Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the work and dedication of Alderman John J. Buchanan who is retiring after serving as Alderman for the 10th Ward in the City of Chicago for over 20 years. Alderman Buchanan is a life-long resident and public servant of the 10th Ward. Alderman Buchanan attended St. Patrick's Grammar School and St. Francis de Sales High School, where he graduated as class Valedictorian. The only time Alderman Buchanan left the community was during his service in the U.S. Navy. After his service to our country, Alderman Buchanan returned to the 10th Ward and married his high school sweetheart, Lorraine Halbe. Alderman Buchanan and his wife have two children and five grandchildren. Alderman Buchanan's knowledge of business and industry comes from his richly diverse work background. At the age of 13, he was already working after school at Gassman's, a well-known men's store on Commerical Avenue. His work experiences include positions at the Aluminum Company of America, the U.S. Post Office and the Chicago Board of Education. Alderman Buchanan is also a licensed Stationary Engineer and has both a real estate broker's license and an insurance broker's license. It is probably Alderman Buchanan's experience as an insurance salesman that opened doors to his deeper understanding of the needs of the community. This path eventually led the Alderman to a life in the public arena. Alderman Buchanan was first elected to office in 1963 and served the community until 1971. From 1972 until 1977, he served as a Coordinator of Economic Development for the Chicago Mayor's Office. While in this position, he successfully instituted programs for the retention and attraction of new business and industry. In 1991, Alderman Buchanan was once again elected to serve as Alderman of the 10th Ward in the City of Chicago. His City Council Committee memberships included Aviation; Budget and Government Relations; Rules and Ethics; Economic and Capital Development; Finance, Human Relations; Police and Fire. In honor of Alderman Buchanan's distinguished career, I have introduced federal legislation to change the name of the Hegewish Post Office to John J. Buchanan U.S. Post Office. I am also pleased to report that at my request, every member of the Illinois Congressional Delegation has agreed to support this legislation. My Speaker, I urge this body to identify and recognize others in their own districts whose careers and actions have so greatly benefited and strengthened America's communities.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Ron Wohlwend of Morris, Illinois, as he retires from his duties as President of the Grundy County National Bank. In 1981, Mr. Wohlwend was elected as President of the Grundy County National Bank and has maintained that position for 18 years. Mr. Wohlwend joined the Bank in 1966 where he began his career. His integral role in the Bank's activity has contributed to its reputation in the community. Mr. Wohlwend has served the banking industry well. He has been a member of the American Bankers Association's Community Banker's Council, the Illinois Bankers Association's Board of Directors and Executive Committee. Mr. Wohlwend also was the Chairman of the Association's Federal Legislative Committee and chaired the Banker's Advisory Committee at the Graduate School of Banking at the University of Wisconsin. Outside of the banking industry, Mr. Wohlwend has been a pillar of the city of Morris and Grundy County communities. Among the organizations Mr. Wohlwend has served are the Grundy County United Fund and the Morris Cemetery Association. He was President of the Grundy County Chamber of Commerce and served as Treasurer of Morris Community High School District #101, Saratoga Grade School District #60C, the Grundy Area Vocational Center, the Morris Cemetery Association, and the Grundy Economic Development Council. He is currently a member of the Grundy County Farm Bureau and serves on the Board of Directors of Illinois Valley Industries, the Morris Hospital Foundation, the Morris Downtown Development Partnership, Breaking Away, and the Joliet Junior College Foundation. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is fitting and appropriate to honor the achievements and years of service of Mr. Wohlwend. I wish Mr. Wohlwend's wife Jackie; his children Mary, Laura, and David; and his grandchildren Reilly and Taylor good will in the future. Also, I wish Mr. Wohlwend continued success with any future endeavors and hope he continues his leadership roles in the Morris and Grundy County communities.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thought I would take a few minutes to kind of report on what the last couple weeks were like when I was back home spending time with my constituents during the district work period, conducting 15 town meetings, and I wanted to report today on really the response to the Republican agenda of good schools and low taxes and a secure retirement for all Americans. I have the privilege of representing a very, very diverse district, the south side of Chicago in the south suburbs of Cook and Will Counties as well as a lot of rural and bedroom communities, and one always listens for the common concerns when they represent a diverse district of cities, suburbs and country. During the last two weeks I got a pretty good response. People were very supportive of the Republican agenda of strengthening our local schools, of lowering the tax burden for the middle class, of making for a secure retirement for all Americans by strengthening Medicare and Social Security. I would like to take a few minutes just to talk about some of those specifics of our Republican agenda, and of course let me begin with the Republican efforts to strengthen Social Security and to strengthen Medicare for the next three generations. Mr. Speaker, I am often asked a common question over the last several years that I have had the privilege of being in the Congress, and that question is: When are you politicians in Washington going to stop raiding the Social Security Trust Fund? I was pleased to tell my constituents that this is the year we are going to do that. This is the year we are going to wall off the Social Security Trust fund and say, ``Hands off,'' and my constituents frankly were pretty shocked when they learned that the Clinton-Gore budget actually raids the Social Security trust fund by $351 billion. I think it is important to note that when we compare Republican efforts to wall off the Social Security Trust Fund, which means 100 percent of Social Security according to this chart for Social Security versus the Clinton-Gore proposal for 62 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund going to Social Security and the other 38 percent being spent on other things, that is what this means. The President wants to spend 38 percent of Social Security on new government programs. Republicans, of course, want to wall off the Social Security Trust Fund, essentially putting trust back in the trust fund with 100 percent of Social Security for Social Security, and that is a big victory. Mr. Speaker, I also want to note that the Republican budget sets aside almost $400 billion more than the Clinton-Gore budget for Medicare and Social Security. Now our second priority in our agenda, of course, is lower taxes for the middle class, and I am one who believes that when the tax burden for the average family in Illinois is about 40 percent of their income going to local, State and Federal Government for taxes, that that tax burden is too high and we need to lower the tax burden, particularly for the middle class. And when we talk about the tax burden, I find that constituents, whether it is at the union hall or the VFW or the local Chamber of Commerce, they tell me that the Tax Code is too complicated, requires too much paperwork, and the majority of people have to hire someone else to fill out the tax forms. And I also point out that the tax burden is really unfair. As we work