax increase in history has now vetoed meaningful tax relief for all Americans. Why? Because Bill Clinton and Al Gore want to go on a spending spree. That is what this is all about. Mr. Speaker, the Republican balanced budget sets aside 100 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund, payroll taxes, and interest on the Trust Fund for Social Security and Medicare. The President only wants to set aside 62 percent because he wants to spend 38 percent of Social Security on other things. It is about spending. The Republican balanced budget sets aside $2.2 trillion over the next several years to pay down the national debt, $200 billion more than the President calls for. Why? Because the President wants to spend more. Mr. Speaker, our balanced budget takes one-quarter out of every dollar for tax relief. In fact, over the next 5 years, we pay down $861 billion of the national debt while providing $156 billion in tax relief. One of the biggest concerns I often hear in the district that I represent in Chicago in the south suburbs is the issue of fairness, particularly tax fairness. People are frustrated that taxes are so high, but they are also frustrated how complicated they are and how unfair they are. I have often asked this question, is it right, is it fair that, under our Tax Code, married working couples pay more in taxes just because they are married? Is it right, is it fair that 21 million married working couples on average pay $1,400 more in higher taxes? I happen to have with me today a photo of a couple from Joliet, Illinois, two public school teachers, Michelle and Shad Hallihan who, by the way, just had a baby boy named Benjamin just the other day. They are celebrating the birth of that child. They are a typical couple that pays the marriage tax penalty. My friends on the other side, they call Michelle and Shad a special interest because we are trying to help them. But these are folks who suffer the average marriage tax penalty. And $1,400 is a lot of money in Joliet, Illinois. It is 1 year's tuition at a local community college, several months worth of day care. It is real money for people like Michelle and Shad Hallihan. Now, President Clinton says he would much rather spend their money here in Washington because he could do it better than they can. That is really what this issue is all about. Do we spend Michelle and Shad's money, or do we eliminate that marriage tax penalty? Of course the President vetoed that effort to eliminate their marriage tax penalty today. If my colleagues think about it, their little boy Benjamin just born just in the last few weeks, if they were able to take advantage of the education savings account tax relief that was included in this, which would allow them to set up to $2,000 a year in a special account for Benjamin's education, Michelle and Shad, if we were to eliminate their marriage tax penalty, could put that marriage tax penalty into that account and, in 18 years, be able to pay for much of Benjamin's college education. That is a choice we are making here today. Do we follow President Clinton's lead and spend it here in Washington, or do we let Michelle and Shad Callahan keep it by eliminating the marriage tax penalty? That is what we should be doing.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, is it right, is it fair that under our tax code married working couples pay more in taxes just because they are married? Is it right, is it fair that 21 million married working couples pay higher taxes than identical couples with identical incomes who live together outside of marriage? Of course it is wrong. Let me introduce to my colleagues Michelle and Shad Hallihan, public school teachers from Joliet, Illinois. They suffer the marriage tax penalty. Twenty-one million married working couples pay an average $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married. Now, $1,400 in Joliet, Illinois, where Shad and Michelle live, is one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College. It is 3 months of day-care at a local child care center. It is also several months' worth of car payments. This Republican Congress believes we should eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We passed legislation as part of the Financial Freedom Act, our tax cut, to eliminate the marriage tax penalty for a majority of those who suffer it, people like Michelle and Shad Hallihan. My colleagues, the question is will the President join with us? Does he want to spent the money here in Washington, or does he want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty? Mr. President, sign the tax cut. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty for Michelle and Shad Hallihan.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing a very diverse district. I represent the south side of Chicago, south suburbs, and Cook and Will counties, industrial communities like Joliet, a lot of corn fields and farm towns too. When one represents such a diverse constituency, cities, suburbs, and country, one learns to listen and listen for those common concerns and common questions that are brought forward, whether by suburbanites or city dwellers or our farm folk. I find that in the district that I have the privilege of representing in Illinois that the common concerns are pretty simple, that folks want us to work together, they want us to solve our challenges, they want us to find solutions, and they want us to change how Washington works. As I look back over the last 5 years, I am pleased that we have worked to find those solutions, solutions to the challenges today of balancing the budget, of cutting taxes, and reforming our welfare system and we did change how Washington works. As I look back over the last 5 years, I am proud to say that we balanced the budget for the first time in 28 years, 3 years ago. We are now working on our third balanced