Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Arkansas for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here in support of what is very, very important legislation, legislation that is intended to protect children from those who would prey on them using the latest technology. The Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act is important legislation that has earned bipartisan support, deserves bipartisan support, and I hope will be signed into law by the President soon. I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman McCollum), who is, unfortunately, not with us here today, for his leadership and help on this legislation, as well as Members of the committee for their bipartisan efforts in getting this important legislation through the House, through the Senate and now ready to send to the President. I would like to speak briefly on a provision I sought to have included in this legislation as a response to an unfortunate incident that occurred in the 11th Congressional District of Illinois in the south suburbs. In the summer of 1977, the Boehle family in Joliet, Illinois, began receiving telephone calls at all hours of the day and night, strange men asking for their nine year old daughter by name. Now, imagine that. Imagine if you are a parent with a little girl under the age of 10, and at all hours of the day and night strange men are calling asking specifically for your little girl, your daughter, by name. As a result of that, the family looked into why they were trying to get phone calls, and they discovered that somebody had posted messages on the Internet posing as their nine year old little girl. The messages implied that she was having sex with her father, that she wanted to have sex with other grown men, and that she had photos for sale. These messages were posted on message boards targeted to pedophiles, and they included her full name, home phone number and her hometown. As a result of these messages, they began receiving these disturbing telephone calls for their nine year old little girl at all hours of the day and night. When Mrs. Boehle read with horror the messages that were posted about her daughter, she called the police, and they told her that nothing could be done, that there was no law against this type of action. She contacted the FBI, and they worked for three weeks to try and find a statute, a law, they could use to prosecute the perpetrator, and they came up empty. The police advised the Boehle family to move, which they did. While they knew that nothing could be done legally, they knew that any pedophile that read these messages could find their home and find their daughter. Due to this grave danger, they sold their home, uprooted their lives, left their church and schools and moved out of their community. At this time Mrs. Boehle contacted me seeking help. As a result of working in response to Mrs. Boehle's leadership and with the help of local, state and Federal law enforcement, I introduced H.R. 2815, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman McCollum) for including this important piece of legislation as an amendment to H.R. 3494. This provision will make it illegal to use the Internet to transmit the name, telephone number or other identifying information of a child. Mr. Speaker, we need to do everything we can to ensure that the wierdos, the whackos, the slimeballs, those who would use the latest technology to prey on children and their families, are stopped. I applaud the work of the Committee on the Judiciary and applaud the work of the House and ask unanimous support for this legislation. [From the Herald News, Apr. 19, 1998] Free Speech, Child Safety at Odds (By Dori Meinert) Washington.--You say your 10-year-old daughter needs to do a little research for a school paper on the government? If she logs on to an innocuous looking address that includes the word ``whitehouse,'' you'll both be in for a surprise. Instead of information about the president, she'll see a scantily clad woman lying on an American flag. The Web site boasts that it's ``one of the most controversial and erotic Web sites in the world.'' Such sites are noted by some in Congress to argue in support of federal regulation of the Internet, which some 62 million Americans now are using. How can society protect both free speech and children in cyberspace? That's the problem that faces members of Congress this spring as they sort through several bills introduced since the Supreme Court last year overturned the Communications Decency Act, which would have banned the dissemination to minors any material that is ``indecent'' or ``patently offensive.'' Given the huge constitutional issues involved and the shortened congressional work schedule this year, it's unclear whether any of these bills will be enacted before Congress adjourns this fall. However, if any of the more than 50 Internet-related bills stand a chance of passage in this election year, it would be those that aim to protect children, observers say. congress in quandary ``Congress is in a quandary,'' said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Media Education, which advocates Internet regulation to protect children. The various bills set different age limits for ``minors,'' ranging from age 16 to 18. ``Clearly, we need to put some laws in place to protect some children and youth who are online. The goal is to strike a balance that nurtures the First Amendment potential of the Internet, but at the same time safeguards our privacy,'' Chester said. On Thursday, the House crime subcommittee is scheduled to hold a hearing on proposals for protecting kids from cyber- predators. Among those expected to testify are Deborah Boehle of Kane County, whose family has filed a $3 million civil suit against a former neighbor in Joliet for allegedly posting their 9-year-old daughter's name and phone number on 14 Internet newsgroups with messages indicating she was available for sex. The family says it was forced to move from their Joliet home out of fear that a pedophile would show up on their doorstep. Rep. Jerry Weller, R-Morris, and Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun, D-Ill., have proposed legislation attempting to punish those who solicit children for criminal acts over the Internet. Moseley-Braun, who is expected to introduce her bill next week, has been working with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to craft a narrowly tailored version that could survive a court challenge. predators loom A growing concern for law-enforcement agencies are predators who lure children into on-line ``chat rooms'' and eventually to real-life meetings. Rep. Bill McCollum, R-Fla., who chairs the House crime subcommittee, has proposed legislation that would prohibit contacting a minor over the Internet for the purposes of engaging in illegal sexual activity and knowningly transferring obscene materials to a minor over the Internet. Next month, the Senate may hold a ``high-tech'' week devoted to several Internet-related bills, including those aimed at protecting children. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., has been discussing that possibility with Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., McCain's aide said. One proposal likely to come up for a floor vote that week is McCain's bill that would require public schools and libraries to use special ``filtering'' technology to keep children from gaining access to pornographic materials on the Internet. The Commerce Committee approved the bill last month. The Senate also may take up a bill introduced by Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., that would ban commercial distribution over the Web of materials considered ``harmful to minors.'' Coat's bill presents the same constitutional problems as its predecessor, the Communications Decency Act, which was overturned by the Supreme Court last June, said ACLU Washington staff counsel Cassidy Sehgal. Yet, ``Everyone says that if they vote against an anti- pornography bill in an election year, it would be politically devastating,'' Sehgal said. The nation's high court said the Communications Decency Act, which was aimed at protecting children, was so broad that it would have restricted adult conversations. The justices ruled that the Internet is entitled to the broadest free-speech protections. filtering technology McCain's bill requiring special technology to filter out pornography at schools and libraries would place an added financial burden on poorer communities, which then may not be able to afford Internet access, Sehgal said. The ACLU argues that such filtering software--which could cost an initial $8,000 and $3,000 a year to be maintained--is tantamount to ``removing books from the shelves'' of the Internet that have value to adults and children alike. The ACLU has had some initial victories in the filtering battle in the lower courts. The Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center tested some filtering software and found it blocked access to almost 90 percent of Internet sites that mentioned common phrases such as ``American Red Cross,'' ``Bill of Rights,'' and ``Smithsonian Institution.'' The Clinton administration and many in Congress are reluctant to restrict the burgeoning information technology industry, preferring instead to encourage voluntary self- monitoring. ``The Internet is Aladdin's lamp,'' Chester said. ``Rub it the right way and it will transform the American economy and the political system and enrich us all. On the other hand, that genie out of the bottle is likely to be an insidious monster robbing us of privacy.''