this year to lower the tax burden, I believe that our top priority should be to simplify the Tax Code, to address the unfairness in the Tax Code, and of course we need to begin by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Is it right, is it fair that 21 million married working couples on average pay $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married, $1,400 more than an identical couple living together outside a marriage? That is wrong, that our Tax Code punishes marriage. The Marriage Tax Elimination Act has 230 cosponsors. Let us get it done this year. Let us simplify the Tax Code and eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Of course the Republican agenda, a secure retirement and lower taxes also includes strengthening our local schools, and we want to strengthen our local schools by empowering our local school boards and our local teachers and our local parents to run their schools and giving them the flexibility, of course, to meet the needs of local communities, and that is an important shift because previously for 30 to 40 years all the power was moving to Washington. And I talk with local school administrators and school board members. They tell me maybe in Illinois 6 percent of our public schools' budget comes from Washington, but so does two-thirds of the paperwork and almost 100 percent of the mandates, micromanaging how our schools are run. We want to let local schools run themselves and meet the needs of their local communities, and that is why we want to pass the Ed Flex legislation. My hope, it will be on the President's desk fairly soon. The other concern that local school board members also share with me is they say, as my colleagues know, ``You've increased funding at the Federal level by 10 percent, even while you've been balancing the budget, increasing funding for education, but if you look at how those dollars have been spent, only 70 cents of every dollar actually reaches the classroom. Thirty cents is lost in the Washington bureaucracy.'' Our goal is to ensure that more dollars get to the classroom, with a goal of 95 cents on the dollar reaching the classroom, and if we compare that to the current cost of delivering those funds to our local schools, that is a 25 percent funding increase above and beyond what they are currently receiving. We are providing $22 billion in Federal funding for our local schools. It is just wrong that 30 cents on the dollar currently is lost in Washington. Let us help our local schools. Let us lower the tax burden for the middle class. Let us secure retirement by strengthening Medicare and Social Security.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I also rise in support of the Republican budget. Listening to the rhetoric from the other side, one would think that the Republican budget cuts veterans' funding. Actually, the Republican budget increases veterans' funding by $1.1 billion. It is the Clinton- Gore budget that cuts veterans' funding, particularly veterans' health care funding. Why I support the Republican budget is pretty simple. The Republican budget reflects Republican values of good schools, low taxes, and a secure retirement. It is interesting, when we compare the Clinton-Gore budget with the Republican budget, this is really an historic day. The Clinton-Gore budget raids the Social Security Trust Fund by $341 billion, cuts Medicare by almost $12 billion, cuts veterans' health care, whereas the Republican budget does something that the folks back home have asked for for almost 30 years. We wall off the Social Security Trust Fund. How often have I heard in a town meeting or in a senior citizens center folks saying, ``When are the folks in Washington going to stop dipping into the Social Security Trust Fund for other purposes?'' Our budget puts an end to that. We wall off the Social Security Trust Fund and say hands off. The President wants to spend over $300 billion in Social Security Trust Fund surpluses on new government spending, not Social Security. We protect Social Security in this budget. We do provide for small tax relief. And I believe we should eliminate the marriage tax penalty. That should be our top priority when it comes to tax relief for families. The Republican budget pays down the national debt. We increase funding for education by over $1 billion more than the President requests in his budget, and we provide over a $1 billion increase in funding for veterans' health care. I also want to point out the Republican budget rejects the Clinton- Gore cuts in Medicare that hurt our local hospitals.

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

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today, after years of arduous effort, survivors of the Holocaust who had their assets withheld from them by Swiss banks and others have finally received justice in the form of a settlement between the banks and the survivors' attorneys achieved last year. Under the settlement, survivors around the globe will receive $1.25 billion. This settlement will finally return the assets to survivors more than 50 years after they were entrusted to these banks. In addition to the survivors who are party to this historic settlement, there are survivors who are needy and have received one- time payments from the Swiss government through the Swiss Humanitarian Fund. Payments from this fund to needy Holocaust survivors in the United States have totaled $31.4 million. Banks and corporations in France, Austria, Italy and Germany are establishing similar funds to compensate claimants for bank accounts, insurance policies, slave labor and other assets. Whether the payments are from the banks, the Swiss government or other sources, they should be excluded from taxation because the survivors are receiving back what was rightfully theirs to begin with. Survivors who sued banks, insurance companies and manufacturers who profited from slave labor during he Holocaust did so because there was no other avenue for them to seek justice. Deprived of their assets, or those of their families, these brave souls fought unsuccessfully for fifty years until now to regain what belonged to them. I rise today, joined by my colleague, Representative Robert Matsui, to introduce H.R. 1292, the Holocaust Survivor Tax Relief Act of 1999. Senators Fitzgerald, Moynihan and Abraham are also introducing companion legislation in the Senate. Our legislation will exclude these payments from federal income tax. There is little time to debate over these payments when the average Holocaust survivor is 80 years old. We must do everything we can to ease the lives in their final years, and therefore it would be wrong and immoral to tax them on the long overdue receipt of the assets. What these survivors are receiving from the various funds is money that is rightly theirs in the first place. These survivors of the Holocaust deserve justice. Having escaped death at the hands of the Nazis, they were subjected to victimization by European banks and insurers. Those who endured the tortures of slave labor have never been compensated for their servitude to the Nazis. Now that they have begun to receive some measure of justice let us not add insult to their injury by taxing these long overdue payments to which they are entitled.