budget in a row. We did such a great job that now we have all this extra money of three trillion surplus dollars projected over the next 10 years. We cut taxes for the middle class for the first time in 16 years, and three million Illinois children are going to benefit from the $500 per child tax credit. We reformed welfare for the first time in a generation. I am proud to say that in Illinois the welfare roles have been cut in half. In my home county of Grundy, our welfare roles have dropped by 84 percent. We also tamed the tax collector, shifting the burden of proof off the backs of the taxpayer and onto the IRS. Those are fundamental changes, balancing the budget, cutting taxes, reforming our welfare system, and taming the tax collector. People often say, well, what is next? What other solutions is Congress going to find to the challenges that we face? Our agenda is simple. We want to strengthen our local schools. We want to lower the tax burden and make it fair for working families. We want to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. And we also want to pay down the national debt that was run up over 30 years of deficit spending. I often hear common questions in the district I represent, whether at a union hall or the VFW or the Chamber of Commerce or a coffee shop or a grain elevator. People often say, when are you folks in Washington going to stop raiding the Social Security Trust Fund? I am proud to say this Republican Congress is putting a stop to that. In fact, this year we are walling off the Social Security Trust Fund, setting aside a hundred percent of Social Security for the first time in 30 years for Social Security only. The President says he wants to set aside 62 percent. We believe in a hundred percent of Social Security for Social Security. That means $200 billion more to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. I am often asked, people never also talk about that huge national debt that was built up over the 30 years of deficit spending beginning in the 1960s. I am proud to say that, under the Republican balanced budget, we pay down $2.2 trillion of the national debt, the public debt, over the next few years; and that is about $200 billion more than the President would under his proposal. The question that I am also often asked is when are we going to do something about the tax code. People of course are fed up that 40 percent of the average family's income goes to Washington and the State capital and the county courthouse and the local government, and that tax burden is the highest in peacetime history. But they are also frustrated about the complexity of our tax code and the unfairness of our tax code. Over the last couple of years I have often asked this question in the well of the House, and that is, is it right, is it fair that under our tax code married working couples pay more in taxes? A husband and wife who are both in the workforce pay more in taxes than an identical couple that live outside of the marriage. Is it right, is it fair that under our tax code that 21 million married, working couples pay on average $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married? Of course not. It is wrong that under our tax code that 21 million married, working couples pay $1,400 more just because they are married. I have a photo here of a young couple in Joliet, Illinois, one of the communities that I represent, Michelle and Shad Hallihan. They are public school teachers in the Joliet public school system. They just had a baby. They are celebrating the birth of a child. They suffer the marriage tax penalty because they are both in the workforce. And under our tax code this young couple who just had a baby, who is just starting their life together as a family, pays higher taxes just because they chose to get married. Now, had they chose to live together outside of marriage they would not pay those higher taxes. I am proud to say the House and Senate passed legislation which will eliminate the marriage tax penalty for the majority of those who suffer it. It is a key part; it is an essential part of the Financial Freedom Act, legislation that will lower the tax burden as well as simplify the tax code and bring fairness to the tax code. The question of the day is, Mr. President, are you going to join with us eliminating the marriage tax penalty to help hard-working, young Americans, actually Americans of every age, because seniors suffer the marriage tax penalty, but people like Michelle and Shad Hallihan who suffer the marriage tax penalty? Our legislation eliminates the marriage tax penalty for a majority of those who suffer it. It should be a bipartisan effort. We ask the President to join with us, sign the tax cut, sign the Financial Freedom Act, and eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I have often asked from the well of this House a pretty basic question. That is, is it right, is it fair under our tax code, that 21 million married working couples with two incomes, a husband and wife who are both in the work force, pay higher taxes under our Tax Code just because they are married? Is it right, is it fair, that a married working couple pays more in taxes than an identical couple with an identical income who live together outside of marriage? It is wrong that our Tax Code punishes society's most basic institution. I want to produce Shad and Michelle Hallihan from Joliett, Illinois, two public schoolteachers. They suffer the marriage tax penalty. Michelle and Shad are just one of the 21 million married working couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty. This House, the Senate, this Congress, this Republican Congress, has worked to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. In fact, we passed as part of the Financial Freedom Act legislation which essentially wipes out the marriage tax penalty for the majority of those who suffer. The question is, will the President join with us in signing into law our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty?