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I have often listened to the debate in these Chambers. Sometimes I feel like I am in a schoolyard where we have fourth-graders taunting each other back and forth, saying my program is better than yours, and you are a bad guy because you are not saying my program is a good program. We just have to remember that today is an election year, and we are just 3\1/2\ weeks away from that date. I also noted that one of my colleagues tried to elevate the debate by quoting the Washington Post. Once I did that. I was back home in a town meeting back in my district. I quoted the Washington Post, and I kind of realize at times when I read the Washington Post that they don't like anybody. Two weeks ago they were calling on the President to resign. Now they are saying Congress is bad. Whether or not Members want to quote the Washington Post, folks in Hegewish and south Chicago, they don't care what the Washington Post says. They are looking for a solution. One thing I found from town meetings, meetings at the union hall, the VFW, the grain elevator, or a suburban women's club meeting, they are saying that they are tired of partisan politics. They are looking for solutions. That is why they are pretty proud of what this Congress has done in the last few short years. If we think about it, think of all the things we were told that we could not do. I am one of those who was elected in 1994, this new Republican majority for the first time in 40 years. I was told by the Washington Post and the New York Times and all the other liberals in the world that we cannot balance the budget, but we did it. They told us that we could not cut taxes, but we did it. They told us we could never reform welfare, but we did it. They told us we could not restructure the IRS, but we did it. If we think about it, this Congress in the last 2 years has done some big things that we were told we could not do by many of those on the other side of the aisle. 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 our welfare system, helping kids and families for the first time in a generation, and we restructured the IRS, taming the tax collector for the first time ever. Those are pretty big accomplishments, something I am really proud of, because it took a Republican Congress to do that, and I am pleased that a Democrat President joined with us in a bipartisan effort to bring those four accomplishments and those four solutions home. We are often asked, what is our next challenge? What more can we do to change how Washington works and to make Washington more accountable to the folks back home? Clearly, education is a priority for all of us. When I am back home and I am walking through, whether it is Lincoln Way High School, which is one of the best in the Nation, in New Lenox, or in the south side of Chicago, in the Chicago public schools, or LaSalle Peru in the Illinois Valley, and I talk to local school board Members, administrators, teachers, and parents, they say, Congressman, about 4 to 6 cents of every dollar we spend on our public schools comes from Washington, but we also want you to know that with that 4 to 6 percent of the funding we spend on our local public school comes two- thirds of the paperwork we have to fill out. If we look at how those dollars actually get spent when we appropriate them in Washington, only about 70 cents on the dollar actually reaches the classroom. Thirty cents on the dollar gets spent on bureaucratic overhead before it gets back to Illinois schools. Something is wrong. We need to do a better job. Over the last few years we have made a difference, trying to change how Washington works to make sure when we appropriate funding that it counts, and education was a big winner last year when we balanced the budget. Not only did we make education a priority, but we increased funding for education in our budget by 10 percent, a $5.4 billion funding increase over the previous year, even while balancing the budget. Unfortunately, 30 cents on the dollar stays here in Washington. One clear message from the folks back home is we need to leave less money in Washington and get more money back to the classroom. That is why I am proud that we passed earlier this year legislation that will put more dollars into the classroom by streamlining the process, not saying 70 cents on the dollar, but actually 95 cents on the dollar reaching the classroom. I am proud that this Republican Congress has given us the lowest student loan rates in 17 years, and that we have doubled Pell grants to twice what they were when I was sworn in 4 years ago to help low-income students better afford college with an outright grant. This year while the President ignored special ed, we provided $500 million more for special education in our local public schools. Last year, while we were working to balance the budget, we created the first ever school construction bond program, providing almost $1 billion in helping build new classrooms for our schools. We increased funding for Head Start low-income kids in my district. Mr. Speaker, education is a priority. We have given it a 21-gun salute. This House has passed 21 initiatives to help education in just the last 2 years. Education is a priority.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as I look back over the last 2 years, one thing is very clear. The Republican majority in the House and Senate has given a 21-gun salute to education, passing 21 initiatives to give greater local control to local education and put dollars in the classroom. While the Democrats want to put more money in Washington bureaucracy, we want the dollars to the classroom. In fact, 30 cents on the dollars today that we appropriate here in Washington stay in Washington on government bureaucracy. Thanks to this Republican Congress we now have the lowest loan rates for student loans in 17 years. We have been doubled that the last 3 years the amount of Pell grant, grant money to help low-income students go on to college, and we provided $500 million more this year for special education. Earlier this year, just 2 weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed an effort to save Social Security and to help education. Found it very interesting that the President called our efforts to make prepaid college tuition programs tax exempt, to help with school construction costs, the President calls that squandering that extra tax revenue and squandering the surplus. It is interesting our effort to help schools with the tax cut plan would have cost $7 billion in surplus. Our President wants to spend twice as much, $14 billion, on defense spending, the State Department and a computer fix for government bureaucrats.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering H. Res. 592, the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act. This legislation changes the procedure for the naming of national cemeteries. Earlier this year, I was dismayed to learn that one of my colleagues from Illinois had inserted a provision into another bill, H.R. 3603, which would have created new naming procedure and make it retroactive to January 1, 1998. Had this provision been signed into law, it would have essentially erased the decision of Secretary Togo West to name the new cemetery near Joliet the ``Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery.'' This bill today contains a similar provision--fortunately it is not retroactive and will not affect the name of the Abraham Lincoln Cemetery. I believe it is only appropriate that the founder of our national veterans cemetery system, Abraham Lincoln, is honored in the Land of Lincoln, by naming this cemetery for him. This name has been endorsed by the Illinois American Legion, the Illinois Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Illinois American Ex-Prisoners of War, the Illinois Disabled American Veterans and the Illinois Amvets. I am pleased at all of the support for naming this cemetery after one of our greatest Presidents. For the Record, I am attaching copies of their endorsement letters, along with an editorial by the Chicago Tribune, and other pertinent information. I will continue to work for the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery and the veterans who sacrificed for our nation. Department of Illinois, Disabled American Veterans, Oak Park, IL, October 28, 1997. Hon. Jerry Weller, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Weller: The Department of Illinois, Disabled American Veterans, strongly supports the introduction of legislation naming the new Veterans Cemetery at the former Joliet Arsenal the ``Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery.'' Mr. Lincoln, as we all know, was instrumental in establishing the first National Cemetery and it is only befitting that he receives the honor of having a National Cemetery named after him. We certainly appreciate your introducing this most important legislation in the House of Representatives because now the veterans and their families in this Midwest region will have a place to rest which they truly deserve and are entitled to. Sincerely, George M. Isdale, Jr., Department Adjutant. Ted Buck, Department Commander.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to a matter 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. Mr. Speaker, the American steel market is in the midst of a crisis due to a unprecedented flow of below market value foreign steel. The economic problems in Russia, Asia and Latin America have led 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 the 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 cooperations like Birmingham Steel whose mill in Joliet, Illinois employs almost 400 people, while others are small family owned businesses like Bellson Scrap and Steel in Bourbonnais. 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, than we place American steel companies and American workers including the 400 at Birmingham Steel in great harm. [From the Chicago Tribune, Oct. 1, 1998] Steel Firms File Trade Complaint--Targets: Brazil, Japan, Russia (By Michael Arndt) Battered by imported steel arriving by the shipload, a coalition of domestic steel companies Wednesday asked the government to slap hefty duties on steel sheet--one of the industry's most widely used products--from Brazil, Japan and Russia. The coalition also warned it would file unfair trade complaints against other steel goods from the same three teetering nations and others, including possibly South Korea, in what is shaping up to be the biggest counteroffensive against imports of any kind in at least a decade. Before it's over, the Clinton administration may intervene and negotiate trade pacts that would give these nations a limited slice of the U.S. market, avoiding a cutoff that could hurt foreign governments important to U.S. interests. The complaint, filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission and the Commerce Department, followed a record surge in low-priced imports that have smashed through mill towns this summer and fall like a Category 5 hurricane. Already, Acme Metals Inc. of south suburban Riverdale has sought bankruptcy protection while J&L Specialty Steel Inc. has shelved plans for a new mill because prices and orders are skidding. Others have idled production lines, trimmed work-weeks and furloughed or fired hundreds of employees. And layoffs, limited thus far by terms of the United Steelworkers of America's master labor contract, could balloon to the thousands by year's end if the flow of imports is not quickly dammed. ``We are in an absolute crisis,'' Paul