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, a great deal of attention is being focused on retirement security by this Congress and by the Administration. Most of us recognize the need to make saving for retirement, through private pension plans and personal savings, a priority for all Americans. And, many of us recognize that complex and irrational pension rules in the Internal Revenue Code actually discourage retirement savings. Among such rules are limits under Code section 415 they deny workers the full benefits they have earned. I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of workers who have responsibly saved for retirement through collectively bargained, multiemployer defined benefit pension plans. These workers are being unfairly penalized under limits imposed by Code section 415. They are being denied the full benefits that they earned through many years of labor and on which they and their spouses have counted in planning their retirement. We can all appreciate their frustration and anger when they are told, upon applying for their pension, that the federal government won't let the pension plan pay them the full amount of the benefits that they earned under the rules of their plan. For some workers, this benefit cutback means they will not be able to retire when they wanted or needed to. For other workers, it means retirement with less income to live on. And, for some, it means retirement without health care coverage and other necessities of life. The bill that I am introducing today will give all of these workers relief from the most confiscatory provisions of Section 415 and enable them to receive the full measure of their retirement savings. Congress has recognized and corrected the adverse effects of Section 415 on government employee pension plans. Most recently, as part of the Tax Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) and the Small Business Jobs Protection Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-188), we exempted government employee pension plans from the compensation-based limit, from certain early retirement limits, and from other provisions of Section 415. Other relief for government employee plans was included in earlier legislation amending Section 415. Section 415 was enacted more than two decades ago when the pension world was quite different than it is today. The Section 415 limits were designed to contain the tax-sheltered pensions that could be received by highly paid executives and professionals. The passage of time and Congressional action has stood this original design on its head. The limits are forcing cutbacks in the pensions of rank-and-file workers. Executives and professionals are now able to receive pensions far in excess of the Section 415 limits by establishing non-qualified supplemental retirement programs. Compensation-Based Limits Generally, Section 415 limits the benefits payable to a worker by defined benefit pension plans to the lessor of: (1) the worker's average annual compensation for the three consecutive years when his compensation was the highest, the so-called ``compensation-based limit''; and (2) a dollar limit that is sharply reduced for retirement before the worker's Social Security normal retirement age. The compensation-based limit assumes that the pension earned under a plan is linked to each worker's salary, as is typical in corporate pension plans (e.g., a percentage of the worker's final year's salary for each year of employment). That assumption is wrong as applied to multiemployer pension plans. Multiemployer plans, which cover more than ten million individuals, have long based their benefits on the collectively bargained contribution rates and years of covered employment with one or more of the multiple employers which contribute to the plan. In other words, benefits earned under a multiemployer plan have no relationship to the wages received by a worker from the contributing employers. The same benefit level is paid to all workers with the same contribution and covered employment records regardless of their individual wage histories. A second assumption underlying the compensation-based limit is that workers' salaries increase steadily over the course of their careers so that the three highest salary years will be the last three consecutive years. While this salary history may be the norm in the corporate world, it is unusual in the multiemployer plan world. In multiemployer plan industries like building and construction, workers' wage earnings typically fluctuate from year-to-year according to several variables, including the availability of covered work and whether the worker is unable to work due to illness or disability. An individual worker's wage history may include many dramatic ups-and-downs. Because of these fluctuations, the three highest years of compensation for many multiemployer plan participants are not consecutive. Consequently, the Section 415 compensation-based limit for these workers is artificially low; lower than it would be if they were covered by corporate plans. Thus, the premises on which the compensation-based limit is founded do not fit the reality of workers covered by multiemployer plans. And, the limit should not apply. My bill would exempt workers covered by multiemployer plans from the compensation-based limit, just as government employees are now exempt. Early Retirement Limit Section 415's dollar limit is forcing severe cutbacks in the earned pensions of workers who retire under multiemployer pension plans before they reach age 65. Construction work is physically hard, and is often performed under harsh climatic conditions. Workers are worn down sooner than in most other industries. Often, early retirement is a must. Multiemployer pension plans accommodate these needs of their covered workers by providing for early retirement, disability, and service pensions that provide a subsidized, partial or full pension benefit. Section 415 is forcing cutbacks in these pensions because the dollar limit is severly reduced for each year younger than the Social Security normal retirement age that a worker is when he retires. For a worker who retires at age 50, the reduced dollar limit is now about $40,000 per year. This reduced limit applies regardless of the circumstances under which the worker retires and regardless of his plan's rules regarding retirement age. A multiemployer plan participant worn out after years of physical challenge who is forced into early retirement is nonetheless subject to a reduced limit. A construction worker who, after 30 years of demanding labor, has well earned a 30-and-out service pension at age 50 is nonetheless subject to the reduced limit. My bill will ease this early retirement benefit cutback by extending to workers covered by multiemployer plans some of the more favorable early retirement rules that now apply to government employee pension plans and other retirement plans. These rules still provide for a reduced dollar limit for retirements earlier than age 62, but the reduction is less severe than under the current rules that apply to multiemployer plans. Finally, I am particularly concerned that early retirees who suffer pension benefit cutbacks will not be able to afford the health care coverage they need. Workers who retire before the Medicare eligibility age of 65 are typically required to pay all or a substantial part of the cost of their health insurance. Section 415 pension cutbacks deprive workers of income they need to bear these health care costs. This is contrary to the sound public policy of encouraging workers and retirees to responsibly provide for their health care.