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a statement in support of the Defense Authorization Conference Report which includes a provision which is very important to a project in my district, the redevelopment of the Joliet Arsenal. First, I would like to thank all of my colleagues for the assistance they have offered on this project over the past five years, and again with this Conference Report. This Conference Report contains a provision which clarifies the original intent of Congress that Will County, Illinois be given 455 acres of federal land at no cost to Will County taxpayers to build a landfill to serve Will County residents and communities only. I gave this commitment back in 1996 when the original legislation was passed, and I am adhering to my commitment here today. I will briefly repeat some historical points regarding the Joliet Arsenal redevelopment. When first elected to Congress in 1994, I continued the good work Congressmen O'Brien, Davis and Sangmeister had initiated to return the 23,000 acres of Arsenal property back to the Will County residents. Throughout the next year, I worked hard to pave the way for the Joliet Arsenal Ammunition Plant (JAAP) redevelopment legislation and was proud to obtain President Clinton's signature on this important bill in 1996. The redevelopment plan called for the creation of a 19,000 acre tallgrass prairie park, two industrial parks, a new national cemetery, and a county landfill. As the author of the legislation, I embraced the vision of the original citizens Planning Commission which clearly intended for the landfill to be established as a local facility serving the needs of Will County only. It was only after a struggle that I was able to include a landfill into the redevelopment legislation at all. There were a number of Army officials and my colleagues in the Congress concerned about approving a landfill directly bordering a national park. In addition, the JAAP redevelopment was the first of several like projects around the country. Given the intense scrutiny this project was under, I assured those who had concerns that this landfill would be serving the residents of the County only. I am keeping this promise today. Later, local officials commenced efforts to expand the Will County landfill far beyond the original Congressional intent as a County only landfill turning it into a regional landfill which would ultimately house Chicago trash. My position never waivered, as I had made many promises to my colleagues in this Congress that there would not be a regional or Chicago landfill placed next to the new home of the nation's largest veterans cemetery and the 19,000 Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie. The ultimate solution was to clarify the law to ensure that County only trash will be accepted at the landfill at the Joliet Arsenal. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply committed to ensuring the entire Joliet Arsenal is redeveloped without delay or compromise. I am equally committed, though, to ensure the original plan is followed and the legislation's intent is carried forward. I am pleased that the provision submitted into the Defense Authorization Act will soon become law. Thanks to you and all of my colleagues for your assistance on this important project.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker. I have often asked from the well of the House a basic question. That is, is it right, is it fair, that married working couples with two incomes pay higher taxes just because they are married? I have often asked, is it fair, is it right, that 21 million married working couples pay $1,400 more on average in higher taxes just because they are married? Meet Michelle and Shad Hallihan, two Joliett school teachers, young people just starting a family, just had a baby. They suffer the marriage tax penalty just like 21 million other married working couples. It is an issue of fairness, an issue of difference between right and wrong. The end of July, this House and the Senate voted to eliminate the marriage tax penalty for a majority of those who suffer it, benefiting over 21 million married working couples. The President has an important choice. Is he going to help families like Michelle and Shad Hallihan, 42 million Americans who suffer the marriage tax penalty, or is he going to practice partisan politics? I hope the President will join with us in a bipartisan effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty by signing into law the Financial Freedom Act. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I have an important question to ask, and that is what is the President going to do about the marriage tax penalty? Over the last 2 years, dozens of us in this House have asked the important question, is it right, is it fair, that under our Tax Code married working couples with two incomes pay higher taxes than identical couples with identical incomes living together outside of marriage. We believe it is wrong that 21 million married working couples pay higher taxes just because they are married; and this Congress, this Republican Congress, has passed, the end of July, legislation which will eliminate the marriage tax penalty for a majority of those who suffer it. The question we have: Is the President going to join with us and make it a bipartisan effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty by signing into law the tax cut when we send it to him later this week? Twenty-one million married working couples pay $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married. Is it not time that we eliminate the marriage tax penalty?