Wilhelm, chief executive of USX Corp.'s U.S. Steel Group, said in a teleconference. ``In my 35 years in the business, I have never seen the unprecedented levels of imports or the cutthroat prices coming into this country.'' To people who have peripherally followed the steel industry, Wilhelm and the other CEOs in the Stand Up for Steel coalition sound like men crying wolf. Since 1980, when the nation's current trade laws went into effect, steelmakers have filed more complaints than every other industry combined. But the increase in imports and tandem decline in spot- market prices triggered by Asia's economic collapse have been extraordinarily steep, suggesting that the steel industry-- still a bedrock even in an Information Age economy--is truly in as much trouble as these men claim. Indeed, only hours after the coalition announced its trade complaint in a Washington news conference, analyst Michelle Applebaum of Salomon Smith Barney urged investors to sell steel stocks, figuring that it may take until late 1999 for the trade complaint to lift overall prices. The industry's latest bugbear is imported hot-rolled steel sheet, a commodity used in a variety of manufactured products, including vehicle parts, appliances and office furniture. In their unfair trade complaint, the coalition notes that imports of this steel from Brazil, Japan and Russia jumped 81 percent in the first seven months of 1998 from the year- earlier period, giving them 27 percent of this market segment, up from 10.9 percent in 1997. Looking over a longer timeframe, the coalition says that hot-rolled steel imports from the three nations are currently running at six times their 1995 annual total. The price of these products is also unfairly low, according to the coalition. Under U.S. trade law, it is illegal to sell imported steel here for lower prices than in the foreign producer's home market or for less than the cost of production--practices known colloquially and legally as dumping. To make these goods fairly priced, the coalition is demanding duties that would boost import prices from Brazil by 31 percent to 91 percent; from Japan by 28 percent to 85 percent; and from Russia by 91 percent to 167 percent. The 12-company coalition--led by U.S. Steel, Bethlehem Steel Corp. and LTV Corp.--also accuses the Brazilian government of subsidizing its steel exports, another violation of U.S. trade law. The trade complaint goes first to the International Trade Commission, which is scheduled to rule preliminary by mid- November whether the imports have injured the domestic industry. If so, the Commerce Department could set tentative duties by late April. Well before then, however, coalition members said they plan to file unfair trade complaints against so-called emerging- market nations in Asia, Latin America and the former Soviet bloc on other widely traded products, such as high quality cold-rolled sheet, heavy-duty plate and multipurpose coils. In the next few months, ``we will be meeting with you many more times'' as more complaints are brought, Curtis Barnette, chairman and chief executive of Bethlehem Steel, promised reporters. The coalition, he added, will go after ``all products and all countries that are trading unfairly. No one is excluded.'' There is almost a sense of tragedy in the steel industry's current troubles. Since 1980, the industry has spent an estimated $50 billion on more-productive equipment and mills to bring itself up to world standards. Some 325,000 jobs were eliminated in the process. But just as the industry seemed finally to have put its house in order, Asia's economies came apart. With few consumers in their home markets, manufacturers in these nations turned toward exports to keep their factories busy and avoid layoffs that could be politically disruptive. Steel executives and workers said they feel cheated. Over the last 12 years, for instance, investors spent $420 million on Geneva Steel Inc., which enabled the Provo, Utah- based company to survive while every other traditional steel mill west of the Mississippi River went under. Now, Geneva Steel has fired 270 employees and put another 335 on temporary layoff because of falling orders. ``Years and years of work will go down the drain very quickly if something does not happen,'' said Robert Grow, its president. Other steelmakers are cutting back as well. Nucor Corp. has slowed production at three mills, including one in Crawfordsville, Ind. U.S. Steel has shut a blast furnace at its Gary Works that accounts for 7.5 percent of its total iron output, and has laid off about 100 workers in Pennsylvania. And Northwestern Steel and Wire Co. of Sterling, Ill., recently said it would fire 450 workers as it exits nearly half its wire-products lines, in part because of heightened competition from low-priced imports. ``This is a not a regional problem,'' said George Becker, president of the United Steelworkers union, which joined in the trade complaint. ``This is happening all over the United States, from Provo to Alabama, in Pennsylvania and south of Chicago.''

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the work and dedication of Mr. Richard Edler, who retired after 35 yeas and 6 months of service from the U.S. Treasury Department--Internal Revenue Service Collection Division on August 28, 1998.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I have an important question to ask this morning. Why does the President want to squander the surplus on new government bureaucratic spending? Why does the President want to squander the surplus on State Department spending and defense spending and, of course, a computer fix for government bureaucracies? This House just a few weeks ago made a commitment to save Social Security and to use the surplus to save Social Security. This House made a commitment to set aside $1.4 trillion, 90 percent of the projected tax revenue surplus, over the next 10 years and use that to save Social Security. The remaining dime on the dollar we would then use to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, help expand, build new classrooms in schools back in Illinois, help family farmers, help family businesses, help those who want to send their kids off to college. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the President says, if we use $7 billion of the tax revenue surplus next year to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, that is squandering. But then he turns right around and says let us use $14 billion, twice as much, for government spending, bureaucratic spending. Mr. Speaker, you cannot have it both ways. Let us save Social Security. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the omnibus parks bill because it is a good environmental bill, and it is good for Illinois. I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for including a provision in this legislation, a bipartisan provision that has been sought by the gentleman from Illinois, (Mr. Lipinski), my friend, and myself which would extend the Commission of the Illinois and Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor for 5 more years. The Illinois and Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor was established by legislation sponsored by my political mentor, former Congressman Tom Corcoran, in 1984 and expires in the coming year. This legislation established the first heritage area in the Nation which was established to protect, interpret and preserve historical and cultural resources and to promote recreational activity. The corridor served as a model for the numerous other heritage areas that have since been created. This particular heritage area stretches from the city of Chicago 100 miles west from the district I represent to LaSalle/Peru. The I&M Canal is home to numerous prairie reserves, hiking trails and parks. Visitors can see a pioneer settlement in Lockport, a nature center in Joliet, the Aux Sable Aqueduct, or a historic courthouse in my hometown of Morris. If that is not enough, one can visit the first site of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates in Ottawa. The I&M Canal tells the story of early canal towns and early American culture. It tells the story of the friendship between the Potawatomi Indians and new settlers. The canal provided farmers access to new markets, and was instrumental in the development of the industrial revolution, and contributed to the development of one of the world's greatest cities, Chicago. This heritage area is so rich with culture, history, and national resources. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this initiative is bipartisan, cosponsored by my friend from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and myself, and would extend the Illinois and Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor Commission for another 5 years. Otherwise, it will expire in this coming year. It is a national treasure. We must extend it. I want to ask my colleagues to join everyone in a bipartisan effort to help Illinois. Again, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his leadership and friendship and also for including something that is important to Illinois in this important legislation.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 575, I announce that the following bills will be considered under suspension of the rules on tomorrow:

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thought I would take a few minutes and talk about an issue that is so important to the folks back home on the south side of Chicago in the south suburbs, that I have the privilege of representing. We have had a big achievement in the last few years, doing something that Washington failed to do for 28 years, and that is we balanced the budget, something that families back home in Illinois do every day. As a result of that balanced budget, we have an opportunity, because for the first time in 28 years we actually have more tax revenue going into the Treasury than we are spending. It is something new, something new, a new experience in Washington, and I am proud to be a part of this Congress which balanced the budget for the first time in 28 years. It is projected by the Congressional Budget Office that this opportunity over the next 10 years is $1.6 trillion or 1 trillion 600 billion dollars in extra tax revenue that is coming to Washington. One thing the folks back home have often told me, and that is if we do not prevent them, those politicians in Washington will spend that extra money on government spending and new government programs, when it is really the hard-earned dollars of the folks back home in Illinois that are the surplus tax revenue that we have here in Washington. I am proud to say that this House in the last 2 weeks has taken action to preserve this extra tax revenue, this extra tax surplus, and to use it to save Social Security and eliminate the marriage tax penalty and to help family farmers and small businesspeople and those who want to send their kids off to college. We adopted what is called the 90-10 plan, and under the 90-10 plan we set aside 90 percent of projected tax revenue surplus, which is $1.4 trillion, for Social Security, priority number one. What is left we give back to the American people in tax relief, addressing what I consider to be the most unfair provision and the consequence of our Tax Code, which is the marriage tax penalty, eliminating it for the majority of those who suffer it. I think it is important to point out that we set aside $1.4 trillion in surplus tax revenue to save Social Security, and the remainder we use to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and