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 71, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, do we not have a responsibility to help our constituents understand their benefits? As a large portion of today's population is nearing retirement, employer-sponsored retirement plans have increased in importance. And many people do not understand their benefits. It is an even greater problem when an employer unilaterally changes that plan, and minimal explanation is given. I have some real concerns in these situations, and I believe we need to help our constituents understand their benefits when they are changed. The Wall Street Journal recently highlighted some of the information disclosure problems when companies change from a traditional pension plan to a cash-balance plan. One particular situation involved a company who changed their plan and merely informed the employees that a change had occurred. One 49- year-old employee decided to look into this further, because he was thinking about his retirement. He discovered that while he was not going to lose any benefits, he was also not going to accrue any benefits for several years under this new plan. It was only through his efforts to learn more about it that he discovered this. Now, let me point out that it is not the employer's fault, but the law's. That is why I have joined with Senator Moynihan in introducing companion legislation to correct this problem. The Pension Right to Know Act, H.R. 1176, will require increased disclosure of information to employees about their pension plan. It would require an explanation to the employee as to how their pension plan will be affected by any plan change. It will require an individual benefit statement for each employee showing how they, in particular, will be affected by this change. For some the change will be beneficial, but for others the change could affect how they plan for the future. My colleagues, I believe we need to protect our constituents who may be expecting one thing, and then receive something very different. As employers make changes from various retirement plans to cash-balance plans, employees are left not understanding what changes have been made to their retirement plan. We can help our citizens who are nearing retirement and thinking about their retirement savings program--and we can help them to understand. Mr. Speaker, let us do what we can to help employees understand their options. Let us work together. Let us solve this problem, and let us solve it together.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 975, The Bipartisan Steel Recovery Act. While this legislation is not a perfect solution to solving the crisis faced by the steel industry, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 975 because to date the Clinton administration has failed to step up and enforce existing U.S. trade laws against illegal foreign steel dumping. As you know Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I on the Congressional Steel Caucus have been begging the White House to take meaningful action to stem the flow of these below the price of production steel products for over a year. It was not until this Congress took action late in the last session before the White House and the Commerce Department would even acknowledge that we had a steel crisis. Since Congress forced the Clinton administration to issue a report on the steel dumping problem, the Administration has only offered unwanted tax credits to the steel industry, more bureaucratic delays in resolving steel dumping cases, veto threats of any congressional action and not one new solution to save the jobs of the thousands of steelworkers who stand to lose their jobs if the crisis continues. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 975 is a bipartisan compromise bill combining the elements of Representative Regula's bill H.R. 412 and Representative Visclosky's bill H.R. 506. I am an original cosponsor of Mr. Regula's bill H.R. 412, which I believe is the best long-term solution to the steel industry's problems and a solution to update section 201 of our trade laws to help American industry compete in a fair market as we enter the 21st century. I am especially pleased that the steel monitoring program and real time steel import data program contained in H.R. 412 have been included in H.R. 975. While H.R. 975 would provide for some very tough medicine that most in Congress including myself would rather not have to administer, it is clear that the steel industry is at a crossroads. In just the last year over 10,000 steelworkers have lost their jobs. That's 10,000 families who have lost their livelihood, not to mention the impact these job losses have had on local steel communities. In the 11th District of Illinois I have over 20 firms that produce steel products. Some are big firms like Birmingham Steel in Joliet, while others are small family owned operations like Bellson Scrap & Steel in Bourbonnais. I also have hundreds of steelworkers in my district who travel to the LTV plant in Hennepin, IL, and steel plants in Chicago and across the border in Indiana. The steel crisis has had a real impact in my district. Small firms like Bellson Scrap and Steel have had to cut their workforce by 10 percent, while, big producers in my district like Birmingham have cut back to 32-hour work weeks, mandatory vacation periods, and are now only operating at 80 percent of precrisis production. Close to home Acme Steel of Chicago has filed for bankruptcy placing thousands of more jobs in the Chicagoland region in jeopardy in addition to the 1,000 Illinois steel jobs that have already been lost. Mr. Speaker, the steel crisis is alive and worse than ever for thousands of steel families. Even by the numbers of the administration's own Commerce Department steel imports for January 1999 are up over 96 percent from Japan, 140 percent from China, 155 percent from Korea and 705 percent from Indonesia over the precrisis period. Just in the 1 month period between December 1998 and January 1999, steel imports are up another 6 percent and the administration hails these numbers as great progress. Ask Mark Pozan at Bellson if he thinks a 6 percent increase over already record levels of steel imports is progress. Mr. Speaker I agree that H.R. 975 may not be the best remedy to solve the steel crisis, but, this Congress can not stand by and watch our trade laws be continually violated and our industries continually weakened while, good paying jobs are destroyed. The steel industry has rebounded from the financial difficulties of the 1980's that cost our country over 325,000 jobs. The American steel industry once in decline, now produces the lowest cost, highest quality and most environmentally sound steel on the planet. If we fail to ensure that American steel plays on a level playing field with the rest of the world, than we place American steel companies and American workers including the 400 at Birmingham Steel in great harm. I urge my colleagues to send the Clinton administration a message and pass H.R. 975.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues, Representatives Karen Thurman, Ron Lewis and Joel Hefley to introduce legislation that will end the unfair treatment of horses under the federal tax laws compared to other livestock and business assets. Under present law, gain from the sale of virtually every capital asset--except horses-- qualifies for capital gain treatment once it has been held for one year. The holding period for horses, however, is two years. We think this unfair to an important industry. There is no reason to treat horses differently than other capital assets. The horse industry provides sport, recreation and entertainment for millions. This industry has an economic impact on the U.S. economy of $112 billion and supports 1.4 million jobs. It pays $1.9 billion in taxes to all levels of government. In my state of Illinois the horse industry has an economic impact of $3.8 billion and supports 50,000 jobs. However, the racing and breeding industry has struggled over recent years because of the proliferation of various gaming venues. As a result, race tracks have not been able to pay purses large enough to cover the expense of racing a horse. Making the capital gains holding shorter will give some help to these owners who are suffering because purses are too low. This provision was apparently put in the tax code in 1969 as an anti- tax shelter provision. Since then there have been numerous changes in the tax laws, in particular the passive loss limitations, which have eliminated virtually all so-called ``tax shelters.'' This tax provision has discriminated against Illinoisans and others for long enough. Whatever the rationale was for making the holding period for horses different, it has outlived its usefulness. It is time to change the tax laws in this area. I welcome other members to join us in this effort by cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the passage of H. Con. Res. 24 expressing the opposition of this Congress to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian State. As