Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing a very diverse district, probably the most diverse district in the State of Illinois representing part of the City of Chicago and the south suburbs, Cook and Will counties, and a lot of bedroom and rural and farm communities. When you represent a district as diverse as the one I have the privilege of representing, you really have to listen to learn the common concerns of such a diverse constituency. I find a pretty clear message as I listen and learn the concerns of the people of the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs and that is that the folks back home want us to work together, they want us to find solutions, they want us to meet the challenges, they want us to offer and work together to find solutions. I am pleased that, over the last 4 years, this Congress has responded to that request to get things done. We have got some real accomplishments that we all should be proud of: Balancing the budget for the first time in 28 years, a balanced budget that is now projected to produce a $2.7 trillion overpayment of extra tax revenue that is now known as a surplus. The first middle-class tax cut in 16 years. It is going to benefit 3 million Illinois children who qualify for the $500 per child tax credit. The first welfare reform in a generation. That has now seen the results of reducing Illinois welfare rolls by 28 percent. And IRS reform that tames the tax collector and shifts the burden of proof off the backs of the taxpayer and onto the IRS, so a taxpayer is innocent until proven guilty with the IRS. Folks back home say, ``That's pretty good. What are you going to do next?'' When I listen to the folks back home over the last few weeks, they tell me they want good schools, they want lower taxes, they want a secure retirement. And it is our obligation to respond. That is really what our Republican agenda is: to help our schools, to put more dollars into the classroom and ensure that our schools are run by local teachers and local parents and local administrators and locally elected school board members, to lower the tax burden on the middle class and to secure retirement by saving Social Security, providing greater incentives to save for your own retirement. But we also face what can be considered a great challenge but also an opportunity and that is, what do we do with this so-called surplus, this $2.7 trillion of extra money that is burning a hole in the pocket of Washington? Somebody wants to do something with it. We know that. But what are we going to do? That is a big debate, what to do with the overpayment of $2.7 trillion. The President says we should take 62 percent of that so-called surplus and use it to save Social Security, and then he wants to spend the rest on new government programs. Republicans say, we agree. We will take 62 percent of the surplus for saving Social Security, but we want to give the rest back in paying down the debt and lowering the tax burden on the middle class, because our philosophy is that you can spend your hard-earned dollars better back at home than we can for you here in Washington. Some say, ``Well, gee, why do we really need to lower taxes? You know, people don't mind paying taxes.'' Here is why. Today our tax burden is at its highest level ever in peacetime history for our country. Today, for the average family back home in Illinois, 40 percent of their income goes to government at local, State and Federal levels. In fact, 21 percent of our gross domestic product goes to the Federal Government alone. And, since 1992, and I find this very disturbing, the amount of taxes collected from individuals has gone up 63 percent. Clearly, the tax burden is too high, and the middle class is paying the price. I believe as we focus on ways to lower the tax burden on the middle class that we should start with simplifying our Tax Code, looking for the provisions in our Tax Code that discriminate against the middle class, that discriminate against families. I believe it is time that we eliminate discrimination in the Tax Code and work to simplify the Tax Code. As we set priorities, let us make the top priority eliminating the discrimination against 21 million married working couples who, on average, pay $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married under our Tax Code. Is it not wrong that, under our Tax Code, if you are married and work, you are going to pay higher taxes than an identical couple living together outside of marriage? That is wrong. $1,400 back home in Illinois is a year's tuition at Joliet Junior College. It is 3 months of day care at a local day care center. It replaces a washer and a dryer in a home for a middle-class Illinois family. I am pleased to tell you that 230 Members of this House, Republicans and Democrats, have joined together to sponsor the Marriage Tax Elimination Act. This year, as we work to lower the tax burden on middle-class families, let us make elimination of the marriage tax penalty the number-one priority to help families. Mr. Speaker, we can do it if we work together. The same way that we balanced the budget, the same way that we cut taxes for the middle class, the same way that we reformed welfare, the same way that we tamed the IRS, we can eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight what is arguably the most unfair provision in the U.S. Tax Code: the marriage tax penalty. I want to thank you for your long term interest in bringing parity to the tax burden imposed on working married couples compared to a couple living together outside of marriage. 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's fair that our tax code imposes a higher tax penalty on marriage? Do Americans feel it's fair that the average married working couple pays almost $1,400 more in taxes 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. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of this resolution, and I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) for the statements they have made publicly to work together in a bipartisan way. One statement we will make very clear today is every Member of the House, I expect, will vote for this. Because even though we may disagree a little bit on how to do it, we all stand here because we want to save Social Security. In fact, we are committed to saving Social Security not just for today's seniors but for future generations, the next three generations, who depend on Social Security. When I think of Social Security, I think of my own mom and dad, now in their 70s. I think of my nieces and nephews that are college age and entering the work force out of high school. They all look for Social Security. They have paid their dues into Social Security, and they want Social Security to be there when it is their turn. Social Security today, as some have pointed out, is sound for today's seniors. But the question is how are we going to make Social Security sound for future generations. That is the challenge that is before us. I hope we remember as we go through this process the importance of looking at how Social Security impacts women as we look at the numbers; as we look at ways to ensure that we treat women equally and fairly when it comes to Social Security. Because it is clear that statistics show that elderly women have been almost twice as likely as elderly men to live in poverty. That is a challenge we need to meet, and I hope we can do it in a bipartisan way. Once again, I also plan to offer an additional solution to help supplement Social Security. I believe that we should reward retirement savings. I believe that we should eliminate discrimination against retirement savings and allow people to contribute more to their 401(k)s and their IRAs. We should also allow working moms to make up missed contributions through catch-up IRAs, allow them to make up the contributions for their retirement accounts that they could have made had they stayed working and instead chose to stay home with their children. We should allow working moms to have that opportunity. Catch-up IRAs will be a big help for women. Let us work in a bipartisan way. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Social Security Subcommittee, I strongly support H.R. Res. 32. This resolution expresses the willingess of Congress to work with the President to strengthen and protect the Social Security system for current and future generations. Just last week, this resolution passed the Ways and Means Committee with a unanimous, bipartisan vote of 32-0. Social Security affects the majority of Americans, whether it be a 70 year old retiree, a 40 year old parent, or a 19 year old college student. We all pay our Social Security taxes with the promise that when we retire, we will collect the benefits that are due to us. Unfortunately, our Social Security system is in dire straigths and it is our responsibility as Members of Congress to make sure that the program remains healthy and stable far into the 21st century. As we discuss ways to change the system, we must also remember that women, even more than men, rely on the Social Security system for financial security in their golden years. Over their lifetime, because of family commitments, many women cannot accumulate adequate pension savings. By the mid-1990s, only 18 percent of women over the age of 64 received their own pension benefits and their pension benefits were less than half of those received by men. Additionally, we must keep certain important statistics in mind. In 1997, elderly women were almost twice as likely as elderly men to live in poverty. Additionally, the poverty rate for unmarried elderly women was 19 percent in 1997. This is a crucial statistic because 60 percent of elderly women are unmarried. Also significant, nearly 30 percent of elderly black and Hispanic women lived in poverty in 1997, making Social Security especially important to minority, elderly women. To help women save for their later years, I plan to again offer legislation to help improve retirement savings opportunities for women and other individuals who opted out of the workforce to raise families. These Catch-up IRAs will also allow individuals approaching retirement the ability to save more for their golden years, and for all savers the ability to make additional ``after tax'' contributions to their savings plans. I am encouraged by H.J. Res. 32 and I hope that President Clinton will join us in finding bipartisan solutions to the problems that plague our Social Security System. Additionally, I hope that we can continue to work together to find Social Security reform solutions which protect the special needs of women in their retirement years. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important resolution.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, let me ask a very basic and fundamental question: Is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code that our Tax Code discriminates against married, working couples by forcing married, working couples to pay higher taxes just because they are married? Is it right 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, $1,400 more than an identical working couple that lives together outside of marriage? That is wrong. $1,400 on the south side of the Chicago in the south suburbs of Illinois is 1 year's tuition in a local community college. It is 3 months of day care at a local child care center. $1,400 is real money. My colleagues, I believe that we should make fairness and simplicity a goal as we work to make changes in the Tax Code. Let us make elimination of the discrimination against married, working couples a priority. The Marriage Tax Elimination Act now has 230 cosponsors, a bipartisan majority of this House. Let us make it the centerpiece of this year's balanced budget.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I represent a very diverse district. I represent part of the City of Chicago in the south suburbs and Cook and Will Counties. And when one represents a diverse district of city and suburbs and country, he listens, he listens for common concerns and common ideas as he works to represent those communities. And I find one very clear message from the city dwellers and the suburbanites and the farm folk in the district I have the privilege of representing, and that is that the folks back home want those of us who have the privilege in the Congress to work together to solve the challenges that we face and to put forward real solutions. I am proud in the last 4 years this Congress has responded to that request of finding solutions. And we have some real accomplishments we can all be proud of, accomplishments such as balancing the budget for the first time in 28 years, a balanced budget that is now projected to generate an expected $2.7 trillion surplus of extra tax revenue; a middle-class tax cut, the first middle-class tax cut in 16 years that is now giving three million children a $500 per child tax credit back home in Illinois; welfare reform, the first welfare reform in a generation that has lowered the welfare roles in Illinois by 28 percent; and IRS reforms, taming the tax collector, the first IRS reforms ever that now shift the burden of proof so that a taxpayer is innocent until proven guilty. That is all thanks to this Congress. The question often asked is, those are pretty good accomplishments, but what are we going to do next? Well, I was home this past week during the President's Day district work period listening to the folks back home. They told me some things. They tell me they want good schools. They tell me they want low taxes. They tell me that they want a secure retirement. And that is really what the agenda of the Republican Congress is. Our agenda is to help our schools and make sure that we put more dollars into the classroom, dollars that are determined how they are spent by local school boards and local teachers and local parents. Our agenda is to lower the tax burden on the middle class and also to secure retirement by ensuring that our Social Security system is sound and rewarding savings for retirement. But we also have an another challenge that faces us, and it is really an opportunity, and that is the opportunity that comes from this Congress's probably greatest accomplishment, the first balanced budget in 28 years. We are now expected to see a $2.7 trillion surplus, a balanced budget bonus, an overpayment of tax revenue, extra money that is burning a hole in the pockets here in Washington. And that is really what the debate will be, what do we do with that surplus? Some want to spend it all. Others want to do other things. The President says we should use 62 percent of the surplus for saving Social Security and the rest we should spend on new government programs. We on the Republican side say that we agree that 62 percent should go to Social Security. Last year, we proposed 90 percent so we could do at least 62 percent. But we also want to give the rest back and pay down the national debt and lower the tax burden, particularly for middle-class working families. Our philosophy is fairly simple. We believe that taxpayers back home in Illinois and back home in America can better spend their hard-earned dollars and their hard-earned salary better back home than we can for them in Washington. That is why we want to give back part of the surplus to pay off the national debt and to lower the tax burden at the same time we save Social Security. Some say, gee, is there really a need to lower the tax burden on families? Let me share some statistics here. The tax burden on American families is the highest in history, in fact, the highest in peacetime history. In fact, 40 percent of the average Illinois family's income today goes to government at one level, local, State, and Federal taxes. Twenty-one percent of our gross domestic product goes to the Federal Government in taxes. And, since 1992, the amount of taxes collected from individuals has gone up 63 percent. Clearly, that tax burden is too high, and we need to find ways to help the middle class by lowering the tax burden so they can keep more of what they earn. I believe that as we look for ways to lower the tax burden on middle- class families that our focus should be on simplifying the Tax Code and bringing fairness to the Tax Code and also eliminating discrimination in the Tax Code. And as we look for those priorities and how best to simplify the Tax Code and eliminate discrimination in the Tax Code, I believe that we should focus on the most discriminating sequence of our Tax Code today, and that is the discrimination in the Code that says that 21 million married working couples pay, on average, $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married. Under our Tax Code, if they get married they pay more than if they stay single; and that is just wrong. And I think it is not right and it is not fair that 21 million married working couples pay, on average, $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married. In the south suburbs of Chicago, $1,400 is one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College. It is 3 months of day care at a local child-care center. It is 6 months worth of car payments. It is a washer and a dryer for a family. It is real money for real people. I am proud to report to the House today that almost 230 Members, a bipartisan majority of this House, has joined as cosponsors of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, which would eliminate discrimination in the Tax Code and eliminate the marriage penalty. As we work to simplify the Tax Code, as we work to lower the tax burden, I hope we can make elimination of the marriage tax penalty our number-one priority.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise for a few minutes to talk about some issues I heard about back home during the Presidents' Day recess. You know, Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing a very, very diverse district. I represent part of the City of Chicago, the south suburbs in Cook and Will Counties, farm communities and a lot of bedroom communities. When a district is so diverse, you really want to listen and learn the concerns of the people you have the privilege of representing. And I find that even though our district is so diverse, city, suburbs and country, that there is a pretty clear message, and that is that the folks back home want us in this Congress to work together to solve the challenges that we face. And I am pretty proud that this Congress over the last 4 years has responded by doing some things we were told we could not do: balancing the budget for the first time in 28 years, cutting taxes for the middle class for the first time in 16 years, reforming welfare for the first time in a generation and taming the tax collector by reforming the IRS. And those are real accomplishments, real accomplishments that I believe we should all be proud of. And when I was back home over the last week listening to the folks back home, I asked, what do you want us to do next? And they tell me that they want good schools, they tell me that they want low taxes, they tell me that they want a secure retirement, and I am pleased to say that that is the majority's agenda here in this House of Representatives, to help our schools and put more dollars in the classroom and to give control of our schools back to parents and teachers and locally elected school boards. It is our agenda to lower the tax burden on the middle class because we believe that you can spend your hard-earned dollars better back home than we can for you here in Washington, and we also want to ensure a secure retirement by saving Social Security and rewarding those who save for their own retirement. But today we face an even bigger challenge probably as part of this whole process as we work on our agenda as both a challenge and it is an opportunity, and that is the balanced budget bonus, the overpayment, the extra tax revenue that came from 4 years of hard work of balancing the budget. Expect that this overpayment of tax revenues is going to total $2.7 trillion over the next 10 years. That is a lot of money, and it is extra money, and the debate is what are we going to do with it? Do we spend it? It is burning a hole in Congress' pocket. Or do we give it back to the folks back home? Now the President said that we should take 62 percent of this surplus revenue and use it to