other consequences of our Tax Code. That is a big victory for the folks back home because when one thinks about it, back last January when the President gave his State of the Union speech, I was one of those who stood up and applauded when the President said, let us take the surplus and use it to save Social Security, because at that time the surplus was about $600 billion. Well, we have set aside, just 2 weeks ago, more than two times what the President asked for to save Social Security, $1.4 trillion. Of course, the centerpiece of this effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and to help family farmers and small businesspeople was the effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I have often raised the question here in the well of this House, is it right, is it fair, that under our Tax Code, that average married working couples with two incomes pay higher taxes than an identical working couple with an identical income who lives together outside of marriage? That is just wrong that under our Tax Code that married couples pay more in taxes than couples who live together outside of marriage. That is wrong, and that is unfair. I am proud that the centerpiece of the tax cut provision of the 90-10 plan eliminates the marriage tax penalty. In fact, as I point out here in this worksheet, for 28 million married working couples, they will see an extra $240 in higher take-home pay as a result of our effort to save Social Security and eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Back home in Joliet, $240 is a car payment; it is a month or two child care at a local day care center, for parents who are working and struggling to make ends meet. It is kind of interesting, though. The President just the other day, he talks about the Republican efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, and he says, a tax cut, that is squandering the surplus. He wants to spend it, and he says he wants to save Social Security and spend the surplus tax revenue. Of course, Republicans want to save Social Security and eliminate the marriage tax penalty and help family farmers and small businesspeople and those who want to send their kids off to college. I just thought I would make a little chart here, because I thought I would figure out what is the difference here? With politicians, one always has to kind of not necessarily listen to what they say, one needs to watch what they do. The President says we are squandering the surplus if we are going to use it to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. What is interesting is in the 90-10 plan, our effort to save Social Security, eliminate the marriage tax penalty and help family farmers and small businesspeople, our net tax cut next year will be $7 billion. The President says that is $7 billion that is squandered, but he turns right around and says we need to spend $14 billion of that surplus on the State Department and military spending and computers for government bureaucrats, but that is okay. We cannot have it both ways. Republicans want to save Social Security. We want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. My hope is the Senate will join us and the President will join us in a bipartisan effort to save Social Security, eliminate the marriage tax penalty, to help family farmers and small businesspeople, truly help those who want to send their kids off to college.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the opportunity to spend a few minutes talking about not only a great opportunity, but a great step forward that was acted upon by this House in the last couple weeks. One of the greatest commitments we made when we were elected in 1994 on this new majority was to do something that Washington had failed to do for 28 years, and that is to hold the President's feet to the fire and hold the congressional leadership's feet to the fire and balance the budget and live within our means for the first time in 28 years. We succeeded, and I am proud of that success, and this week, the first week of October, we are actually enjoying for the first time in 29 years surplus tax revenue, more money coming into the Federal Treasury than we are spending, a new concept here in Washington, but prior to 1969 it was standard operating procedure in Washington; that is, to live within your means. And I am proud that in the last 3\1/2\ years we brought fiscal sanity back to Washington. Well, the Congressional Budget Office now projects that we have a projected surplus of extra tax revenue over the next 10 years of $1.6 trillion because of this fiscal responsibility. The question is what are we going to do with it? Some want to spend it, others want to give it back to the American people in helping save Social Security, and of course tax relief, and I stand on the side of those who want to give it back to the American people. We have a plan that we adopted here in the House of Representatives and sent to the Senate about 2 weeks ago which takes the $1.6 trillion of extra tax revenue and sets it aside to save Social Security and get back to the American people tax relief. I am proud that the 90/10 plan sets aside 90 percent of surplus tax revenues over the next 10 years and we use it to save Social Security. Setting aside 90 percent is 1 trillion 400 billion dollars. In January, I stood up in a bipartisan applause when the President said let us save and use the surplus for Social Security. At that time, that surplus was $600 billion. We have done better. We have set aside more than twice what the President had asked for by setting aside 1 trillion 400 billion dollars to save Social Security. What is left, we give back to you in tax relief. I have often asked in this well a very simple fundamental question. Is it right, is it fair that, under our tax code, 28 million married working couples pay higher taxes under our tax code just because they are married? Is it right, is it fair that a married working couple with two incomes pays more in taxes than an identical couple with identical incomes living together outside of marriage? That is not right. We answer that question in the 90/10 plan. In fact, the centerpiece of the 90/10 plan which saves Social Security is we eliminate the marriage tax penalty for the majority of those who suffer it. For 2 million married working couples, we eliminate the marriage penalty, and we provide over $240 dollars in extra take-home pay that these 28 million working couples will be able to keep back at home in places like Illinois, my home State. That $240 is a car payment in Joliet, Illinois. We eliminate the marriage penalty for the majority of those who suffer it. We also simplify our tax code by eliminating the marriage penalty for those who suffer it. President Clinton, in his response to our effort to save Social Security and eliminate the marriage tax penalty, says, well, gee, you know, if you use some of the extra tax revenue and give it back to the American people in eliminating the marriage tax penalty, he calls it squandering that money. It is very interesting. They always say in Washington you should not listen to what politicians say, you should watch what they do. Because in the 90/10 plan, our effort is to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and help family farmers and small business people, those who want to send their kids off to college, help build schools with school construction bond funds. We provide about a $7 billion tax cut next year. President Clinton calls that squandering. Eliminate the marriage tax penalty; that is called squandering under President Clinton's definition. But at the same time, President Clinton calls for spending over $14 billion of the projected budget surplus of extra tax revenue on the State Department and defense spending and all these other new spending ideas that he does not feel should go through the regular budget process but he wants to use surplus tax revenue for. That just does not make sense. If we want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, that is squandering the surplus according to President Clinton. But if you want to spend the surplus, it is okay. That just does not make sense. Mr. Speaker, this House, with bipartisan support, adopted the 90/10 plan, a plan which sets aside $1.4 trillion, which is 1 trillion 400 billion dollars, to save Social Security. We eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We help family farmers. We help small business people. We help those who want to send their kids on to college. We help schools back in Illinois. Let us do the right thing. I hope the Senate will join us in bipartisan support to pass the 90/10 plan.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, this week is a big week here in our Nation's capital. Yesterday was October 1 and yesterday was the first day of the new fiscal year, and we are celebrating something that has not occurred for 29 years. This week we are celebrating the first not only balanced budget in 29 years, but the first budget surplus in 29 years, where we actually have more tax revenue coming into our Treasury than we are spending. It is now projected that over the next 10 years that this budget surplus will contain $1.6 trillion, that is $1 trillion, $600 billion, in tax revenue more than we are spending. We have to make some choices now, of course, on what we are going to do with that extra money, money that the hard-working folks back home send to Washington. Just a week ago, 10 days ago, we made a choice, and with a bipartisan vote this House adopted what is called the 90-10 plan, a plan which sets aside 90 percent of surplus tax revenues to save Social Security. Ninety percent, of course, equals $1.4 trillion, $1,400,000,000,000, is surplus tax revenues being allocated under the 90/10 plan to save Social Security. I might note when the President first discussed the idea of using surplus tax revenues to save Social Security in January, the projected surplus at that time was $600 billion, and, since then, because of the economy and because of fiscal responsibility here in this House, we now have a $1.6 trillion surplus tax revenues. Under the 90/10 plan, we set aside more than twice what the President asked for. $600 billion by the President; we set aside $1.4 trillion. That is a big victory, because the remaining 10 percent we give back to the American people. Ninety percent goes to Social Security; the remaining 10 percent goes back to the American people. Representing the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs, I think it is important to point out that the 90/10 plan not only saves Social Security, the 90/10 plan helps eliminate the marriage tax penalty, helps Illinois farmers, helps Illinois small business people, helps Illinois schools and helps parents in Illinois who wish to send their kids on to college. I might also note that while we propose to give extra tax dollars back to the taxpayers as well as saving Social Security, the President says he wants to save Social Security and spend the rest. I might note in the 90/10 plan we provide about $7 billion in tax relief in 1999, this coming year, whereas the President wants to spend $14 billion of the surplus. It is kind of interesting he would spend twice as much as we want to give back of the surplus to the American people. Not only does our plan save Social Security, but, as I pointed out, it eliminates the marriage tax penalty for the majority of those who suffer the marriage tax penalty. I have often stood in this well and raised the question, is it right, is it fair, that 28 million