you might remember, Mr. Speaker, five years ago Israel and the Palestinian Authority joined together in Oslo, Norway and signed the Oslo Accords as the first step towards a negotiated permanent peace accord. The Oslo Accords agreed to by both sides stated that any declaration of Palestinian Statehood must be the result of bilateral negotiation and mutually agreed security. That being said, Chairman Arafat has announced on several occasions since Oslo his intentions to unilaterally declare an independent Palestinian state this May. Adding fuel to the fire have been the remarks last year of First Lady Hillary Clinton suggesting that a Palestinian State is in the best long term interest of the region, statements by officials at the State Department suggesting that the Palestinians should move forward and even President Clinton himself whose visit late last year to Gaza had all the pomp and circumstance of an official ``state'' visit. While the Administration has expressed their opposition in recent weeks to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian State, it is clear that Congress must now send Chairman Arafat a strong message in the absence once again of a clear and consistent Clinton Administration policy. Additionally, I am concerned that the Administration may be attempting to hold hostage U.S. assistance in the region due to Israel's reluctance to fully implement the Wye Agreement in response to Chairman Arafat's intentions to unilaterally declare statehood. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this once again shows the Administration's willingness to send the Palestinians the wrong message. it is my fear that if the Clinton Administration continues on this course, we risk blowing a hole in the peace process and permanently injuring the relationship we have with America's strongest ally in the region, Israel. Throughout my first two terms in Congress I have invested a great deal of time helping to ensure that we can reach a negotiated peace in the Middle East. I have served as an international observer of the Palestinian Elections, Chairman of the House Republican Israel Caucus and have made several trips to the region. I know from my first hand experiences and meetings with leaders on both sides, that a lasting peace in this region can only be achieved through negotiation and agreement by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Mr. Speaker, the Senate has already acted on an identical resolution which passed by an overwhelming vote of 98 to 1. I urge my colleagues in the House to follow suit and send Chairman Arafat and the Clinton Administration a message that any declaration of a Palestinian State must be along the guidelines of the bilateral negotiations contained in the Oslo Accords.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House this morning. I have the privilege of representing a diverse district. I represent the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs and Cook and Will Counties, bedroom communities like Morris, the town where I live, and a lot of corn fields and farm towns. Representing such a diverse district of city and suburbs and country, I have learned to listen, to try to find the common concerns and ideas and suggestions of the folks back home. I find one very common message whether I am in the city, the suburbs or the country, and that is that the folks back home want us to work together to find solutions, and they are looking for real accomplishments as we face the issues that are before us here in the Congress. I am proud to say that over the last 4 years this Congress has met that challenge. I am pretty proud of what we have accomplished over the last 4 years. We did some things that people told us that we could not do. 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, we reformed welfare for the first time in a generation, and we tamed the IRS for the first time ever. Those are real accomplishments. I find as I talk about those accomplishments, folks say, well, that is pretty good, but what will the Congress do next? What are the next challenges? Where will we look to find solutions for in Washington that really matter to the folks back home? And I find as I listen to the concerns of the folks back home, they really offer a simple series of questions and a simple agenda that they want us to be working on here. My constituents tell me they want good schools, they want low taxes, and they want a secure retirement, and that is our agenda here in this Congress, I am proud to say. Our agenda, particularly on the Republican side, is simple, just like the agenda of the folks back home. We want to strengthen our local schools, making sure that our dollars get into the classroom and that our schools are run by local school boards and local school administrators and local teachers and local parents. We want to lower taxes, recognizing the tax burden has never been higher than it is today. We want to help the middle class by allowing them to keep more of what they earn, because they can spend it better than we can for them here in Washington. We also want to provide for a secure retirement by saving Social Security and rewarding retirement savings. It is an important agenda, but it is a simple agenda, and that is our focus this year. But we also have another challenge and another opportunity before us. Thanks to the fiscal responsibilities of this Congress, we balanced the budget for the first time in 28 years. We have now produced a surplus of extra tax revenue, an estimated $2.6 trillion of extra money. It is burning a hole in Washington's pocket and a lot of people want to spend it. The challenge and the opportunity really is what do we do and how do we do the right thing? The President gave a great speech back in January in his State of the Union. He said a lot of great sounding things. He said we should take 62 percent of this surplus, this extra tax revenue, and use it for Social Security. That sounded pretty good. But if we look at the fine print, that 62 percent means he wants to spend the rest on new government. Now, we Republicans want to take a different approach. We say we want to take 100 percent of the Social Security money and use it for Social Security. The money that is left over, the income tax surplus, we want to use for other purposes. But the reason that is important to point out is because when the President says 62 percent of the surplus for Social Security, what he is not telling us is that he wants to take $250 billion in Social Security surplus trust fund monies and spend them on other purposes. Now, back home, the senior citizens that I have the privilege of representing on the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs and rural Illinois tell me that is called raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. The President wants to raid the Social Security Trust Fund by $250 billion. We on the Republican side of the aisle want to put a stop to that. We believe that 100 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund should go to Social Security. That is the contract of Social Security. We believe it is time to wall off the Social Security Trust Fund so that Social Security dollars only go to Social Security, as they were promised when we all paid our payroll taxes. Also, I want to point out that in the first few years of the surplus that almost 100 percent of that surplus, extra tax revenue, is Social Security Trust Fund dollars. So when someone wants to create new government programs, they are borrowing, as they would say, or raiding, as senior citizens would say, to create new government. They are raiding the Social Security trust funds. We need to keep an eye on that. We also need to look at the tax burden, recognizing that the folks back home who tell me they want lower taxes, to see why the tax burden is so high today. I have been told that for the average family in Illinois that almost 40 percent of the average Illinois family's income today goes to government. We need to lower taxes. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty, let us save Social Security, and let us wall off the Social Security Trust Fund. Madam 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. Many may recall in January, President Clinton gave his State of the Union Address outlining many of the things he wants to do with the budget surplus. Although we were prepared to dedicate 90 percent of the budget surplus to saving Social Security, we agree with the President that at least 62% of the Budget Surplus must be used to save Social Security. 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 paraded a long list of new spending for new big government 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 is fair that our tax code imposes a higher tax penalty on marriage? Do Americans feel it is fair that the average married working couple pays almost $1,400 more in taxes than 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 year 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 many cases it is a working women's issue. Let me give you an example of how the marriage tax penalty unfairly affects middle class married working couples. For example, a machinist, at a Caterpillar manufacturing plant in my home district of Joliet, makes $31,500 a year in salary. His wife is a tenured elementary school teacher, also bringing home $31,500 a year in salary. If they would both file their taxes as singles, as individuals, they would pay 15%.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, back home, when I am back home in the south side of Chicago, in the south suburbs, I get asked some pretty basic questions by the folks back home. I had a really pretty good one asked to me just this past week. They say, it is our understanding that there is this $2.6 trillion surplus of extra tax revenue. If we have all this extra money in Washington, why does President Clinton, the Clinton-Gore Democrats, propose a $176 billion tax increase, and why do the Clinton-Gore Democrats, why do they propose raiding the Social Security trust fund by $250 billion to spend money on 120 new government programs? That is an important question because on the Republican side, we say we do not need $176 billion in tax increases. We say we do not want to raid the Social Security trust fund. In fact, this year we want to stop something that has been going on for 30 years. We believe it is time to wall off the Social Security trust fund and stop the raids that President Clinton wants to have on Social Security. Let us stop the raids on Social Security. Let us wall off the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, that is really an important fundamental question we should be really answering here in Washington and the Congress, and that is who can better spend the hard- earned dollars of the folks back home, those of us here in Washington, or real people trying to meet their own family's needs? When we think about it, if we allow people to keep more of what they earn, and of course I would like to eliminate the marriage tax penalty that punishes 21 million married working couples an average of $1,400 each just because they are married. Now, $1,400 in the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs, that is a year's tuition at a local community college. It is 3 months of day care at a local day care center. It is a washer and a dryer in the utility room. The point is, it is real money for real people, and if we allow people to keep more of what they earn, they can also make choices themselves, because we in government really are not in the best position to make the best decisions for folks back home, for families. Because if they have more money in their pockets, they can choose whether or not to take care of their children's needs or set a little aside for Johnny's college education fund or give a little extra money at the church or the temple or for a charity that is important to their community. That is an important choice. That is a fundamental decision that we are really going to be deciding this year, is whether or not we let folks keep more of what they earned, or do we spend more here in Washington. That is why I am so concerned about the President's $250 billion raid on the social security trust fund and his $176 billion in new tax increases, because that is taking more money out of the pocketbooks of hardworking folks back home in Illinois, New York, and other States.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) will yield further, that is an important question the gentleman is raising that we probably should ask as we go through the budget process this year. When the President is calling for 120 new government programs, maybe the question we should ask is, who is going to pay for that? Clearly, in his budget he says that we should take $250 billion out of the social security trust fund and we should increase taxes on top of that another $176 billion. That tells us where the money is coming from, from the pocketbooks of hardworking folks in South Dakota, and also the social security money for young people down the road, as well. I think that is an important question we should ask, where is that money coming from? If they propose a new government program, clearly they are raiding social security to pay for that new government program.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the point the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) is making, I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin discussing this, because I serve on the Subcommittee on Social Security. The President has had a series of town meetings, televised town meetings around the country. His very first one was in Kansas City. He asked four of us to participate in satellite TV hookups with groups in our districts to talk about Social Security. So I was in South Holland, Illinois with about 400 senior citizens. We had a discussion before we hooked up with the President. It was almost like the Wizard of Oz. There was this big screen, and there was the President's big smile. But they said, ``Congressman, when you ask the question of the President for us, would you ask this one that is really important?'' This gentleman said, and he is very sincere, ``Ask the President when the politicians in Washington are going to stop raiding the Social Security Trust Fund.'' Of course all the seniors broke into applause because they all agreed with that question. So when I had the opportunity to ask the President some questions on behalf of those in attendance at this televised town meeting with the President, I said, ``Mr. President, the first question they want me to ask of you is they want me to ask, and let me quote this gentleman, when are the politicians in Washington going to stop raiding the Social Security Trust Fund?" The President just kind of paused and put on a real sincere look and said, ``We are not raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. We are just borrowing it. We are going to pay it back again someday.'' Well, all the seniors laughed because they do not believe it is going to be paid back. I am proud to say that this Congress, this Republican Congress is answering that question from those 400 seniors at the South Holland, Illinois town meeting. We are saying, ``You are right. We are going to stop that practice. This Republican Congress is going to wall off the Social Security Trust Fund and ensure that 100 percent of Social Security dollars go to Social Security.'' That is a big victory once we get that done this year. That is why I am just so excited that, finally, after those of us, like the gentleman's predecessor, Mark Neumann, who really was a leader in this effort, and all of us that worked on the Social Security Perservation Act wall over the last few years, to save the Social Security Trust Fund, to wall off the Social Security Trust Fund, that the light is at the end of the tunnel. By the time we finish this budget process, we want to stop raids in the Social Security Trust Fund. When the President proposes taking another $250 billion out of the Social Security Trust Fund in the next few years, that tells us why our effort is so important this year, and we want to win this effort. I really hope that our friends on the Democratic side will join with us to protect Social Security because this is an important fight. The President says 62 percent. We say 100 percent of Social Security dollars must go to Social Security.