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I also rise in support of this appropriations legislation. I want to particularly salute the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for his leadership in putting together a good bill. It is always tough when you want more money for important programs, and veterans clearly are a priority for this Congress. I also want to salute the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for his efforts to provide what will be historically the largest increase in veterans health care funding ever in the history of this country, $1.7 billion in additional funding for veterans health care. I want to salute the chairman for those efforts. I also want to note why this amendment is so important. I ask my colleagues as you look at this amendment to think about your own States. If your States have veterans homes, if they want to expand, if they need improvements, if they need to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this program is pretty important. Earlier this year the administration, the Clinton-Gore administration, slashed the funding for State nursing home grants. In fact, they slashed the program by more than half, from $90 million in current funding to $40 million for the coming year. That was wrong. That was bad policy. That is why I appreciate the efforts of the subcommittee to work to restore those funds. But we need to do more. Last year the funding was $80 million. This year it is $90 million. This amendment would increase the funding by $7 million, would bring it close to the current level of funding. We note that the current grant program gives States millions in funds to help them expand and build new nursing homes for our veterans. It also helps our States meet compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, with renovations to existing homes, as well as expansion in homes. My own State of Illinois is owed over $5 million in back payments because of the inability to provide the full amount that is necessary. This is important also to note that there were over 88 applications currently pending, totaling $348 million. With this funding, we will provide $87 million. There is also $240 million in requests for new construction. Clearly there is tremendous need out there, particularly as the World War II and Korea era veterans reach the age where they require greater health care, many needing nursing home care, this is so important. I would also like to point out that State veterans homes are pretty good bang for the buck. They provide quality service for our veterans, but also a savings to taxpayers. VA nursing home care or nursing care is about $255 a day for a veteran, but the State homes on average provide services for about $40 per day. Clearly it is a bargain, quality health care at veterans homes for our veterans. I would also note that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the authorizing committee, along with the State home directors, recommended that we should provide $100 million this year. This helps work towards that goal. What it means to my home State of Illinois, of course, Illinois is a major State with a lot of veterans. Illinois is in need of expansion of veterans homes. The LaSalle veterans home has a year and a half waiting list. If you think about it, if you have a family member who needs to go into a veterans home, 18 months is a long time to wait to be able to obtain a bed in that nursing home. So clearly funds are needed. I would also point out not only is Illinois owed $5 million in back payments, but the Manteno veterans home, which happens to be in my district, is still owed back payments for ADA compliance. There is a need out there. This amendment is a good amendment. It helps restore the funding to the current levels. It is badly needed. Again, I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for his efforts and particularly for the historic increase of $1.7 billion in additional new funding for veterans health care. I salute you, Mr. Chairman, for those efforts. Let us support our veterans. I ask all the Members of this House to take a close look at this amendment. Let us make sure the funds are there to ensure our veterans who need nursing home care have it at the State level. This is an important grant program. I urge an aye vote. Let us support our veterans. Let us reject the Clinton administration's horrible cuts. Let us restore these funds and help veterans who need nursing home care. Please vote aye. This legislation deserves a bipartisan show of support and an aye vote.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today we are taking another step in our effort to balance the budget for the third time in 3 years. We are taking the step where, of course, earlier this year we set aside $2 trillion of the projected surplus for saving Social Security and Medicare. I would point out in our balanced budget that for every $6 in debt retirement over the next 5 years, we provide $1 in tax relief and that over the next 10 years that pays down $2.2 trillion of the national debt, which is 10 percent more than the Democrat proposal to retire the debt. I rise in support of this legislation for a particular reason. I have often asked the question over the last several years and, that is, is it right, is it fair that under our tax code a married working couple pays more in taxes just because they are married? Is it right, is it fair that 28 million married working couples pay more in taxes just because they are married than an identical couple living together outside of marriage? Let me introduce Shad and Michelle Hallahan, two public school teachers in Joliet, Illinois. When they chose to get married in the last couple of years, they discovered something. They now pay higher taxes just because they got married, similar to 28 million married working couples throughout America. Michelle, by the way, is due any day to have a baby. She notes that their marriage tax penalty, which is just over $1,000, will provide 3,000 diapers for the Hallahan family. Those who oppose our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty would much rather spend those dollars here in Washington. Mr. Speaker, this deserves bipartisan support. I ask for bipartisan support.