save Social Security, and then he wants to spend the rest on new government programs. A lot of us here in the Congress say that we should agree with the President on that 62 percent and, rather than creating new government programs after we save social security, that we should give the rest back and pay down the national debt thereby lowering the tax burden. And that is really a fundamental question: Whose money is it to start with? Whose money is it to start with? We know that. It is the taxpayers. But who can better spend it? Folks back home. That is you. Or is it, of course, Washington? Can Washington spend it better than we can? Now, we the Republican majority believe that you can spend it better than we can for you and that is really why this is such an important debate this year, because we have to look at the issue of taxes in general. Some say why is a tax cut so important? Well, if you look at how it affects families back in Illinois, the tax burden today is at its highest level ever in peacetime. In fact, 40 percent of the average Illinois family's income now goes to local, State and Federal government in taxes. The tax-take totals 21 percent of our Gross Domestic Product, and since 1992 the total collection of income taxes from individuals has gone up 63 percent. Clearly, the tax burden is too high. The question then is, how can we lower the tax burden for the middle class? How can we help middle class families? I believe that we should focus on tax simplification, because is not it time that we bring fairness to the Tax Code? Is not it time to end discrimination in the Tax Code? As we set priorities this year, to help the middle class by simplifying the Tax Code, I believe that we should simplify the Tax Code by ending discrimination against 21 million married working couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty, and really it is a very fundamental question. 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? Now in the south suburbs of Chicago, $1,400 is one year's tuition at Joliet College. It is 3 months of day care at a local day care center. It is 6 months worth of car payments for some of those machinists that visited us today. I am pleased to announce that 230 Members have joined as cosponsors of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act. Clearly, there is bipartisan support for simplifying the Tax Code and bringing fairness to the Tax Code by eliminating the extra tax on married working couples. Let us work together. Let us bring fairness. Let us simplify the Tax Code and eliminate the marriage tax penalty this year.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, I rise to really announce some good news, and that is we are ready to make progress on some unfinished business, and that is the issue of eliminating discrimination against married working couples. My colleagues, let us ask a few questions. Is it not time we eliminated the marriage tax penalty? Is it right--really, is it right-- that under our Tax Code married working couples pay higher taxes just because they are married? Is it fair that 21 million married working couples pay on average $1,400 more just because they are married than an identical couple living together outside of marriage? In Illinois $1,400 is one year's tuition at the local community college. It is simply wrong we are punishing married working couples. Yesterday, we introduced H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, legislation that now has 224 cosponsors. Think about that; 224 cosponsors. How often do we have a majority of the House as cosponsors of legislation on its first day? That is good news. I believe we can work together this year to eliminate the most unfair discrimination in the tax code. Let us work together, let us work in a bipartisan way, let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from a constituent of mine and a press release from the Speaker of the House on the subject matter of my speech this morning. January 6, 1999. Dear Congressman Weller: Over the past year or so, my husband Shad and I have read with some surprise and some relief about your efforts to eliminate the ``marriage tax penalty.'' When we set out to marry, no one warned us such a tax even existed on married couples. Our relief, of course, came in knowing that our U.S. Representative is trying to do something to right the wrong. Shad and I are both teachers in Will County. Shad teaches 11th grade English and I teach junior high reading. Neither of us make a lot of money, but we are dedicated to our jobs and the children we teach. You can imagine our surprise when we realized how the marriage tax affects us. When we followed up with tax preparers and your staff, we learned that our 1997 salaries are facing a $957.00 marriage tax penalty. We have actually read articles in the paper where scholars have dismissed the marriage tax as inconsequential on a working family's day to day struggle to made ends meet. Instead, they argue that the amount of money lost to the government by eliminating the marriage tax would be a great ``tragedy.'' In fact, during last year's elections, I heard a candidate suggest that if $1,400 plays such a large stake in a couples decision to marry, perhaps they have no business getting married in the first place. Although I am no economic scholar, and Shad and I would be married despite the financial consequences the government places on our marriage, I take offense to that sort of thought process. Fourteen hundred dollars may not seem like a lot to some, but as we prepare to bring our first child into the world, we will face a penalty of $957. That $957 could buy 3000 diapers or pay for a years worth of tuition for our graduate school education. Aside from the poor message the marrige tax sends to young couples like ourselves, the money it costs--no mater how large or small the amount--could be used on things we need now. It troubles me to know that as Shad and I continue to teach and earn a little more money as time goes by, so too will our ``marriage tax'' grow. It appears to me Congressman Weller, eliminating the marriage tax seems to be the right choice. Shad and I will continue to follow your efforts in Washington with great interest (as will our married friends back home). Last year it appeared that Washington was ready to eliminate the marriage tax. What went wrong? Sincerely, Michelle and Shad Halklan.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the work and dedication of Chief Albert V. Wingo who, after serving the Village of Bradley for 44 years, retired as Bradley Fire Chief on December 29, 1998. Chief Wingo has a long and distinguished record with the Village of Bradley Fire Department as well as the Village of Bradley itself. During his 44 year career with the Bradley Fire Department, Chief Wingo served as Bradley Fire Chief for 28 years. Chief Wingo's dedication to the Fire Department is also shown through his membership in various fireman associations. Chief Wingo has played an active role in the following associations--member and Past President of the Kankakee Valley Firemen's Association, member of the Kankakee Valley Arson Task Force, member of the Kankakee County 911 Board, member of the Hundred Club, member of the Illinois Association of Fire Chiefs, and a member of the National Fire Protection Association. Chief Wingo also served 21 years as Building Inspector and 21 years as Health Inspector for the Village of Bradley. Chief Wingo was born on April 28, 1926 in Kenney, Illinois. He proudly served his country during World War II while in the service of the United States Navy from 1944 to 1946. On July 3, 1949, Chief Wingo married Jean Vaughn who passed away in 1993. Chief Wingo is the proud father of three children and the grandfather of six grandchildren. I know the Village of Bradley will greatly miss Chief Wingo's dedication, knowledge and experience. It is always a great honor for me to be able to proudly acknowledge outstanding citizens, like Chief Wingo, who resides in my 11th Congressional District. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize this gentleman for his honorable career and uncommon loyalty. I urge this body to identify and recognize others in their own districts whose actions have so greatly benefited and strengthened America's communities.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Sheila Brockman and her junior high school science class of St. Anthony's School in Streator, Illinois for their remarkable and successful efforts to save Pluto from demotion as a planet. Earlier this year, the Minor Planet Center, a division of the International Astronomical Union, responsible for monitoring the comets, asteroids and other bodies orbiting the sun, proposed that Pluto be given a number and considered only a minor planet. Pluto was discovered on February 16, 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh, a native of Streator, Illinois while working at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona. Mr. Tombaugh was the only American and one of just five people in history to discover a planet orbiting the sun. Expressing their pride in Mr. Tombaugh's significant achievement, the St. Anthony students, led by Ms. Brockman, quickly began a letter writing campaign to the International Astronomical Union. The protest movement launched by the St. Anthony students drew support from schools around the State of Illinois and national media attention. As a result of the growing public outrage raised by the leadership of Ms. Brockman and the St. Anthony students, the International Astronomical Union announced from its headquarters in Paris, France that it would be making no proposal to change the status of Pluto as the ninth planet in the solar system. I wholeheartedly commend Ms. Brockman and the St. Anthony students both for their pride in the City of Streator and its history and also for their realization that in America a small group of citizens taking a strong stand for something in which they believe can make a difference.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), my friend and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, for the opportunity to address this legislation. I also want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership in bringing this important legislation before the House today. Mr. Speaker, this trade bill before us I would like to note includes two important provisions from H.R. 4190 and H.R. 4191, legislation I introduced last year, which suspends duties on the importation of pharmaceuticals which inhibit cancer and the spread of HIV and AIDS. This is compassionate legislation, intended to help reduce the cost of treating AIDS and cancer for thousands of American families. Every year thousands of American men, women and children fall victim to these deadly diseases. 1997, the last year for which we have national statistics, almost 17,000 new cases of HIV and AIDS were added to the epidemic, making the total number of victims almost 600,000 nationwide. The average cost of treating someone with HIV or AIDS is approximately $17,500 and lifetime costs of almost $100,000. Additionally, this cost suspends the duties on important cancer inhibitors. We have made great strides in identifying new carcinogens and reducing the number of new cancer victims. However, well over four million new cases are identified every year at an astronomical emotional as well as financial cost to our families as well as our Nation. The average cost of treating breast cancer alone is $37,000, not to mention the lost cost in emotion as well as wages and lost productivity. This is compassionate legislation. I very much want to commend my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), for his leadership in including this important legislation to help the victims of HIV and AIDS and cancer. Here in this very simple free trade act we can help the victims of HIV and cancer and lay the groundwork that will help this Nation, particularly the Nation's medical community, stem this insipid tide. I want to thank the chairman for including this compassionate initiative today. This is an important step forward. I ask for bipartisan support for this measure.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize the life of Gordon Graves, who died on September 16, 1998 at the age of 80. Gordon Graves was a great man and true hero in his efforts to save the Kankakee River. Gordon Graves was born along the banks of the Kankakee River and thus knew and understood the river. He had been known to describe himself as a ``river rat'' and was a lifelong hunter, fisherman, and conservationist who spent most of his life protecting the Kankakee River. Gordon was one of the first voices of concern for the Kankakee River. According to Gordon, people took whatever they could get from the river, and the next day, they took it again. The problem is that they took more than the river had to give. At the age of 45, Gordon Graves retired early to work full time to protect the Kankakee River. He is one of the founding fathers of the Northern Illinois Angler's Association, and of the Alliance to Restore the Kankakee River. Throughout his life, Gordon Graves served on many Illinois State Conservation Advisory Boards and Commissions. The highest honor Gordon Graves received was the Pride of America Award, presented to him by President Ronald Reagan. Gordon Graves is survived by his wife, Marion Graves. As one newspaper article pointed out, Gordon Graves has passed on a legacy of spirit, of vision and of organization that will see his work continue. Gordon Graves' commitment and impact on his community is not only deserving of congressional recognition, but should serve as a model for others to follow. At a time when our nation's leaders are asking the people of this country to make serving their community a core value of citizenship, honoring Gordon Graves is very appropriate. I urge this body to identify and recognize others in their congressional districts whose actions have so greatly benefited and enlightened America's communities.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with tomorrow.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing a very diverse district in Illinois. I represent the south side of Chicago, the south suburbs in Cook and Will Counties, a lot of bedroom communities like the town of Morris where I live, towns like Peru, and a lot of farm towns. When representing a diverse district, of course one wants to listen and find out what is a common message, and I find, as I listen and learn, the concerns of the people of this very diverse district. They tell me one very clear message, and that is the people of our part of Illinois want solutions, solutions to the challenges that we face. In fact, in 1994 when we were elected they sent us here with a very clear message that was part of that effort to find solutions, and that is we want to change how Washington works and make Washington responsive to the folks back home. When we were elected in 1994, we wanted to bring solutions to balance the budget, to cut taxes, to reform welfare, to tame the IRS. There were an awful lot of folks in Washington who said we could not do any of those things because they had always failed in the past. But I am proud to say that we did. I am pretty proud of our accomplishments: balancing the budget for the first time in 28 years, cutting taxes for the first time in 16 years, reforming welfare for the first time in a generation, taming the IRS for the first time ever. We produced a balanced budget that is now projecting a $2.3 trillion; that is ``T'' as in Tom trillion dollars surplus of extra tax revenue. We produced a $500 per child tax credit that will now benefit three million Illinois children. We produced welfare reform that has now lowered rolls in Illinois by 25 percent, and taxpayers now enjoy the same rights with the IRS that they do in the courtroom, and that is a taxpayer is innocent until proven guilty. Mr. Speaker, those are real accomplishments, but we continue to face challenges in this Congress, and because this Congress held the President's feet to the fire, we balanced the budget, and now we are collecting more in taxes than we are spending. And the question is today: What do we do with that extra tax money? What do we do with that $2.3 trillion surplus of extra tax revenue? I believe it's pretty clear what the first priority is, and I think we all agree. We want to save Social Security. We want to save Social Security first, and I want to point out that last fall this House of Representatives passed the 90-10 plan which would have set aside 90 percent of the budget surplus, the extra tax revenue to save Social Security. Two weeks ago in this very room the President said we now only need 62 percent. Well, we agree. We want to make the first priority, and we certainly agree that at least 62 percent of the surplus tax revenue should be reserved for saving Social Security. The question is: What do we do with the rest? Some say, particularly Bill Clinton, we should save Social Security and spend the rest on new big government programs. Now I disagree. I believe we should save Social Security and give the rest back in tax relief. The question is, it is simple: Whose money is it in the first place? If my colleagues go to a restaurant and they pay too much, they overpay their bill, the restaurant refunds their money. They do not keep it and spend it on something else. Well, clearly in this case the government is collecting too much. Well, let us give it back. The question is: Do we want to save Social Security and create new government programs and spend the rest of the surplus, or do we want to give it back by saving Social Security and eliminating the marriage tax penalty and rewarding retirement savings? Tax Foundation says today that the tax burden is pretty high. In fact, for the average family in Illinois, 40 percent of the average family's income in Illinois now goes to Washington and Springfield and local taxing bodies at every level. In fact, since Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, the total amount of tax revenue collected has gone up 63 percent since 1992. Clearly taxes are too high. We can help working taxpayers we can help working taxpayers, we can help working families. Let us save Social Security and cut taxes. Let us save Social Security and eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us save Social Security and reward savings for retirement. Some say we cannot, but I believe we can. Just as we balanced the budget for the first time in 28 years, it is because we also cut taxes for the first time in 16 years, reformed welfare for the first time in a generation and tamed the IRS for the first time ever. We can also save Social Security, and lower taxes for working families and bring that tax burden down for the first time in a long time. Mr. Speaker, let us save Social Security, let us cut taxes, let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, I have the privilege of representing one of the most diverse districts in America. I represent the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs in Cook and Will Counties, industrial communities like Joliet, bedroom communities like Morris and New Lennox, farm towns like Tonica and Mazon. I hear one common message as I travel throughout this very diverse district and listen to the concerns of the people I have the privilege of representing. That message is fairly simple. That is, the American people want us to work together, they want us to come up with solutions to the challenges that we face. When I was elected in 1994, I was elected with that message of finding solutions and finding ways to change how Washington works, to make Washington more responsive to the folks back home. We were elected, of course, to bring those solutions to the challenges of balancing the budget, and raising take-home pay by lowering taxes, and reforming welfare and taming the IRS. But there were a lot of folks here in Washington who said, you know, those are challenges that you will never solve, that you will never be able to do that, and they said it just could not be done. And I am proud to say tonight that we did. We did do what we were told we could not do. I am proud that our accomplishments include the first balanced budget in 28 years, the first middle class tax cut in 16 years, the first real welfare reform in a generation and the first ever reform of the IRS. Our efforts produced a balanced budget that has now generated a projected surplus of extra tax revenue of $2.3 trillion over the next 10 years. We now have a $500 per child tax credit that is going to benefit 3 million children in my State of Illinois. Welfare reform that has succeeded in reducing welfare rolls by 25 percent, and taxpayers now enjoy the same rights with the IRS that they have in a courtroom. For the first time taxpayers are innocent until proven guilty. Madam Speaker, these are real accomplishments of this Congress, and I am proud to have been part of those accomplishments, but we also have greater challenges ahead of us. Because this Congress held the President's feet to the fire, we balanced the budget, and now we are collecting more in taxes than we are spending, something new here in Washington, and the question before this House and this Congress in Washington is: What do we do with that extra tax revenue, $2.3 trillion, an extra tax revenue? We are collecting more than we are spending. I think it is pretty clear. There was an agreement, a bipartisan agreement, that the first priority for this extra tax revenue is to save Social Security, to make sure that we keep Social Security on sound footing for our seniors and future generations, and I do want to note that last fall the Republican House passed and sent to the Senate legislation that would earmark 90 percent of the surplus of extra tax revenue for saving Social Security. Now this year President Clinton says he only needs 62 percent; we can save Social Security with 62 percent. Well, we agreed that at a minimum we should set-aside 62 percent of surplus tax revenues for saving Social Security. Of course the question is: What do we do with the rest? Bill Clinton says that we should save Social Security and then spend the rest, the remaining 38 percent of surplus tax revenues, on new government programs, on big government. I disagree and say that we should save Social Security and we should raise take-home pay by lowering taxes. The question is pretty simple before this House: Whose money is it to start with? You know, if you think about it, if you go to a restaurant, and you buy a meal, and you find that you overpay, the restaurant will usually say, wait a second, you have given us too much, you should take this back. You have paid too much, and that extra money they should get back to you. Well, it is clear today that this government is collecting too much, and it is time to give that too much back in a tax cut. There is a pretty simple question again. It is do we want to save Social Security and spend the rest of the surplus tax revenue, or do we save Social Security and give it back for working families, give it back by eliminating the marriage tax penalty and rewarding retirement savings? You know the Tax Foundation tells us that today's tax burden is too high. The average family in Illinois sends 40 percent of its annual income, its earnings, its salary, to government at local, State and Federal levels. Forty percent of your income goes to government at one level or another. And I also want to note that the IRS tells us that since Bill Clinton was elected President in 1992, taxes collected by the Federal Government from individuals and from families have gone up 63 percent. The tax burden on America's families is the highest ever. My colleagues, we can save Social Security, we can eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us save Social Security, and let us lower taxes for working Americans.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here today. As I look back over the last 2 years, I am so proud of the accomplishments of this Congress, proud of what we have achieved in just the last few short years, accomplishments that include balancing the budget for the first time in 28 years, cutting taxes for the middle class for the first time in 16 years, saving medicare and giving medicare another 10 years of a strong, good life; and also reforming welfare by emphasizing work and family and responsibility for the first time in over a generation. Now, this House of Representatives, even though we have accomplished quite a bit, accomplishments we are proud of, balancing the budget, cutting taxes for the middle class, reforming welfare and saving medicare, we face some big challenges ahead. Our tax burden is still too high. In fact, for the average American family the tax burden today totals almost 40 percent, if we add State and local as well as Federal taxes. We need to make sure that taxes are lower for working middle class families. We need to help our local schools and ensure that the dollars that we provided, because we have increased funding by 10 percent this last year at the Federal level for our local schools, we need to ensure those dollars actually reach the classroom. We need to increase and strengthen our Nation's defense. I think it is just wrong that 11,000 American military men and women today subsist on food stamps in order to make ends meet. That is just wrong. We need to make up and fix that and strengthen our national defense. We also need to save social security, an issue that is so important not just for today's seniors but for every working American. Tonight we are going to hear the President's State of the Union speech. It is important we be here to hear what the President has to say, and I hope tonight we hear from the President that he has a specific plan, a specific proposal to save social security. For the last year and a half now, the President has talked about saving Social Security but he has yet to give us a plan, a proposal, specifics that we can work with him on to accomplish that goal. I hope tonight to hear some specifics. As a member of the Subcommittee on Social Security, I am anxious to learn the President's proposal, and I am wondering whether his solution will raise taxes on working Americans. Will it cut benefits for seniors? Will he give opportunity for working Americans, or will he just redistribute wealth? Those are important questions, and we are looking forward to hearing the President's proposal. I also hope to hear the President address an important issue, a fundamental question of tax fairness. I have often asked in this well here this question: Is it right, is it fair that 21 million married working couples pay on average $1,400 more in taxes today just because they are married, $1,400 more than an identical working couple living together outside of marriage? I think that is wrong, and I know the folks back in Chicago and the south suburbs that I have the privilege of representing also believe that the marriage tax penalty is wrong and unfair and we believe it should be eliminated. In the Chicago south suburbs, in a town like Joliet and the district that I have the privilege of representing, $1,400 is one year's tuition at our local community college, Joliet Junior College. It is 3 months of day-care at a local day-care center. It is just wrong that our tax code punishes marriage. We should make elimination of the marriage tax penalty a bipartisan priority. This past year the House of Representatives passed and sent to the Senate legislation that helped the process of saving social security and legislation that specifically eliminated the marriage tax penalty for a majority of those that suffer it. In fact, our legislation that we passed out of the House of Representatives last fall reserved $1.4 trillion of the budget surplus, extra tax revenue that we are now collecting more than we are spending, but set aside $1.4 trillion to save social security, and the rest we use to help working families by lowering their taxes, including eliminating the marriage tax penalty for the majority of those who suffer it. My hope is that the President tonight will outline a plan which does save social security. It is my hope that the President will also come forward and embrace a bipartisan effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We can get the job done, just as we have in the past. Over the last 2 years, we have 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 extended the life of medicare by working together. It is my hope that by working together under the leadership of our new Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), that we can save Social Security, that we can eliminate the marriage tax penalty, that we can strengthen our Nation's defenses and ensure that the dollars we provide for our local schools actually reach the classroom.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the well today with the sad news of the passing of Raymond ``Kent'' Richardson, Sr. of Streator, Illinois on December 8, 1998. Born 81 years ago in Tonica, Illinois, Mr. Richardson was a life long resident of the 11th Congressional district and was active in many community activities. Mr. Richardson graduated from Tonica High School in 1934. He worked as a truck driver for Melvin Trucking in Streator, Illinois and was elected as the President for the Teamsters Local #722, where he served in the interest of local workers for 15 years until his retirement. Mr. Speaker, perhaps more importantly, Mr. Richardson served his country with honor in the Pacific Theatre during World War II as a Sergeant with the United States Marine Corps 11th Amphibious Tractor Battalion. Because of his service to his country, Mr. Richardson was a life member of the VFW Post #1492 in Streator. Additionally Mr. Richardson was a member of American Legion Post #217 in Streator, a life member of the Marine Corps League and a 50 year member of the Masonic Lodge #364 in Tonica. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the entire House I offer my heart felt condolences to Kent's wife Marjorie and the entire Richardson family and I wish them the best this holiday season.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of holding Bill Clinton personally accountable for committing perjury before a Federal grand jury. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is now considering Articles of Impeachment against President Bill Clinton. This is clearly one of the toughest and most significant votes of my career in public service and it carries major historical significance for our Nation. I do not take this decision lightly nor do I believe any Member of Congress should rush to judgment. Since the allegations against the President came to light in January of this year, I have reserved judgment until I learned all the facts. This decision, on my part, to reserve judgment on the President's conduct required me to wait until the House Judiciary Committee completed its work. Over the past few months as the allegations against President Clinton became fact, many of my constituents raised real questions that I felt deserved answers. These questions included: why has Congress been forced to review the charges against the President? whether Bill Clinton should be held to the same laws and standards as other Americans? whether Bill Clinton in his responsibility as our Nation's leading role model for America's children should assume personal responsibility for his actions and how should I base my decision? on the opinion polls? or the principle of what's right? Only one person is responsible for the vote we have scheduled this week. It was Bill Clinton's reckless conduct that forced the Nation to confront this issue. Had he come clean with America last January, a majority of Americans easily would have forgiven him for his reckless conduct. Instead, he chose to stonewall and later lied to a federal grand jury. Over the past several weeks, when several Members of Congress have urged him to tell the truth and admit he lied to a federal grand jury, he's declined. Had he come clean in the beginning, we would not be here today. President Clinton and his partisan defenders have suggested that he should be held to a different standard than his fellow Americans. I disagree and note that Congress, in the last ten years, has voted to impeach and remove from office two federal judges who lied to grand juries of their peers. And only a few days ago, several Northwestern University athletes were indicted for lying to a federal grand jury regarding illegal gambling activities. No American should be above the law and that includes the President of the United States. I've also had to respond to parents asking my advice on how best to respond to their children's statements that it is okay to lie if the President says its okay to lie. Personal responsibility is a basic virtue for all Americans and the President must take responsibility. American school children have all learned the story of George Washington stating to his father that he could not tell a lie and admitting to cutting down the cherry tree. Which example will they now remember? Now that the vote is scheduled on Articles of Impeachment against Bill Clinton for lying under oath before a federal grant jury of his peers, obstruction of justice and abuse of office, there are those who suggest I should base my vote, not on my convictions, but on the opinion polls. We must remember that early advocates of abolishing slavery, ensuring civil rights for all Americans and America's entrance into WWII were not pursuing popular ideas. But Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King and Franklin Roosevelt did the right thing and adhered to their basic principles. I will not base my decision regarding this vote on popular opinion polls but on what I believe is right for America. We must do the right thing for America. No one is above the law, and that includes the President of the United States. It is in the best interest of our Nation that the House vote to send to the Senate Articles of Impeachment against the President.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for the time and the opportunity to speak in support of our military men and women. I rise in support of this resolution. I ask for bipartisan support in this House, a statement of support for our military men and women. Not only must we support our military men and women who defend our freedoms but we must also stand in support of the regular folks, the people of Iraq, suffering under the yoke of the dictator Saddam Hussein. Iraq is now governed by a terrorist government driven under the iron hand of dictator Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein continues today to threaten the security of his neighbors with efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. Our military men and women stand ready to defend our freedoms. Today they are in action. Let us speak loudly, let us speak clearly, let us speak with a united voice, with a bipartisan statement of support today. We support our military men and women with this firm statement of support contained in our resolution. Let us keep our defenders of freedoms and their families in our prayers today and tomorrow, and also let us take time to thank those every day who defend our freedoms.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding time to me. First, I want to salute the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules and thank him for his leadership. I realize tonight is his last official vote in the House of Representatives, and I want to thank him for his friendship and wish him well. I rise in support of this rule, and I rise in support of the bill. As I look back over the last 2 years, I look back at a Congress that has accomplished a lot of things. I remember when we were sworn in 2 years ago, there were a lot of the naysayers that said this Congress could not accomplish what we wanted to do. They said we could not balance the budget. They said we could not provide tax relief for middle-class families. They said we could not reform the welfare system. They said we could not restructure and retain the IRS. Well, we did. As I look back over the last 2 years, we did all those things we were told 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. We tamed the tax collector for the first time ever. Tonight we are in the final hours of this session of Congress. Now there is this omnibus bill before us. It is a bipartisan compromise. There are things in it some of us do not like. There are things in it some of us do like. But it is a good bill, in general, and it helps fight against drugs, puts more money into the classroom, helps family farmers with disaster relief, helps small businesses by quicker phase- in of the 100 percent deduction for self-employed for health insurance, provides flood relief to the Chicago south suburbs. Mr. Speaker, there is something very important that is missing. I have often stood in the well of this House and I have often asked a very simple question: Is it right, is it fair that under our tax code a married working couple with two incomes pays more in taxes than an identical couple, identical income living together outside of marriage? It is wrong that our tax code punishes marriage with higher taxes. Earlier this fall, the House of Representatives passed a tax cut providing marriage tax relief for 28 million married working couples; $243 a year they would have received. Unfortunately, they have been left at the altar. Mr. Speaker, let us make elimination of the marriage tax penalty a number one priority of next year's tax provisions.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan effort to help save steel jobs in Illinois and throughout this country. The question is simple. When we are losing jobs, steel jobs, good paying jobs in Illinois, why has there been no action by the Clinton administration? Why does the Clinton administration do nothing while Illinois steel workers lose jobs? We have 6,000 steel workers in Illinois and, frankly, this resolution is a call to arms. It is a call for action. There are over 20 firms producing steel or steel product in the district I have the privilege of representing. It is an issue of jobs for the folks back home. Here is what it means. Birmingham Steel shut down for a week, is now only working four days a week. Belson Steel has cut their payroll by 10 percent. Acme Steel in Chicago has filed bankruptcy. Northwestern Steel and Wire Company has said it may cut up to 450 jobs at Illinois mills. It is time for action, Mr. Speaker. Japanese steel imports have almost doubled, Korean steel imports are up 89 percent, imports in general are up 45 percent. To quote Marc Pozan of Belson Scrap and Steel, ``it is not a flood, it is a deluge.'' We need to put a stop to it. It is time for action. Mr. Speaker, I include the following article for the Record. [From the Kankakee Daily Journal, Oct. 11, 1998] Steel Imports Hit Area Hard (By Roy Bernard) A tidal wave of foreign steel and scrap is swamping the U.S. market, and its impact is being felt by two Bourbonnais businesses. Birmingham Steel was forced to close one week at the beginning of September, idling 285 workers, said plant manager John Ohm. He added that since then, employees have returned to work in the mini-mill, but their schedules have been reduced to 32-hour work weeks. Birmingham Steel's workforce in Joliet also had a one-week stoppage, and now people there are working four days a week instead of five. The company is trying to avoid permanent cutbacks. ``There is a flood of foreign steel into this country,'' Ohm said. ``We've had to cut back both operations, but we're not planning any layoffs.'' Meanwhile, at nearby Belson Scrap and Steel, the company is facing a double whammy. Cheaper foreign scrap is being shipped to the United States and Belson can't compete on price. At the same time, the Belson Steel Center is losing business from companies that are buying cheaper foreign steel. ``Warehouses and manufacturers normally buy their steel from the domestic markets,'' said Marc Pozan, president of Belson Scrap & Steel. The two-way attack has resulted in a 10 percent reduction in the number of Belson's employees, or about 15 workers, he said. Foreign scrap and steel is ``affecting every part of our business,'' Pozan said. ``This glut of foreign steel is causing an oversupply of steel for the consuming industry,'' he added. ``They're cutting back production and using less scrap. There is an oversupply of scrap.'' Because of the dumping of foreign steel, the Belson Steel Center has had to lower its price for its product