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, let me first salute my colleagues here for talking about an important subject tonight, and that is what are we going to do this year in the budget? How are we going to save Social Security? How are we going to lower the tax burden? How are we going to meet our financial obligations and pay off the debt? The President says that extra money that is burning a hole in Washington's pocket, that $2.6 trillion surplus, he wants to spend it on new government programs and raid Social Security to the tune of $250 billion over the next 10 years. We have a different approach. The Republican Congress says, look, we are going to stop something that has gone on in Washington for 30 years. We are going to stop the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund and end that practice that President Clinton wants to continue. We are going to lower the tax burden by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. We are going to pay down the national debt. That is our goals.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding and organizing tonight's discussion on some of the issues that are so important for us. Mr. Speaker, think about it. I have been here now 4 years, I have had the privilege of serving in this body, and we were told time and time again that there was so much that we wanted to do that we could not do it, it could not be done, we could not accomplish it. 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; we reformed welfare for the first time in a generation, and we tamed the tax collector, reforming the IRS for the first time ever. Those were all accomplishments that we were told we could not do. It had never been done before, so you cannot do it, but we did. As a result of that, we have a big challenge and opportunity before us that is something new in Washington. That is, we have some extra money. We have a projected $2.8 trillion surplus of extra tax revenue that is burning a hole in Washington's pocket. And the debate this year is what are we going to do with it? Of course, the President came in and gave a great speech on his State of the Union and basically promised to spend it all. He says, we will save Social Security and we will spend it. I went back home after that, because I stood up and applauded several times, because it sounded great. But folks back home said, well, wait a second. If we have all of this extra money, why is the President asking for $176 billion in new tax increases in his budget? And then they said, but he says he wants to save Social Security, but he raids the Social Security Trust Fund by $250 billion. I do not understand that. Wait a second here. We have a surplus; why do we need a tax increase? We have a surplus; why do we need to dip further into the Social Security Trust Fund? That is why I appreciate the leadership that the majority leader and others have shown with the decision that has been made just in the last few days to do something that the seniors back home in Illinois have told me they would like to see done, and that is that we are going to wall off the Social Security Trust Fund, that we are going to put an end to a practice that has gone on since LBJ was President, and that is, hands off Social Security. For once and for all, we are going to wall off the Social Security Trust Fund, and we can no longer spend it on anything other than Social Security. That will also put a stop to the President's idea of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. I think that is an important issue, and I really want to salute the Republicans in the House and Senate who took that issue on over the last 4 years, because it is a big victory, and I see it as a bright light at the end of the tunnel as we go through the budget process, doing something this year that seniors have asked us to do.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, in yielding back my time to the gentleman from Colorado, perhaps I could pose a question to the my colleagues, and that is a question that was posed to me at an union hall back in Joliet, Illinois just a few days ago. This gentleman said, you folks in Washington, you have so much extra money right now, that surplus, over $2 trillion over the next 10 years in extra money, why does the President want to increase taxes? Why does the President say we need $170 billion in new tax increases on the American people and the American economy? I think that is an important question, and we should be asking the President, but we should also be asking the Congress, why in the world would anyone consider new taxes in a time when we already have all of this extra money.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, in response to the majority leader, the President wants to pay for these 120 new programs by dipping into the Social Security trust fund. We see the young men and women many of us know back home in our home communities, just graduating from high school, they are in college or entering the workforce and they are paying 12.6 percent of their income into the Social Security Trust Fund with little hope, many of them tell me, of ever receiving Social Security benefits. So unless we wall off the Social Security Trust Fund and stop Washington from dipping into the Social Security Trust Fund to spend on new government programs, our young people may never see Social Security. That is why it is so important that we make this change in how we budget the process.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I represent a pretty diverse district. I represent the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs in Cook and Will Counties, bedroom communities like the town of Morris, where I live, as well as a lot of corn fields and farm towns. Representing such a diverse district, city and suburbs and country, I have learned to listen, and to listen for the common concerns that the people ask their elected representatives to look out for. One clear message that I have heard over the last 4 years that I have had the privilege of serving in this House of Representatives is that the folks back home want us to work together, they want us to get things done, and they want us to come up with real solutions, solutions that meet the challenges that we face. I am pretty proud that we have met that request. When I was first elected in 1994, I was told it would be too difficult to balance the budget, and surely we could not cut taxes, let alone reform welfare or tame the IRS. I am proud to say in the last 4 years we did just that. By working together, by staying focused, by keeping our eye on the ball and working hard, 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, we reformed welfare for the first time in a generation, and we tamed the tax collector, reforming the IRS. That is pretty good. Those are real accomplishments, major changes in how Washington works. When I am back home in Illinois folks say, that is pretty good, but what is the Congress going to do next; what is the challenge? When I listen to the concerns back home, I hear several things. The folks back home in Illinois tell me they want low taxes and good schools and they want a secure retirement, and that is the Republican agenda this year. We want to ensure that our local public schools and private schools are strong, and that our public schools are run by locally elected school boards and local teachers and local parents and local school administrators, and that dollars we provide actually reach the classroom to help kids learn. We also