married working couples with two incomes pay higher taxes under our Tax Code just because they are married? In fact, under our Tax Code, married working couples with two incomes pay more in taxes than identical couples with identical incomes living together outside of marriage. That is just wrong. Our plan here, the 90/10 plan, eliminates the marriage tax penalty, and it not only eliminates it for the majority of those who suffer it, but for 28 million married working couples, they will see an extra $240 in extra take-home pay next year under our proposal. That is a car payment. That is a month or two of day care in Joliet, Illinois. That is real money for real people. Also six million married taxpayers will no longer need to itemize under our marriage tax relief plan. We are bringing fairness, we are bringing simplicity, to the Tax Code. Also, because we want to encourage individuals to save more for their retirement and future, save for education, the 90/10 plan not only eliminates the marriage tax penalty and saves Social Security, but it also rewards savings by allowing a single person to have their first $100 in savings interest tax exempt, and for a married couple the first $200. For a married couple they could have $10,000 in a savings account and essentially that interest they earn will be tax-free. That also simplifies our Tax Code, because 10 million couples will no longer need to itemize. Mr. Speaker, the 90/10 plan saves Social Security. The 90/10 plan eliminates the marriage tax penalty for the majority of those suffer it, it helps Illinois farmers, it helps Illinois small business, it helps Illinois schools, it helps Illinois parents. My hope is in the next week the Senate will take up this legislation, give it the same kind of bipartisan support it received here in the House, and I also hope the President will join with us to save Social Security and eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me some time to talk about what I consider to be a big victory, not only for the people of Arizona and Illinois but people throughout this country. It is because of the Republican majority in the last 3\1/2\ years that for the first time in 28 years we have a balanced budget. Not only do we have a balanced budget but, beginning today, October 1st, we have a surplus, more tax revenue coming into the Treasury than we are spending. We have held the President as well as our own leadership's feet to the fires. That freshman class of 1994 said that we were going to come to Washington to change how Washington works. We have succeeded in balancing the budget, and I am proud of that. And it is kind of something new here in Washington, that we actually have more tax revenue coming in than we are spending. We are more than living within our means. In fact, it is projected today by the Congressional Budget Office that we expect to see over the next 10 years, thanks to a fiscally conservative Congress, a $1.6 trillion budget surplus. $1,600,000,000,000 in extra surplus tax dollars that are now in the Treasury over the next 10 years because we have held the line on spending. That is a big victory. I want to point out that the balanced budget that we pushed through Congress last year, and convinced the President to sign, contained no tax increases on the American people. No income tax increases. In fact, we gave, for the first time in 16 years, middle class tax relief to the folks back home. The gentleman was pointing out, of course, what is a big victory for a lot of people, for all of us that are working Americans, those of us who want to see the contract with working families, the retirement contract that is Social Security, honored. And, of course, we recognize that for people like my mom and dad, and when I think of Social Security we always think about those closest to us, our family, and how government in its ways and actions affect people we love and care about. When I think of Social Security, I think of my own mom and dad, and I think of my Aunt Mary, and my Aunt Eileen, my Uncle Jack, my Uncle Bob, and members of my family that are seniors, where Social Security is an important part of their lives and their friends and their neighbors. And for them Social Security is in good shape. But for the next generation, my brothers and my sister's generation, for the baby boomers and for those that follow, Social Security is in question. Because of our concern in this Congress to save Social Security, to ensure that we honor the contract of Social Security for the next generation and future generations, I am proud that we set aside $1,400,000,000,000 to save Social Security. I mentioned earlier my sister Pat, when I think of the marriage tax penalty. And I have often asked this question in debate here in the House over the past year, and my colleague from Arizona and others have joined us in this fight to eliminate what we consider to be the most unfair provision in the Tax Code, and it is a simple question: Is it right, is it fair that under our current Tax Code a married working couple with two incomes pays higher taxes than an identical working couple, with an identical income, that lives together outside of marriage? They, instead, pay less. It is just not right that under our Tax Code a married working couple pay more in taxes just because they are married. And I am really proud that the centerpiece of the tax provisions in the 90-10 plan will eliminate the marriage tax penalty for a majority of those who suffer it. It is really a simple solution in the way that we go about providing tax relief to married couples, eliminating the marriage tax penalty for a majority of married couples that suffer it today. It is estimated that almost 28 million married working couples will benefit from the marriage tax relief provisions in this package. And it is pretty simple. The standard deduction is a standard deduction we take if we do not itemize. And right now the standard deduction for joint filers, in this case usually married couples always, of course, is not equal to twice what the single filer has. In fact, it is only $6,900. Now, we increase the standard deduction for joint filers to $8,300, exactly twice what a single taxpayer is able to claim. And in doing so, for 28 million married working couples they will see an extra $240 in higher take-home pay, less money they are going to send to Uncle Sam. We eliminate the marriage tax penalty for a majority of those who suffer it with our simple solution by doubling the standard deduction for joint filers. I think of Joliet, Illinois, in the south suburbs of Chicago. $240, that is a car payment. That is two months worth of day care at a local day care center. That is groceries. That is a little extra money to help pay for school clothes for the kids. And that is real relief. I am really proud that we made this the centerpiece of the tax provisions in this 90-10 plan. Think about it. We are saving Social Security with $1.4 trillion that was set aside. We are eliminating the marriage penalty for those who, of course, are suffering it, for the majority of those who suffer it. Twenty-eight million married couples will benefit. And there is one additional benefit, too. As my friend from Arizona pointed out earlier when we talked about this plan, what is really exciting is our goal not only to lower taxes for working Americans and working families but also to simplify the Tax Code. One of the big benefits of doubling the standard deduction to twice that of a single filer is 6 million taxpayers will no longer have to itemize, will no longer have to use a schedule A. And in doing so, filing taxes is going to be simpler for 6 million filers. They will only need to file the 1040 EZ. That is a big victory. I am so proud that we not only save Social Security and eliminate the marriage tax penalty for so many, but this 90-10 plan received bipartisan support when it passed the House last Saturday, and I am proud to be a part of this.

Mr. WELLER. I thank the gentleman. And I often think about seniors who we see working at restaurants, or they operate a small business on the side. We even see them at the arts and crafts shows. And it is just wrong that if we look at the Tax Code that senior citizens who have worked hard all their lives, and seniors are active longer, they are living longer, they want to be active longer, many want to work longer, of course they would like to have a little extra income, and it is really wrong that they are punished for working longer. So that is why I think that raising the Social Security earnings limit to the level that we raise it makes a big difference for these seniors; that if we do not raise the earnings limit, they will have more of their Social Security benefits taxed away, and that is wrong. So by raising the Social Security earnings limit, we help a lot of seniors in Arizona, in Florida and Illinois. And one thing I wanted to point out is that, of course, as we work on strengthening Social Security for the long term, a key part of that, I believe, is encouraging people to save for their retirement. And another provision in this tax package that I think is so important, as we help those who work hard and save a little for their retirement, for their future, is the Savers Act portion here. And of course our colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Kenny Hulshof) really had the lead on this. A key member, a new member of the Committee on Ways and Means. His savers exclusion, which was included as part of this package, was a real winner if we want to encourage people to save for their retirement. Because under this 90-10 plan we allow someone to have their first $100 in savings interest or dividend income exempt from taxes for a single taxpayer. And we also recognize, so there is no marriage tax penalty, that we allow the first $200 in savings interest for a married couple. What that essentially means is a married couple can have $10,000 in a bank account or a savings account, and the interest on that is tax free. Not only do we reward saving for retirement, I would like to point out that is one more way that we simplify the Tax Code. It is estimated that 68 million taxpayers will benefit from exempting the first $100 for singles, $200 for couples from income taxes. Not only will 68 million taxpayers benefit, but also it helps simplify the Tax Code. There is that Schedule B. That is where we report our dividend interest and dividend income in the taxes. And we helped simplify it because this will allow 10 million taxpayers to simplify their tax filing to the point where they only have to file one form. They will no longer need to itemize. Think about that. Ten million taxpayers and seven million people will no longer need to file a Schedule B. So 17 million taxpayers will see their tax filing experience, which no one likes, simplified. That is a big victory. I thought it was important to point that out.