and that caused a decrease in the company's profits and forced the Belson's to reduce its overhead by laying off workers, said Pozan. The steel is coming from Asia and lately Russia. Many of the Asian and Russian companies are desperate to keep their employees working, so they are selling the steel for even less than what it costs to produce, Pozan said. He is calling for the federal government to step in and issue tariffs on foreign steel. ``I strongly urge that something needs to be done to deal with these foreign practices,'' Pozan said. ``Countries are giving these companies subsidies to sell steel cheaper in our market. ``We need to put tariffs on this foreign steel, to stop this flood of imported steel. It's not a flood, it's a tidal wave,'' Pozan added. For people who make a little extra income collecting steel and aluminum cans, they will find the price soon will be dropping. Belson's is paying 32 cents a pound for aluminum. About three years ago, the price was 45 cents a pound. Pozen said he began noticing signs of the foreign flood about three months ago. Most ports are seeing 50 percent increases in steel imports this year. Ohm said Birmingham Steel saw the first signs of steel dumping in the South in May and June. Since then, the foreign steel has made its way up the Mississippi River and into the Chicago area. Birmingham Steel in Bourbonnais Township continues to buy domestic scrap because it is too expensive to ship the scrap upriver to Chicago. The company's plants in the South have been buying foreign scrap. While that might appear to make the Southern mills more efficient, Ohm noted that the Bourbonnais Township facility underwent extensive modernization, and that makes the cost of reinforcing bar production here to be competitive with the Southern plants. ``That modernization has certainly helped us,'' said Ohm. One of the possible bright spots for Belson and Birmingham Steel is the announcement that the Chapel Steel Co. and the Alabama Metal Industries Corp. are moving to the former CBI building, which is near Belson's and Birmingham Steel. Both new companies are from Birmingham, Ala. ``This is great news for the area,'' said Pozan. ``Hopefully, they will buy some scrap and some steel. We hope the companies will be great trading partners.'' Ohm said Alabama Metal Industries operated a facility in Chicago and is moving to CBI. Alabama Metal ``has been a customer, so I don't see any benefit except that the company will be closer to us.'' Chapel Steel would be a new customer that could bring more business to Birmingham Steel, Ohm said.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe after two long, hard- working years that the 105th Congress is now coming to a close. It is expected we should be rapping up our business probably in the next 24 to 48 hours. I thought I would just take a few minutes and look back over the 105th Congress and talk about, frankly, some of the accomplishments that we have achieved. I represent a very, very diverse district. I represent the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs in Cook and Will Counties, bedroom communities as well as rural and farm towns. I find there is a pretty common message that comes out of these communities. That is, they are tired of partisan politics. They are looking for solutions. They want us to meet the challenges that we are sent to Washington to work on but to come up with solutions and then get those solutions achieved. I was thinking when I was first elected back in 1994, the gentleman who just preceded me in 1994, and we had an agenda. We were told time and time again that we could not achieve it. We were told we could not balance the budget. We were told that we could not cut taxes for the middle class. We were told that we could not reform the failed welfare system. We were told that the IRS was good the way it is, that we could not make changes. But I am proud to say that in the 105th Congress that we have made some real accomplishments, coming up with solutions that work. I am proud to report, at the end of the 105th Congress and the last 2 years, we have 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 our welfare system for the first time in over a generation. Yes, we tamed the tax collector, reforming and restructuring the IRS for the first time ever. Now that we are in the final hours, I thought I would take talk about an additional accomplishment, some important accomplishments that affect folks back home, and that is in the area of education, priorities for our local schools. I am proud that, after 2 years in the 105th Congress, we have some pretty good accomplishments to take home. Thanks to this Congress, we now have the lowest student loan interest rate in 17 years, making college affordable for middle class and working families. We have doubled the Pell grant twice of what it was when we were first elected, now making college more affordable for low-income students unable to qualify for student loans. We have increased funding for Head Start. We have increased funding for special education. Even while balancing the budget, education was a top priority last year, including this year as well; in fact, with last year's balanced budget, the first balanced budget in 28 years. We increase funding by 10 percent, a $5.4 billion funding increase. I am proud of that. Lowest student loan rates in 17 years, doubled Pell Grants, low income students, increasing funds for Head Start and special education, and making education a funding priority. I will say, though, I am disappointed. There are some initiatives that were passed by this House that the President did not support, so they are not going to happen. Education savings accounts to help families better afford additional cost and public education and better afford the opportunity to go to a private parochial school, unfortunately, the President vetoed that effort to help families better afford education for their children. Unfortunately because of the President's opposition and because of opposition from Members of his own party, an effort to give tax deferred status to prepaid college tuition programs unfortunately failed after we passed it out of this House, helping make college more affordable. In an effort to provide for school construction, bonding programs to help school districts in Chicago and the south suburbs and other growing areas add classrooms and fix the roof, unfortunately the legislation, $1 billion initiative which passed this House as part of the 90-10 plan, unfortunately we were not successful because of the President's opposition. But we have had a very important victory for local schools and a very important victory for education in the final days. I am glad to see that this Republican Congress and a Democratic President on the end of Pennsylvania Avenue can work together. The President talked earlier this year about the need to reduce class size, the need to hire additional teachers to accomplish that goal. Many of us in this House, in a bipartisan way, agreed with him. The question was how were we going to achieve that goal. Are we going to have this type of program micromanaged from a bureaucracy here in Washington, or are we going to give the resources to local school districts and local school boards and local school administrators and give them the flexibility how best to decide that type of priority. I am proud to say that we have reached an agreement. It is my understanding the President and the Republican majority have reached an agreement to provide $1.1 billion in funds to help schools, and decision making will be in the local districts how best to use those dollars. That is a big victory for education, a big victory for local education, local schools.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I look back over the last 2 years, and I am pretty proud of the record of accomplishment for this Congress, a record of accomplishment where we accomplished a lot of things that people said we could not do. I remember when I was elected to Congress as part of that class in 1994 who came to Washington to change how Washington works, to do things that Washington had failed to do for over a generation, things that families back home do every day, like balancing the budget and working to raise take-home pay and working to lower the tax burden on the middle-class and working to change a failed welfare system. On every one of these initiatives, we were told by certain newspapers in the East and by my friends on the other side of the aisle that we could not do that. We could not balance the budget; that we could not cut taxes for the middle class; that we could not reform our welfare system; that we could not help our schools; that we could not change the tax collector and reform and restructure the IRS. As I look back now over the last 2 years, I am pretty proud of what we accomplished, because we did all of those things they said we would not be able to do. We balanced the budget for the first time in 28 years this past year. And the budget is so well balanced now, we are now projected to have over $1.6 trillion in extra tax revenue over the next 10 years. We cut taxes for the middle-class for the first time in 16 years, and for a traditional family of mom and dad and two kids on the south side of Chicago in the south suburbs, those middle-class tax cuts can mean an extra $10,000 in higher take-home pay over the next few years. Those are big victories for the middle-class: Balancing the balance and cutting taxes. And we also reformed the welfare system for the first time in a generation, taking an outdated, outmoded welfare system that placed more children in poverty than ever before in history. It was time to make a change, and I am proud that the first real welfare reform in a generation has reduced our Nation's welfare rolls by 20 percent. People often say, that is pretty good. That is a pretty good record of accomplishment for the Congress in the last 2 years, balancing the budget for the first time in 28 years, cutting middle class taxes for the first time in 16 years, reforming welfare for the first time in a generation. What is next? What is Congress going to do in 1998? I am proud to say we have also made a lot of progress in 1998. We restructured and tamed the tax collector, shifting the burden of proof from the backs of the taxpayer onto the IRS, giving you the same rights with the IRS that you have in the courtroom. We passed legislation just yesterday and sent it to the President to protect kids from those who would prey on them via the Internet. I am also proud to say that we continue to make education a priority. In fact, that balanced budget that we produced last year, the first balanced budget in 28 years, made education a priority. In fact, education was one of the big winners in the first balanced budget in 28 years. We increased funding for education by 10 percent, a $5.4 billion funding increase. Now, thanks to this Republican majority in the Congress, we have the lowest student loan interest rates in 17 years. We have doubled Pell grants to twice what they were when I was elected, to help more low income students go on to college. We have made mandates where we have told our local schools we want you to do something. We have actually provided the funding, increased funding for special education, for example, by $500 million. Those are big victories for education. I am proud of what we have been able to do in the last two and last four years in this Congress. I, too, have visited a lot of schools in the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs. I speak often and listen to the concerns of local teachers and local school administrators and local school board members and local parents. They say in Illinois only 4 to 6 percent of the money for Illinois schools comes from the Federal Government. So does two-thirds of the paperwork. That is a pretty expensive gift. We will give you a little bit of money but we are going to bury you in paperwork. And they also point out that even though we increased funding last year by 10 percent, a $5.4 billion funding increase for education, only 70 cents on the dollar actually reaches the classroom. They point out, these local school administrators and school board members and local teachers, they say that 30 cents on the dollar, what we appropriate here in Washington, stays in Washington, feeding the bureaucracy. They have begged and they have asked and they say, if you are going to send more money from Washington, please help make sure it reaches the classroom, please help make sure that it is not lost in the bureaucracy and that we can reduce those costs. Mr. Speaker, we passed legislation out of this House putting more dollars in the classroom. That means $43 million more a year for Illinois schools. I ask for that type of bipartisan effort.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership on this issue. This is an issue that impacts not just the State of Ohio but the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs of northwestern Indiana which historically has always been a major steel producing area. It is unfortunate that because of the inaction of the Clinton administration, Acme Steel has declared bankruptcy. Birmingham in my district is shortening their work hours. Belson Scrap and Steel has reduced their payroll by 10 percent. All because we have seen a doubling of Japanese steel imports in the United States, and just in the last year almost a doubling of Korean steel imports in this country. Steelworkers are losing their jobs. And while steelworkers lose their jobs, the Clinton administration is doing nothing. I believe it is time for action. I think it is time that this Congress make it very clear that we expect the President and the Clinton administration to take leadership to help steelworkers. Otherwise we are going to see more steelworkers lose their jobs because of inaction by the Clinton administration.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it is time for action. Frankly, it is time that we give a wakeup call to the White House. While steelworkers in Illinois and across this country are losing their jobs, the Clinton administration does nothing. Tonight, the President is in New York spending an evening with the ``limousine liberals,'' and nothing is being done about steel jobs in Illinois. We are losing jobs in Illinois because the Clinton administration is doing nothing. This Congress needs to speak and call for action, because Illinois workers are losing their jobs while Bill Clinton is in New York. Asian countries, the countries of Asia and Russia are dumping steel in Illinois and it is costing Illinois workers their jobs. Steel imports from Japan have doubled, while Bill Clinton sleeps. Steel imports from Korea have gone up 89 percent, while the Clinton administration does nothing. We need action Mr. Speaker. That is why this resolution and that is why this Congress should speak in a bipartisan, unanimous vote telling the Clinton administration get off of its duff and do something and go to work to protect Illinois steel jobs. There are 20 firms in the south suburbs of the south side of Chicago that I have the privilege of representing. Every one of them are hurting. As the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) pointed out, Acme Steel filed for bankruptcy. Birmingham Steel, which has 400 jobs in Bourbonnais, has now reduced its hours down to where they are only working 4 days a week in order to avoid layoffs. In September, they shut down for a full week, idling 280 workers. Belson Scrap and Steel, 110 employees. They have had to reduce their payroll by 10 percent. Because the Clinton administration is doing nothing, workers are hurting. We need action. Let us give a bipartisan vote to this resolution and demand action out of Clinton administration. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 350 which calls on the President to enforce existing trade laws to respond to the overwhelming increase in foreign steel imports resulting from the Asian financial crisis. Mr. Speaker passage of H. Con. Res. 350 is of the utmost importance to the future of the American steel industry and to thousands of steelworkers around the country, many of which I represent in the 11th Congressional District in Chicago's south suburbs. The economic problems in Russia, Asia and Latin America have lead to large scale dumping of foreign steel on the U.S. market with most of this steel being sold at below the price of production in their home markets. As you know Mr. Speaker, this is an unfair and illegal trade practice under both international and U.S. trade policies, and the dumping of foreign steel threatens many good paying American jobs. This past spring, I along with 64 other members of this House signed a letter to the President asking him to enforce existing U.S. laws against these unfairly traded steel imports. Unfortunately Mr. Speaker, the Administration has failed to act on behalf of the steel industry and American workers. In fact, the problem has only grown worse since this spring, Steel imports for this past July were up almost 45% over July 1997. Imports from Japan and South Korea are up over 113% and 89% respectively. The impact of this dumped steel has already resulted in layoffs and reduced orders in factories around the country. U.S. Steel has laid off over 100 workers in Pittsburgh and is planning to lay off more workers as orders continue to slow. Geneva Steel has had to let go of over 500 employees, and Northwestern Steel and Wire Company in my state of Illinois has said that it might have to let go as many as 450 workers because of these unfair trade practices. Even Acme Steel Company in Chicago has been forced to file for bankruptcy protection putting even more jobs in question. I have over 20 firms in my district that produce steel or steel products. Some of these firms are large corporations like Birmingham Steel whose mill in Joliet, Illinois employs almost 400 people, while others are small family owned businesses like Belson Scrap and Steel in Bourbonnais, Illinois with 110 employees. Without immediate action to stem the tide of this unfairly dumped steel, I fear that these steel producers and their workers will face severe harm. Mr. Speaker, both the steel industry and the steelworkers union have filed suit to stop these unfair practices, but, without swift action by the Administration to stop this unchecked flow of dumped steel, it may be too late for many of our steel companies and steel workers to wait for the courts resolution. 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 and highest quality steel on the planet. If we fail to ensure that American steel plays on a level playing field with the rest of the world, then we place American steel companies and American workers including the 400 at Birmingham Steel and the 110 at Belson in my district in great harm. It's time to send a message to the Administration, foreign governments, and American workers, that this Congress will not stand idle when American jobs are at stake. I ask for your support for this industry and this important legislation.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I look back over the last 2 years, and I have listened to a lot of rhetoric on the left side. And coming from the left there are a lot of those who have said, they just cannot do it. Two years ago, they said, Republicans cannot balance the budget. They said, the Republicans cannot balance the budget and cut taxes for the middle class. They said, the Republicans cannot reform the welfare system. They said, the Republicans cannot fix the IRS; and they said, the Republicans cannot balance the budget and help schools at the same time. Well, we did. In the last 2 years, this Republican Congress has had great accomplishments: balancing the budget for the first time in 28 years, cutting taxes for the middle class for the first time in 16 years, reforming welfare for the first time in a generation, taming the tax collector for the first time ever; and when we balanced the budget, we increased funding for education by 10 percent. Today, we have the lowest student loan interest rate in 17 years. We doubled Pell Grants for low-income students who qualified, twice what they gave. We increased funding for Head Start, for Special Ed. We can save Social Security, and we can help our schools.