want to save Social Security by walling off the Social Security Trust Fund and ensuring that 100 percent of Social Security dollars go for Social Security. And we want to lower taxes. Now, that also means we have some big challenges ahead of us. How are we going to accomplish that? There is a big challenge and an opportunity, and my colleagues and I have participated just in the last hour talking about some of those challenges, but the biggest opportunity and challenge is what are we going to do with the so-called surplus, $2.8 trillion in extra tax revenue, most of which is Social Security? Well, the President says we should take 62 percent of it for Social Security and spend the rest. Republicans say we want to do it differently; we want to ensure that 100 percent of Social Security dollars go for Social Security, and what is left over, the incomes tax revenue surplus, we want to use to lower the tax burden on working families and pay down the national debt. That is a big challenge. Our goal this year is to do something that has not been done for a generation. We are going to stop a practice that began with President Johnson, back in the 1960s, when he was looking for a way to finance the Vietnam War and to finance the great society programs and grow government. President Johnson and the Congress in the late 1960's began the practice of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. Our number one goal this year, as we work to save Social Security is to put a stop to that, to stop the raids on Social Security. Let me point out something here. This coming year there will be about $137 billion in surplus Social Security revenues. Republicans say let us give 100 percent of that to Social Security. The President, because he only wants to take 62 percent of the surplus, wants to spend a big portion of the Social Security Trust Fund. In fact, he wants to spend about $52 billion of the Social Security Trust Fund revenues this coming year. Over 5 years that is $250 billion raided from the Social Security Trust Fund. We want to put a stop to that. While we put a stop to the raid on the Social Security Trust Fund, we also want to pay down the national debt. And with money that is left over, after we protect the Social Security Trust Fund dollars, when it comes to those income tax revenues, the extra tax revenue that comes from the income tax, the real surplus beyond Social Security, we want to use that to give back to the people who sent it here. Some ask, well, how will we lower the tax burden? Taxes are at their highest level in history. Twenty-one percent of our gross domestic product today goes to the Federal Government. The average Illinois family sends 40 percent of their income to local, State, and Federal Government. Clearly, that tax burden is too high. Well, I suggest, as we look for ways of lowering the tax burden on working middle class families, that we work to simplify the Tax Code; to address the fairness issues in the tax codes. When I am back home, whether at a union hall or the VFW, clearly they identify the need to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, the need to eliminate the death tax and to eliminate the earnings limit. We can save Social Security. Let us wall off the Social Security Trust Fund and bring fairness to the Tax Code.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Police Chief William J. Harris of Manhattan, Illinois as he retires from the Village of Manhattan's police department which he served for over 30 years. Chief Harris was born on December 15th, 1938 in Joliet, Illinois where he resided until he and his family moved to Manhattan in 1945. Following his high school years, William Harris served our country in the United States Air Force's Security Division from 1956 through 1960. On October 20, 1962 Mr. Harris joined Ms. Mary Jane Buitenwerf in a marriage that has produced three sons; David, Daniel, and Michael. Bill and Mary Jane have lived their entire married life in Manhattan. While working for the Caterpillar Tractor Company in Joliet, Mr. Harris began his tremendous record of public service while working as a part time Manhattan police officer in 1965. Nearly four years later, Mr. Harris took over the position as acting police chief on June 1, 1969. Only six months later, on January 1, 1970, William Harris was hired as Manhattan's full time police chief where he has served to present day. In addition to his dedication to keep Manhattan a peaceful community, Mr. Harris was a member of the Manhattan Volunteer Fire Department for several years. He still enjoys active memberships with both the Will County Police Chief Association and the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is fitting and appropriate to honor the lifetime of service Mr. Harris has given to his community. Undoubtedly, there are many families in Will County who are thankful each day for the service Bill Harris has done for Manhattan. The Village of Manhattan is a quiet and safe community, and its residents can point to Chief Harris' good work as the reason for this. I wish Chief Harris, his wife Mary Jane, and their children and grandchildren all the best life can offer in the coming years.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Walnut Grove Retirement Community which is celebrating its 10th anniversary of outstanding service to the elderly community of Grundy County. On March 7, 1989, the Walnut Grove Healthcare Center opened with 97 beds available to seniors. Four years later, in 1993, Grundy County experienced a need for more beds for the elderly. Walnut Grove applied for and completed the Certificate of Need process in order to add more beds and better serve Grundy County senior citizens. This process resulted in the increase of licensed beds from 97 to 123. On January 10, 1994, a ground-breaking ceremony was held for these 24 private suite sheltered care units. This addition is known as the Walnut Grove Villa. As these Villas have established a fine reputation, a waiting list of applicants wanting to reside in them usually exists. In addition to the Healthcare Center and the Villa, there are duplexes included in the retirement community. These 24 cottages house 30 elderly residents for independent living. Walnut Grove's provision of care is sensational. The rehabilitation program of Walnut Grove is Medicare certified. Furthermore, there are always special events on the holidays, along with various outing and recreational events. Mr. Speaker, I find it appropriate that the Walnut Grove Retirement Community be given praise for its 10 years of existence. May the service Walnut Grove has provided to the people of the 11th District and the elderly community of Grundy County continue as we move into the 21st Century.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, of course, point out to my friend across the aisle that this House passed legislation to provide for school construction in the 90-10 tax cut plan last year, and Republicans voted for it. I have an important question before the House today. That is, do the American people feel that it is right, that it is fair, that married working couples pay higher taxes under our tax code just because they are married? Do the Americans feel that it is right that 21 million average working married couples pay, on average, $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married, higher taxes than identical working couples working outside of marriages? Of course Americans do not feel that is right, that is fair. It is just not right and fair that married working couples pay more. In fact, we should make elimination of the marriage tax penalty a priority in this Congress. The $1,400, the average marriage tax penalty, that is one year's tuition in the Joliet Junior College in the district that I represent, or 3 months of day care at a local child care center. It is real money for real people back home. Let us lower taxes, and let us make elimination of the marriage tax penalty a family priority this year.