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding. I think one good point to make, I was of course walking down the street in Joliette the other day and the President had just given a little talk, and, of course, he said we should not ``squander'' was his term the surplus on anything except his priorities. What I found interesting is that the President ignores that we are setting $1.4 trillion, or $1 trillion, 400 billion in surplus tax revenue to set aside to save Social Security, and, of course, the remaining 10 percent we give back to the American people. What the President for some reason does not want us to know is that I, growing up on the farm, as my friend from Arizona, I say, judge someone not by what they say, but by what they do. The President says we cannot squander surplus tax revenues on a tax cut for families because we have other things we want to use it for. The President opposes what is a pretty modest tax cut, a $16 billion tax cut next year, but he turns right around and proposes spending $20 billion of the surplus tax revenues on defense spending and on the State Department and other things that he feels are important. So he does not want to give back to the taxpayer that extra tax revenue; he wants to spend it. And that is why it is so important that the 90-10 plan be enacted. Because what is exciting I think really for the folks back home is the 90-10 plan, by setting aside 90 percent of the budget, the surplus, extra tax revenue for saving Social Security and giving the other 10 percent back in tax relief is we prevent those politicians who ran up the massive deficits over the last 28 years from spending it. I think that is a big victory. I also would like to point out another provision in this tax bill. I think that it is also very important, one of those we do not hear about as much. All of us here, the 4 of us here are strong supporters of welfare reform, and whether one is liberal or conservative on welfare reform, I think we all agree that we want to have jobs there for those who are on welfare so that they can raise themselves up and become an active part of the community and a taxpayer and join the work rolls and get off of the welfare rolls. One of the key provisions that is in this legislation is we continue, and we extend, a streamlined work opportunity tax credit, a tax incentive for the private sector to give those who are on welfare an opportunity for a job. That is a big victory, I believe. I think of the area in the south side of Chicago and in the south suburbs, where many communities are impoverished, older industrial communities, and there are those, even though the economy has been pretty good, who are still on welfare, who would like to have a job, and because of the work opportunity tax credit, we have now seen thousands of Illinois welfare recipients having the opportunity to go to work. In fact, I can think of about 6 companies that have provided almost 3,300 jobs in the Chicago area to former welfare recipients, giving them the opportunity to lift themselves up and go to work. That is a big victory. That is why this tax package is so important. The President and his friends would like to spend the surplus on the State Department and military missions in Europe and so-called other spending priorities that the President has, but that is $20 billion next year he would like to spend of the surplus. We are saying, now, wait a second. What we spend here should go through the regular appropriations process, should be under the budget rules and be part of the budget. Instead, that extra tax revenue we should give back and use it to save Social Security. That is what is exciting about the 90-10 plan. Under that plan we help save Social Security by setting aside $1.4 trillion, $1 trillion, 400 billion in extra tax revenue that goes to save social security, and the rest we give back. Eliminating the marriage tax penalty for the majority of those who have suffered, helping family farmers in Illinois, helping small businesses in Illinois, helping schools in Illinois, helping those on welfare in Illinois go to work, and helping those who want to send their kids to college in Illinois. That is a big victory for the kids back home. That is why I think it is so important that we continue to work for bipartisan support. We need to convince the President that it is the right thing to do. We want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and we want to eliminate those other unfair provisions in the Tax Code. We want to save Social Security and eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It should be a bipartisan effort. My hope is that the President will join with us. One message I have heard time and time again back home, and that is that the seniors always say, let us keep the politics out of Social Security. Republicans and Democrats should work together to save Social Security and they should also work together to eliminate the marriage tax penalty as well. I yield back to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding. The point the gentleman is making is such an important one. We often talk about small business, and I consider small business to be Main Street, and, of course, two-thirds of the jobs that are created in our Nation and our economy every year are small business. I meet on a regular basis with a group of women entrepreneurs in the south suburbs, and they made a point to me that I took to heart, a lesson. They said when you think about small business issues, small business issues are women's issues, because the majority of new businesses that are created and started every year today, the majority of them are started by female entrepreneurs. In the State of Florida, two-thirds of new entrepreneurs are female, are women entrepreneurs. I think that is why what we did last year with restoration of the home office deduction is so important, because many of the women entrepreneurs, they start a business in the home. Of course, then the health insurance issue is so important, not just to women entrepreneurs, but to male entrepreneurs and all small business people and farmers and entrepreneurs. When you think about it, our goal is to make sure that health insurance is affordable for everyone. Our goal is giving everyone access to affordable health care. Of course, we should really work to achieve that goal. This is a big step, because by giving the self-employed, the entrepreneur, the same tax deduction that the big corporations on Wall Street get, it is an issue of fairness. We are working to bring fairness to the Tax Code by helping these entrepreneurs, which I pointed out earlier the majority of are female-owned enterprises, that is a big victory. But the 90-10 plan is good for education, and helping our schools and those who want to send their kids to college and local schools has been a priority in this Congress in the last four years that I have had the privilege of serving here. I think it is important to note that some of what some people say are the smaller provisions in this tax package actually are pretty important. Last year we gave tax exempt treatment to prepaid college tuition programs for state universities, such as the University of Illinois and the other state universities in the State of Illinois that offer them. States like Pennsylvania and others do as well. But we bring fairness to the Tax Code by extending that same tax exempt treatment to the small private colleges, schools such as St. Francis and Olivet Nazarene University and Lewis University in the district that I have the privilege of representing now will be able to offer prepaid college tuition programs and help parents who want to send their kids off to college in a few years be able to make the tuition much more affordable. That is a big victory. I also represent a growing suburban and urban district. One of the challenges we have in the older urban areas is the school buildings are older. We have maintenance, and we want to wire them with fiber for computers, and keep the technology up as well as keep the roof from leaking, they need help. Last year we passed a school construction bond program as part of the tax package. We also provide over $1 billion in school construction bond assistance to not only the old urban schools in need of repair, but also help those suburban school districts in need of adding additional classrooms. I think that is very, very important. Of course, raising the bond cap, as my colleague from Missouri pointed out, it is so important. We provide for a 50 percent increase. That is to be a big help in states like Illinois, not only helping to provide affordable housing for working and moderate income families, but also in helping infrastructure, such as helping expand our schools. I think it is important to point out that this tax package helps married couples, family farmers, small business people and entrepreneurs, and also those who want to send their kids off to college, and helps schools add on additional classrooms and keep the roof from leaking.

Mr. WELLER. The gentleman has brought up a really good point. As we have shared many times in our conversations, we have talked about our districts and the good people we have the privilege of representing, I represent a really diverse district, the south side of Chicago, the south suburbs in Cook and Will counties; bedroom communities like Morris, where I live, and a lot of corn fields and farm towns. Whether I am at the grain elevator, the union hall or the VFW or a local Business and Professional Women's meeting, I find there is a lot of common concerns, and saving Social Security, eliminating the marriage tax penalty, helping farmers, helping small businesspeople, helping families who want to set aside a little money to help put the kids through college and, of course, this 90-10 plan, accomplishes that. I had a senior citizen come up to me this last couple of days while I was back in Illinois and he said, Representative Weller, what I am really excited about with that Social Security savings plan and the marriage tax elimination and the other tax provisions in the 90-10 plan, is I remember when President Clinton gave his speech back in January. Remember that State of the Union speech? The President said, let us save Social Security first and let us set aside the surplus for Social Security? I stood up and applauded and we all did in a bipartisan effort because we wanted to save Social Security. That senior pointed out, he said, Representative, you folks did twice what the President asked for because when the President said set aside the surplus, there was $600 billion in projected extra tax revenue. Well, nine months later, there is a projected $1.6 trillion extra tax dollars now in the treasury and we set aside $1.4 trillion. That is more than two times what the President asked for. That is going to help us save Social Security not only for today's seniors but particularly for the baby-boomers and the future generations that are looking to Social Security as part of their retirement income. I thought it was real important to share that experience and that conversation back home.