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the following letter: Hon. David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Walker: I am writing to request an investigation by the United States General Accounting Office (``GAO'') of alleged abuses by State taxing authorities against former residents. As a Member of the Oversight Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, I spent significant time last year addressing the issue of taxpayer abuses by the Internal Revenue Service. As a result of our work, and Congressional and GAO investigations, many serious tax violations and wrongdoings were uncovered within the IRS. Last year, Congress held a series of hearings on the issue and addressed these serious problems by passing significant reforms and taxpayer protections as part of the ``Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998.'' I am, therefore, disturbed to learn that while we addressed taxpayer abuses at the federal level, there may be just as many oppressive actions occurring throughout the country at the State level. A recent Forbes Magazine article entitled ``Tax torture, local style'' (July 6, 1998), highlights the fact that ``[T]here are at least half as many revenue agents working for the states as the federal government'' and ``[C]ollectively, they are just as oppressive as the feds.'' See, Attached Article. In another recent article, the Los Angeles Times reported that the state taxing authority, the California Franchise Tax Board, ``is second in size and scope only to the Internal Revenue Service--and by all accounts the state agency is the more efficient, more aggressive and more relentless of the two'' and ``there is little to stop the agency from becoming more aggressive.'' See, attached article, ``State Agency Rivals IRS in Toughness,'' Los Angeles Times (August 2, 1999, page 1). The Forbes article lists a number of state tax department problems including: (1) privacy violations by California, Connecticut, and Kentucky; (2) criminal or dubious activities by Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin; and (3) mass erroneous tax-due bills by Arizona, California, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. In addition, my office has recently received materials from taxpayers alleging abuse by State taxing agencies (e.g., materials from Mr. Gil Hyatt alleging a number of abuses by the California Franchise Tax Board (``FTB'') against former residents of the State of California). See, Attachment. I believe this issue is important and deserves study and a full investigation by the GAO. Should taxpayer abuses exist at the State level against former residents, I would consider recommending any and all appropriate legislation to address these deplorable activities and encourage State's Attorney Generals to begin separate investigations into such actions. We should do whatever we can to protect the rights of our citizens against overzealous Federal or State tax agencies. I look forward to working with you and your staff on this important investigation. Sincerely, Jerry Weller, Member of Congress.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, over the last several years, many of us have been asking a pretty fundamental question, and that is, is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code married working couples pay higher taxes than identical couples who live together outside of marriage. They pay higher taxes just because they are married. That is the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to my colleagues Michelle and Shad Hallahan out of Joliette, Illinois, two public schoolteachers who suffer the marriage tax penalty just because they are married. Well, I have good news for Michelle and Shad Hallahan, as well as 28 million married working couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty. The House and Senate agreement on lowering taxes for working families makes elimination of the marriage tax penalty the centerpiece. I am proud to say that the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, which now has 230 cosponsors, there were two key provisions which were included which helped both itemizers and nonitemizers. If one does not itemize their taxes, they benefit from the standard deduction; we double that. If one does itemize their taxes, they benefit from the widening of 15 percent tax bracket. The bottom line is, we eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as Ronald Reagan once said ``Here we go again.'' Whenever Republicans want to lower the tax burden on families, my friends on the other side of the aisle always say it is going to somehow hurt people when they lower their taxes. Now, where I come from, people tell me their tax burden is too high. Our tax burden today is 21 percent of our economy which is consumed by the Federal Government. Since 1993, the tax burden has continued to go up. In fact, in 1993, the tax burden was less than 18 percent. Today it is 21 percent of our gross domestic product going to the Federal Government. That tax burden is too high. When it comes to Medicare and Social Security, thanks to this Republican Congress, we have a balanced budget, the first balanced budget in 28 years. It is now projected to provide a $3 trillion surplus over the next 10 years. Under our budget, of course we do something that Congresses of the past and Presidents of the past for the last 30 years have refused to do; and that is, we set aside 100 percent of Social Security for retirement security to save Medicare and Social Security. Now these 3 dollar bills I have, each dollar bill represents $1 trillion. Under our budget, we set aside $1 trillion, $2 trillion. In fact, we set aside two-thirds of the so-called surplus over the next 10 years for retirement security, leaving one-third for other purposes. We believe the vast majority of that extra surplus, the non-Social Security surplus, should go to help working families, helping working families by lowering their taxes. Now, folks complain their taxes are too high. That is a common concern. But folks also tell me back home that the tax code is too complicated. They are frustrated that they will have to hire someone else to do their taxes. They are frustrated about the unfairness of the tax code. Frankly, a lot of them are just plain angry that, under our tax code, a married working couple on average pays $1,400 in higher taxes just because they are married. Under this packaged tax relief to help working families, we eliminate the marriage tax penalty for a majority of those who suffer it. I have an example here of a couple back in Joliet, Illinois, Michelle and Shad Callahan. They are schoolteachers in the Joliet public school district. In fact, Michelle here is due any day to have a baby, their first child. They discovered when they got married that they now pay higher taxes just because they are married. In fact, they pay the average marriage tax penalty of $1,400. Their combined income is about $60,000. Under our legislation we passed out of the House, 70 percent of taxpayers receive direct marriage tax relief. I believe by the time the House and Senate work out their differences, more families like Michelle and Shad will receive marriage tax relief. We work to address the marriage tax penalty, addressing the unfairness in the tax code, and also simplify the tax code. Because in the House- passed tax relief, 6 million couples will no longer need to itemize. I would also point out that, under our legislation, since Michelle is due to have a baby, like many moms like to do, she is a working mom, she may take some time off from being in the work force to be home with her baby. Under the legislation we passed out of the House, we are going to let Michelle make up missed contributions to her retirement accounts with catch-up provisions. That will help Michelle and Shad and working families just like Michelle and Shad Callahan. This legislation is good legislation. We simplify the code by eliminating the marriage tax penalty for millions of working couples, by eliminating the death tax which is suffered by family farmers and family businesses, by providing alternative minimum tax relief to millions of middle class families that now suffer the alternative minimum tax. Also, if one is self-employed, an entrepreneur, we give 100 percent deductibility for one's health insurance, the same corporations get. Today, one only gets 60 percent, and we believe one should get 100 percent. Mr. Speaker, lowering taxes in a time of prosperity is a good idea. In fact, let me quote a Democrat on the other side of the aisle, Bob Kerrey. He says, ``To suggest we cannot afford to cut income taxes when we are running a $3 trillion surplus is ludicrous.'' Cutting taxes deserves bipartisan support.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 354, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my strong support for passage of H.R. 2465, the Fiscal Year 2000 Military Construction Appropriations Act Conference Report. This $8.4 billion measure recognizes the needs of our military infrastructure, continues our efforts at base closure and realignment, and most importantly puts military families first. One of the much needed items in this bill to improve the quality of life for our people in uniform is the $10.952 million appropriation for the construction of the Marseilles National Guard Training Facility in my Congressional District. The Marseilles complex has been requested by the Illinois Department of Military Affairs and the Pentagon since 1994. Not until this year did the President recognize the need for this facility and I am pleased that President Clinton included funding for this project in his FY 2000 budget. This facility would be the first permanent training complex for the National Guard in the State of Illinois, serving all of the 10,245 members of the Guard in Illinois. Currently, members of the Illinois National Guard are forced to travel to bases in Wisconsin and Kentucky some as far as 350 miles away to conduct routine maneuvers. As you can imagine, this places a severe stress on the scope and timing of military operations, and even greater stress on the members of the Guard and their families. Marseilles site is easily accessible from Interstate 80 and it is in close proximity to Interstates 39 & 55, Chicago, Joliet, and Springfield. The Marseilles site is currently used by the Guard for small training exercises that are conducted out of tents and military vehicles with restrooms facilities consisting of portable toilets that are of an unacceptable condition for these troops. The proposed complex in Marseilles would reduce travel time to and from training for most Illinois Guard members and would include barracks and dining facilities that would help to boost morale and retention within the ranks. The immediate construction of the Marseilles complex would provide the multiple benefits of substantially helping local business, spurring development in the undeveloped area south of the Illinois River, while providing a convenient training site that will help to ensure troop readiness and an acceptable quality of life. Mr. Speaker, I extend my deep appreciation to Chairman Hobson of the Military Construction Subcommittee, and on behalf of the residents and small business owners of Marseilles and the over 10,000 members of the Illinois National Guard I say thank you for helping to get this important project underway.