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thought I would take a few minutes to just talk about something that is pretty exciting, I find, for the folks back home in the south suburbs of Chicago and the South Side of Chicago and the rural areas and the bedroom communities I have the privilege of representing back home in Illinois. October 1 is a big day. It is a big day that many of us, particularly in my generation, have been waiting a long time to see come. The reason October 1 is such a big day is, today is the first surplus that Washington has seen since 1969. Thanks to this new majority that has been in place here, the Republican majority that has been in place now for the last 3\1/2\ years, we have the first balanced budget in 29 years, a balanced budget that is projected to generate $1.6 trillion in extra surplus tax dollars over the next 10 years. Essentially the folks back home are sending more money to Washington than we need, producing a mammoth surplus, thanks to the fiscal responsibility that began with the Contract with America in 1995. I find that folks back home are pretty excited, because we talk about what we are going to be doing with this surplus. There are some, particularly down at the White House, that want to spend it. They would rather take that surplus and spend it on whatever they can call emergency spending, trying to avoid the budget rules and, of course, avoid the budget discipline that we have. That is what a lot of folks back home say. They say, if we do not set aside that surplus now and give it to a specific purpose, those Washington politicians will spend that extra money. We made a commitment here 10 days ago to do something with that $1.6 trillion surplus. We made a commitment to save Social Security. We made a commitment to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We made a commitment, essentially, to give $1.4 trillion, two times what President Clinton originally asked for back in January, to saving Social Security, $1.4 trillion. Now, the $1.6 trillion in the budget surplus, of course, the 90-10 plan, as we now call it, sets aside 90 percent of the extra tax revenue and makes a commitment to put that money aside for Social Security. The remaining 10 percent we are going to give back to the American people, because we do not want it spent here in Washington. We want to use it to help families. I have often raised the issue of the marriage tax penalty over the last year, asking a simple question: Is it fair, is it right that under our Tax Code that 28 million married working couples pay higher taxes today just because they are married? Is it right that our Tax Code charges a married working couple with two incomes more in taxes than an identical couple with identical incomes living together outside of marriage? I think we all agree that that is wrong. This House made a bipartisan commitment, by adopting the 90-10, plan not only to save Social Security, setting aside $1.4 trillion to save Social Security, but also to work to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. When I think of Social Security, I think of my mom and dad but. When I think of the marriage tax penalty. I think of my sister, Pat, and brother-in-law Rich, a school teacher and a farmer back home in Sheldon, Illinois who are just like 28 million other married working couples. They suffer the marriage tax penalty. Under our legislation, by doubling the standard deduction for joint filers to twice that of a single filer, raising it from $6900 to $8300, we save 28 million married working couples $243 under the 90-10 plan. That saves Social Security and helps eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Back home in the south suburbs, towns like Joliet, Illinois, $243, that is a car payment, that is a couple months' worth of day care for a family with kids that need to be in day care while mom and dad are forced to go to work just to pay the taxes. That is a big victory. I am also proud that not only does doubling the standard deduction for joint filers to twice that of a single filer save $243 but it also simplifies the Tax Code, one of the other goals of our Republican Congress. By simplifying our Tax Code, in fact, our marriage tax relief not only saves $243 each for 28 million couples, but we allow 6 million married working couples to no longer have to file a schedule A. They will only need to file a schedule 1040 EZ, meaning they will no longer need to itemize. We are simplifying their tax filing process. Mr. Speaker, that is a big victory. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep raising this ogre. They always say somehow by working to eliminate the marriage tax penalty that somehow because you are doing that you are somehow hurting the Social Security trust fund. As a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, two weeks ago we asked a representative of the Social Security Administration, the deputy commissioner, and her name, Judy Chesser, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) asked Judith Chesser, he asked her, now, as a result of the tax bill, the tax cuts contained in the 90-10 plan, that the committee was planning to vote out, will there be any impact on the Social Security trust fund. Judith Chesser said, absolutely, no. The 90-10 plan is good for families back home. It helps farmers in Illinois. It helps small business people in Illinois. Helps those who want to send their kids off to college. We eliminate the marriage tax penalty for a majority of those who suffer it. The bottom line is, we also save Social Security by setting aside $1.4 trillion.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, while I intend to support the conference report, I have concerns regarding Section 972. This provision would raise the Ginnie Mae Guranty fee by 3 basis points beginning in the Year 2004. Such an increase unduly burdens low and moderate-income American families, and there is really no financial justification for the increase. As you may be aware, Ginnie May guarantees payments to investors if private mortgage servicers are unable to make scheduled payments. Seviceers are charged a guaranty fee of 6 basis points for this added protection. I believe that increasing the Ginnie May guaranty fee would subject homebuyers to an unnecessary tax on homeownership. The measure would cost homebuyers hundreds of dollar at in additional expenses at closing and prohibit thousands of families from achieving the dream of homeownership. In addition, increasing the Ginnie Mae Guaranty fee have absolutely no financial basis. Recently, the independent auditor, KPMG, confirmed that Ginnie May is financially sound. In act, Ginnie May had a record profit of $601 million in 1997. In other words, Ginnie Mae's profit exceeded U.S. ticket sales or the movie, ``Titanic.'' In 1997 alone, Ginnie May collected a total of $326 million in guaranty fees. It paid out only $11 million in unreimbursed claims. From these statistics, It is apparent that Ginnie Mae does not need a financial boost from the increase fee. You should also do bear in mind that the Senate already rejected the Ginnie Mae Guaranty fee increase by a wide margin. During consideration of the fiscal year 1999 VA/HUD appropriations bill, the Senate voted to take the Nickles amendment by a margin of 69-27. The Nickles amendment would have increased the Ginnie Mae guaranty fee by 6 basis points. In light of this recent precedent, I see no reason why we should now accept this harmful provision. I am opposed to raising the Ginnie Mae Guranty fee. I believe it is bad public policy and will harm those low and moderate income families that the Higher Education bill is trying to assist. I think it was a mistake to include this provision in the conference report, and I hope that in the future, we make greater attempt to find out.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, we have two weeks left on this legislative calendar this year. I just wanted to report that I am glad to see that we are focusing on doing the people's business. This last Friday and Saturday the taxpayers of Illinois, the south suburbs, south side of Chicago that I have the privilege of representing, celebrated a great victory when this House adopted the 90-10 plan, a plan that is a twofer, a big win for the folks who pay the bills back home in Illinois. I am proud that we set aside $1.4 trillion in extra tax revenue, money that is part of the surplus that resulted from the first balanced budget in 28 years, that we are setting aside $1.4 trillion to save Social Security. I am also proud that in the 90-10 plan that we eliminate the marriage tax penalty for the majority of those who suffer it. In fact, 28 million married working couples will benefit. When you think about it, $1.4 trillion is twice what the President asked for last January when we all stood up and applauded the President in his great speech talking about saving Social Security first. There was $600 billion available in surplus tax revenue at that time. We have given the American people more than twice what the President asked for, $1.4 trillion, and we also eliminate the marriage tax penalty for the majority of those who suffer it. I have often asked over the past year, is it right, is it fair that 28 million married working couples pay higher taxes under our current tax code just because they are married? Is it right, is it fair that a working couple that is married pays higher taxes than an identical couple with identical income that lives together outside of marriage? No, that is wrong. Last Friday and Saturday, not only did we begin an effort to save Social Security, but we eliminated the marriage tax penalty for the majority of those who suffer it. Just to give an idea of how this will impact the people of the south suburbs of Illinois, we will take a couple in Joliet, a machinist and a school teacher. They have a combined adjusted gross income of $50,000. They are middle class. Under our current tax code, after you subtract personal exemptions, use the current standard deduction for those who file jointly of $6,900, of course they pay about $5,700 in taxes. But under the 90-10 plan we double the standard deduction for married working couples to twice what a single person obtains by raising it to $8,500. This machinist and this school teacher in Joliet, Illinois will see an extra $240 in higher take-home pay. We eliminate the marriage penalty for the majority of those who suffer it. And not only is this a big victory for married working couples, but I also want to point out, as a result of doubling the standard deduction, that we simplify the tax code for 6 million married working couples, 6 million married working couples who will no longer have to itemize. They will no longer need to use the schedule A. They will only need to use the 1040-EZ. That is a big victory, when you can help bring fairness to the tax code as well as simplify the tax code. And those who voted against it, of course it is a political season, will say just about anything. We are just a few short weeks from election. They were somehow claiming that our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and to help 28 million married working couples, that somehow hurts the Social Security Trust Fund. Wait a second. We just set aside $1.4 trillion for Social Security in surplus tax revenue. So we asked in the Committee on Ways and Means, which I am proud to be a member of, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) asked the representative, the Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Judith Chesser, the chairman said, ``As a result of the tax bill,'' which I pointed out eliminates the marriage tax penalty for the majority of those who suffer it, ``being considered by the Committee on Ways and Means, will there be any impact on the monies in the Social Security Trust Fund?'' Judith Chesser, Deputy Commissioner, Social Security Administration, had a very simple answer, something unusual for somebody who represents a bureaucracy. Usually they talk a lot. Her answer was simple: No, the tax cut has absolutely no impact on the Social Security trust fund. So we had a big victory, working on our effort to save Social Security and, of course, to eliminate the marriage tax penalty for the majority of those who suffer it. If we look back over the last several years, I am one of those who came to Washington to change how Washington works. That is why I am so proud that we balanced the budget, first time in 28 years, and cut taxes for the middle class for the first time in 16 years. In 1996 this House made a commitment, and it became law, to help loving families who would like to provide a home for a child in need of adoption, an adoption tax credit. That is now law, a key part of the Contract with America. In 1997 another key part of the Contract with America became law as well. That is a $500 per child tax credit which will benefit 3 million Illinois children, $1.5 billion in higher take-home pay that will stay home in Illinois rather than going to Washington. We had a big victory this past weekend. We have a great opportunity as we focus on doing the people's business. Let us save Social Security. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I hope that the Senate will give the same level of bipartisan support on saving Social Security, eliminating the marriage tax penalty that we gave it in the House.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, in the next 2 weeks, we have a lot to do, and of course we want to do the people's business. This past weekend this House of Representatives did the right thing. We set aside $1.4 trillion in surplus tax revenue for the effort to save Social Security, and we passed legislation which will eliminate the marriage tax personality. I have often asked in the well of this House over the last year, is it right, is it fair that under our current Tax Code, 28 million married working couples pay higher taxes, just because they are married. Well, we have addressed that. On Saturday we passed and sent to the Senate legislation whose centerpiece eliminates the marriage tax penalty for the majority of those who suffer. In fact, for 28 million couples they will see an extra $240, enough money for a car payment in extra take-home pay because of lower taxes. Now, those who opposed it, particularly those on the Democratic side of the aisle, claim somehow that our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty hurts the Social Security trust fund. Now, on the Committee on Ways and Means, which I am proud to be a member of, we asked a representative of the Social Security Administration, Judy Chesser, the Deputy Commissioner of the Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs, if this tax cut to eliminate the marriage tax penalty impacts Social Security. She gave us a simple answer: No. Let us save Social Security. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I want to wish him well in his plans after he leaves this House. It has been a real pleasure to serve with him. And I also want to salute my colleagues, one of our new members of the Illinois delegation, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. John Shimkus), and his partner in this process, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Karen McCarthy), for their leadership on an important issue. It is not often that we have an initiative that is before the House that is a two-fer and even a three-fer, and today we have an issue before the House that is good for the environment and good for Illinois farmers. That is why I think this legislation is so very, very important, because we have an opportunity to help Illinois agriculture, we have an opportunity to help air in Illinois, and to help our environment, whether we live in the city, the suburbs, or the country, and I represent all three. Today we have an opportunity to promote something called bio-diesel. And the definition of bio-diesel is that it is a renewable alternative fuel, primarily derived from agricultural feedstock, such as soybeans, canola, rapeseed and even deep fryer fat. Well, the big winners, clearly, in this legislation are Illinois farmers who grow soybeans. As we look back over the last year, I remember almost a year ago that we had $6 soybeans at the local grain elevator in Illinois. Today the cash price for soybeans is $4.78. Farm prices have plummeted, as we have lost the Asian market, and we need markets back. It is initiatives like this, thanks to the initiative of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. John Shimkus) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy) that we will help Illinois farmers. It is estimated this legislation will help raise the price of Illinois soybeans from 7 to 14 cents because of the market this legislation will create for Illinois soybeans. Greater demand raises prices. This will not only be good for those on the farm, but those in town, where farmers spend their money. I also want to point out the other benefit of this legislation. This legislation will help clear the air. All of us have followed a city bus and smelled the air. And this, of course, will help clear the air. It is good for the environment, it is good for Illinois farmers, and I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, as I just begin my remarks in opposition to the Rangel substitute and in support of an effort to save Social Security and eliminate the marriage tax penalty, I might just use the Democrats, my friends on the other side of the aisle's own rhetoric. If you think about it, everything they have been claiming, they have admitted they have been raiding is the Social Security trust fund for 28 years. In fact, I believe a Democratic President, President Johnson, I think started that process in 1969. Now, thanks to a Republican Congress, for the first time since 1969, we have a $1.6 trillion budget surplus, money that we can use to save Social Security and eliminate the marriage tax penalty. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) in his substitute basically says ``Let's save Social Security and let's give a tax cut to Wall Street, but let's forget about Main Street.'' It is interesting that the Rangel substitute chooses Wall Street and stiffs Main Street. Republicans, we want to save Social Security, and we also want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, and our legislation will help 28 million married couples. It is interesting that my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to claim the ``raiding Social Security'' line. Let us look at the facts once again. When a representative of the Social Security Administration was asked last week whether or not the tax cuts in our package impact the Social Security trust fund, Judith Chesser, Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration gave us a simple answer, and that answer was no. Mr. Speaker, our effort eliminates the marriage tax penalty. It helps 28 million married working couples. In fact, the tax relief we provide in our package provides $243 in extra take-home pay for 28 million married working couples. In Joliet, Illinois, $240 is a car payment. Our effort is helpful to the people of Illinois, saving Social Security, setting aside $1.4 trillion of surplus funds for Social Security and also working to eliminate the marriage tax penalty helps people back home in Illinois. But this legislation that we will be voting on after we defeat the Rangel substitute will not only help eliminate the married tax penalty for 28 million American couples, it helps farmers in Illinois, small business in Illinois, and it helps parents who want to send their children to college in Illinois. Vote ``no'' on the Rangel substitute and ``yes'' on H.R. 4579.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, this is an exciting week, because this week we are actually doing the people's business, something the folks back home have asked us to do for a long time. Today we have a great opportunity because not only have we passed legislation which sets aside $1.4 trillion for the effort to save Social Security, twice what the President originally asked for, but we also address an issue which I have often raised. That is the issue of answering the question: Is it right, is it fair that millions of married working couples pay higher taxes just because they are married? That married working couples with two incomes are forced under our Tax Code to pay more just because they are married? We have answered that issue by making an extra piece of the tax cut included in this package the elimination of the marriage penalty for a majority of those who suffer it. In fact, by doubling the standard deduction, 28 million married working couples will see an extra $243 during a year because we eliminate the marriage penalty for majority of those who suffer from it. Mr. Speaker, that is a car payment. Our opponents on the other side of the aisle keep raising a funny statement. They keep saying somehow that we are eliminating the marriage tax penalty for a majority of those who have suffered somehow by taking money out of the Social Security trust fund. As Judith Chesser, deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration said a week ago, this tax legislation has no impact on the Social Security trust fund at all. She gave a definitive simple answer, no, when asked that question. The people of Illinois are big winners today because not only do we set aside $1.4 trillion to save Social Security but we help married working couples in Illinois. We help family farmers in Illinois. We help small business in Illinois. We help schools in Illinois. We also help parents who want to send their kids to college in Illinois. This is a big winner for the taxpayer. Let us do the right thing. Let us give bipartisan support to this effort to save Social Security, to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, to help families, to help small business, to help agriculture.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. We can tell this is an election year, with the political rhetoric we are hearing. People are talking about the social security trust fund, and of course politicians say a lot of things in an election year, particularly 6 weeks before the election. As a member of the Subcommittee on Social Security, I thought I would share with everyone here, the Social Security Administration says that the tax cuts we are going to vote on tomorrow eliminate the marriage tax penalty for a majority of those who suffer. It will have no impact on the social security trust funds. In fact, in response to a question by the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer), ``As a result of the tax bill being considered by the committee today, will there be any impact on the monies in the social security trust fund,'' the chairman asked Judy Chesser, deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration, she had a very simple answer: ``No.'' So if we want to be honest about this, this legislation has absolutely no impact. The tax cuts have absolutely no impact on the social security trust fund. Let us be honest today. The Social Security Administration is honest. All politicians should try and be honest once in a while. Mr. Speaker, this is an exciting day. Let us think about it. As a result of last year's balanced budget, we now have projected a $1.6 trillion surplus. Today we are going to vote to set aside $1.4 trillion to save social security. What a victory. 2 years ago we had massive deficits. Today we have that opportunity to save social security, setting aside $1.4 billion. I was one of those who stood up and applauded in January of this year when the President said, let us take the surplus from the budget and use it to save social security. I applauded. In fact, I stood up like everyone else in this room, and said, good idea. At that time the surplus was projected to be $600 billion. Today we are going to vote to set aside more than twice what the President asked for, $1.4 trillion. I have heard a lot of messages in the forums and town meetings I have had on social security in the south suburbs and south side of Chicago: Keep politics out of it, use most of the surplus to save social security, and let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty.