Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3494, the Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act. I particularly want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for their bipartisan efforts in bringing this important legislation to the floor, legislation designed to protect children from the weirdos, the wackos and slimeballs who use the latest technology to prey on children and their families. This legislation contains language that resulted from legislation I introduced late last year, H.R. 2815, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. I very much thank the gentleman from Florida for working with us to clarify the language and include it in this legislation during subcommittee markup. I would like to explain today why this provision is so very important, not only to the people in my district but all across our country. This past summer a family in my district, the Boehle family from Joliet, Illinois, began receiving phone calls at all hours of the day and night, strange adult men asking for their 9-year-old little girl by name. After receiving more and more phone calls, the father discovered that someone had posted messages on the Internet posing as his 9-year-old daughter. The messages implied that she was sexually active 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 boards targeted to pedophiles. They included her full name, her home phone number, and her hometown. Obviously it was a result of these messages that they began receiving the disturbing phone calls. Think about it. How would any parent feel if this happened to your own family? When Mrs. Boehle read, with horror, the messages that were posted about her daughter, she called the police. They told her that nothing could be done, that there was no law against this type of action. She contacted the FBI, they worked for 3 weeks to try to find a law they could use to prosecute the perpetrator, and they came up empty. The police told the Boehles to move, to leave town, for their own safety. While there was nothing that could be done legally, they knew that any pedophile who read these messages could find their home and find their daughter. Due to this imminent, grave danger, they disrupted and uprooted their lives, selling their home, leaving their church and schools and moving out of their home community. When Mrs. Boehle contacted me early last fall, I introduced legislation to make this type of action illegal and put in place penalties. Working closely with the gentleman from Florida as well as Federal, State and local law enforcement, this legislation makes it illegal to use the Internet to transmit identifying information of a child to encourage, offer, or solicit sex or sexual activity. Let us remember, this person posted this little girl's full name, phone number and hometown while posing as her and asking people to contact her for sex. It is unbelievable that this is not already illegal. However, as technology advances, we need to bring our laws up to speed. Passage of this legislation will protect others. I believe it deserves bipartisan support. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for their leadership.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, last week was a big week because this House of Representatives made a commitment to address the marriage tax penalty. Let me explain why this is so important. Do Americans feel that it is fair that our Tax Code imposes a higher tax penalty on marriage? Do Americans feel that it is fair that 21 million married working couples pay on the average $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married? $1,400 in the south side of Chicago in the south suburbs is real money for real people. $1,400 is one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College and 3 months' day care at a local child care center. This past week the House of Representatives went on record making a commitment to work towards elimination of the marriage tax penalty with the passage of the Kasich budget, a budget that spends less and taxes less. Let us make elimination of the marriage tax penalty our number one priority this year. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us eliminate it now. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight what is arguably the most unfair provision in the U.S. Tax code: the marriage tax penalty. I want to thank you for your long term interest in bringing parity to the tax burden imposed on working married couples compared to a couple living together outside of marriage. In January, President Clinton gave his State of the Union Address outlining many of the things he wants to do with the budget surplus. A surplus provided by the bipartisan budget agreement which: cut waste, put America's fiscal house in order, and held Washington's feet to the fire to balance the budget. While President Clinton paraded a long list of new spending totaling at least $46-$48 billion in new programs--we believe that a top priority should be returning the budget surplus to America's families as additional middle-class tax relief. This Congress has given more tax relief to the middle class and working poor than any Congress of the last half century. I think the issue of the marriage penalty can best be framed by asking these questions: Do Americans feel its fair that our tax code imposes a higher tax penalty on marriage? Do Americans feel its fair that the average married working couple pays almost $1,400 more in taxes than a couple with almost identical income living together outside of marriage? Is it right that our tax code provides an incentive to get divorced? In fact, today the only form one can file to avoid the marriage tax penalty is paperwork for divorce. And that is just wrong! Since 1969, our tax laws have punished married couples when both spouses work. For no other reason than the decision to be joined in holy matrimony, more than 21 million couples a year are penalized. They pay more in taxes than they would if they were single. Not only is the marriage penalty unfair, it's wrong that our tax code punishes society's most basic institution. The marriage tax penalty exacts a disproportionate toll on working women and lower income couples with children. In many cases it is a working women's issue. Let me give you an example of how the marriage tax penalty unfairly affects middle class married working couples. For example, a machinist, at a Caterpillar manufacturing plant in my home district of Joliet, makes $30,500 a year in salary. His wife is a tenured elementary school teacher, also bringing home $30,500 a year in salary. If they would both file their taxes as singles, as individuals, they would pay 15%.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, the United States has an obligation to support our very loyal and only democratic ally in the Middle East, Israel. We have a key responsibility to think long term--the long term security of Israel and the Middle East. Some reports show that if the current flow of missile technology from Russia to Iran continues, Iran could, within a year, have the capability of developing ballistic missiles that could reach Israel and much of Europe. The activities of Russian entities which are engaged in the transfers of these technologies threaten our own national security interests as well as those of Israel and much of Europe. Despite the resolution issued by the then-Russian Prime Minister earlier this year, which stipulated that Russian firms ``should refrain'' from such transfers, U.S. intelligence reports indicate that Russian entities have signed contracts with Iran to help produce ballistic missiles. There is also evidence that the sale of high-technology laser equipment and other supplies needed for the manufacture and testing of missiles has been negotiated. Beyond the technology transfers, thousands of Russian scientists, engineers and technicians are reported to be operating in Iran as advisors. It is now time for the Congress to say that enough is enough. We need protect ourselves and our allies. The Government of Russia needs to understand that the United States will not stand idly by as entities under Russian authority assist a rogue nation in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. With this legislation, we will be giving Russian firms compelling reasons not to trade these important technologies with Iran. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to accept the Senate Amendments so that we can protect ourselves, and our allies such as Israel, from the proliferation of Iranian weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, one fact is very clear today. Two out of three are not bad. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) offers a budget alternative that increases spending and increases taxes. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) offer budgets which spend less and tax less. Clearly the budget of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) is the budget which is best for Social Security. Mr. Chairman, let us remember what the number one goal of this year should be. That is to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, because the most fundamental question we should be answering is, is it right, is it fair, that 21 million married working couples pay on the average $1,400 more just because they are married? That is wrong. The Neumann budget and the Kasich budget make their centerpiece the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. We have two opportunities out of three votes today to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us vote aye on Neumann, let us vote aye on Kasich. Mr. Chairman, they both deserve bipartisan support.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this year's balanced budget. I think these questions best state why: Do Americans feel that it is right that the average working married couple pays more in taxes just because they are married? Do Americans feel that it is fair, is it right, that 21 million married working couples pay on the average of $1,400 more in higher taxes than an identical couple that lives together outside of marriage? Of course not. Americans recognize the marriage tax penalty is wrong and we need to correct the marriage tax penalty. Twenty-one million married working couples, $1,400 more in higher taxes. $1,400 is one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College in the district that I represent. It is 3 months of day care at a local day care center. This budget, the budget crafted by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) makes elimination of the marriage tax penalty priority number one, helping 21 million married working families who just happen to be married and just because they are married, they pay higher taxes. Let us pass this budget. It deserves bipartisan support.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the rule, of course, which makes in order three alternative budgets tonight. Frankly, two of them seem to me pretty good ideas. Both of them, one sponsored by the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich) and one by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann), they spend less, but they also make a number one priority elimination of the marriage tax penalty suffered by 42 million taxpayers. The Democratic proposal spends more, taxes more, and fails to address the marriage tax penalty suffered by 42 million taxpayers. Let me explain why elimination of the marriage tax penalty is so very, very important to 42 million taxpayers. Think about it. Do Americans feel that it is fair that under our current Tax Code a married working couple pays more in taxes just because they are married? Do Americans feel that it is fair that 21 million married working couples pay $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married than an identical couple with identical incomes that live together outside of marriage? Americans back home in Chicago and the south suburbs feel that is wrong. Let me give an example of a south suburban couple in the suburbs of Chicago, Joliet, a machinist who works at Caterpillar and a schoolteacher in the Joliet public schools. This Joliet Caterpillar machinist makes $30,500 a year. If he is single, under our current Tax Code, after the standard deductions and exemptions, he is in the 15 percent tax bracket. If he meets and marries a gal who is a public schoolteacher with an identical income and they combine their incomes, under our Tax Code, if they file jointly, their combined income of $61,000 after standard deductions and exemptions still makes them pay more taxes. Almost $1,400 more they pay under our Tax Code today. That is wrong that the average working married couple pays, on average, $1,400 more just because they are married. And the Republican budgets eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Think about it. For this couple in Joliet, this machinist at Caterpillar, this public schoolteacher at the Joliet public schools, $1,400 is real money. For some in Washington, $1,400 is a drop in the bucket, but for this couple in Joliet $1,400 is one year's tuition at the local community college at Joliet Junior College. $1,400 is 3 months' day care in the local day care center. That is real money for this machinist and schoolteacher. If we care for working families, let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Why? Because it is real money for real people. And I think like I know a lot of my friends do, and it should be a bipartisan concern. We should allow this machinist and this schoolteacher to keep more of what they earn. Is it fair that they pay a penalty because they are married? Of course not. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. There are three alternative budgets here. Even the one that was proposed that was not listed that everyone keeps referring to on the other side fails to address what should be our number one priority this year, that is eliminating the marriage tax penalty. I urge adoption of the rule and the elimination of the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Subcommittee on Social Security, let me begin by commending the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the chairman, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly), the ranking member, for their leadership and hard work in producing some real successful results, legislation that is going to help people, people who want to work and become self-sufficient. I am proud that it has earned overwhelming bipartisan support; and that is a result of hard work by the two leaders of our subcommittee. The bottom line is this is a good bill, legislation that helps the disabled. Disabled people have said we need to do a better job. When I came to Washington in 1994, one of our goals was, of course, to change how Washington works and to make government work better for those who need help. It is this type of legislation that can make that kind of difference for those who need help. People want to work. In this case, the disabled have asked for a helping hand with training and rehabilitation. This legislation works towards that goal, giving the disabled an opportunity to work and become more self-sufficient. Unfortunately, our current disability system has not been working very well, only enabling about 8,000 Americans who are disabled to join the workforce each year. This legislation will give disability beneficiaries a ticket or voucher so they can use State or nonprofit or private employment training programs, and also give service providers incentives to do a better job, better train their clients, provide them with permanent employment and job opportunities. There is another important provision I would like to mention, and I particularly want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), my colleague, for his work with this particular provision included in this legislation. That is the legislation that was originally contained in H.R. 530, the Criminal Welfare Prevention Act, Part II, which was included as part of this legislation. As you know, in 1996 the welfare reform legislation cracked down on convicted criminals, prison inmates, receiving SSI payments, a concern many taxpayers were shocked to discover. Since that legislation was signed into law, as many as 500,000 criminals no longer qualify for SSI. This legislation goes one step further and helps deny Social Security payments to convicted criminals in prison. I find one frustration of many senior citizens is why, they ask, do we give Social Security benefits to convicted criminals in prison? Thanks to the efforts of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly), and of course the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), this new legislation will potentially save taxpayers $3.5 billion over the next 7 years. I am proud to support this legislation. It deserves bipartisan support. It enables those who want into the workforce, and of course to become self-sufficient, to accomplish that goal. We lend them a helping hand. It deserves bipartisan support, and for that, I ask my colleagues to lend that bipartisan support to H.R. 3433, the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Act.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Miss Michelle Nguyen from Bourbonnais, Illinois. Miss Nguyen is a senior at Bradley- Bourbonnais Community High School and has recently won Second Place in the Veterans of Foreign Wars ``Voice of Democracy'' broadcast script writing contest. Michelle was one of 93,000 secondary school students from around the United States who were competing for 56 scholarships which were distributed among 54 national winners. The contest theme for this year was ``My Voice in Democracy''. Michelle's speech about her family' quest for the American Dream is inspiring and a perfect reminder of how precious our democracy and freedom are. Mr. Speaker, Michelle will be attending the University of Illinois at Champaign/Urbana next fall. She plans on pursuing a degree in Medicine with the hope of one day becoming a doctor. With her long list of achievements in high school, including Class President, I am sure that Michelle will reach her future goals. I know I speak for the entire House Mr. Speaker, when I say Congratulations Michelle on winning this award, and good luck with your studies in college. Mr. Speaker, I insert Michelle's speech for the Record so that the whole House can enjoy her inspirational words. ``My Voice in Our Democracy'' A voice can easily be compared to a rock that is thrown into the most tranquil pond. The size of the rock is irrelevant because the slightest touch can change the water's surface forever. The ripples that emerge cannot be stopped until they reach the edge of the pond. 22 years ago when my parents immigrated to the United States of America, their dream of having a voice in Democracy began as a tiny pebble. They had abandoned the only home they had ever known, to blend into a nation they had yet to understand. They were only 2 foreign people, yet it was the promise of freedom that fueled their desire to leave a war- torn country. The legacy began with my parents' arrival: a stone of hope had been tossed into the pond. To be the daughter of immigrants is unique. I am a ripple: a continuation of my parents' voice. Their pebble has carried me only so far and now, I am getting ready to throw in my own rock to continue the cycle. My voice in Democracy speaks with the hope that, someday, there will exist a world where everyone can decide how his or her life will progress. Democracy allows me, as an individual, to express concerns and beliefs without persecution. Many people do not understand that they have a gift. Their voices are heard in their actions as well as their speech. The worst crime an American can commit against his or her country is to be mute. Voices come in all shapes and sizes just like the stones that are thrown into the pond. A voice in Democracy need not be huge and bellowing to be noticed. Americans forget that ripples start out small and grow. Democracy is not for spectators: it is an active sport that requires flexibility and at times, even arguments with referees. It is a game for and by the people, and its rules can change to help everyone be a winner. Democracy has the word ``demo'' in it, meaning I must be an example. I must demonstrate what it means to be an active voice. The responsibility I have is not only to myself but also to my neighbor who can gain inspiration from what some may call my courage. I speak out on behalf of Democracy daily; my simple message is broadcast through my actions as a student, class vice president, and young adult. My voice as a student interacts with many people of many nationalities and personalities. We share our aspirations and I have respect for the ideas of fellow classmates. Together, we are the future voices of Democracy. The greatest challenge I face is to learn more about the USA in order to effectively use my creativity to become more involved. The responsibility of leadership can be a burden, as well as a reward. As class vice president, it is essential for me to realize the consequences of my actions beforehand. Democracy must benefit the majority in order to be successful. My voice in Democracy is not only a representation of myself, but also the needs of many. Remember, a voice should never be used selfishly. As a young adult, my knowledge of the world is limited. However, I am preparing myself to face my country with a conscious effort to change the things that I can. After all, change starts with me. I cannot account for anyone but myself and have much enthusiasm for the power of my own voice in our Democracy. As I grow older, I hope that cynicism and doubt will not diminish the faith I have in my voice. In his inaugural speech, John F. Kennedy once said: ``Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.'' What exactly does each one of us owe to America? Everyone's task is different but it is evident that people are neglecting their duty to simply voice their opinion. America doesn't exist as a Camelot; nor should we pretend that it does. But an active voice in Democracy can open doors that were once locked. It is only through the participation of all that Democracy can be maintained. It is vital for every American to realize that we have the potential to be the rock that begins the ripple.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the work and dedication of Bruce Huot who retired after 34 years of service in Kankakee County Government on June 1, 1998. Bruce was first elected to the Kankakee County Board in 1964. He most recently served as Kankakee County Board Chairman. Bruce says his most significant accomplishments during his service as Board Chairman include the plans for a non-taxing mass transit district, the establishment of a county hearing officer and county Public Safety Committee, the revision of the procedure for revolving loan funds, the comprehensive mobile home parks study, and the establishment of a new Kankakee County Housing Authority board of commissioners. He also believes the strong teamwork displayed among county municipalities has played an important role in many projects. Bruce and his wife, Patricia, are the proud parents of three children and the proud grandparents of 7 children. Bruce is the son of Beatrice Huot and the late Marvin Huot. He is a graduate of St. Patrick's High School in Kankakee, Illinois and the University of Notre Dame. Even while maintaining a busy career, Bruce always gave of himself to many community activities which include the Heart Association, the United Way, the Kiwanis, the Elks, St. Martin of Tours Parish Council, and the University of Notre Dame Alumni Senate. He has also served the county in the capacity of the Charter President of Kankakee County Board of Health, of the Past Chair Kankakee Regional Planning Commission, of the Kankakee County Economic Development Council, Past President of Bishop McNamara High School Board, and the City of Kankakee Planning Commission. Bruce Huot's commitment and impact on his community is not only deserving of congressional recognition, but should serve as a model for others to follow. At a time when our nation's leaders are asking the people of this country to make serving their community a core value of citizenship, honoring Bruce Huot is both timely and appropriate. I urge this body to identify and recognize others in their congressional districts whose actions have so greatly benefited and enlightened America's communities.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, there is a big, important question that needs to be asked. That is, why it is so important that we pass the Marriage Tax Penalty Elimination Act? I think that question is best answered with a series of questions. Do Americans feel that it is fair that an average working married couple pays more in taxes just because they are married? Do Americans feel that it is fair that 21 million married working couples pay on the average of $1,400 more in taxes just because they are married, $1,400 more than an identical couple with identical incomes that live outside of marriage? Of course not. Americans recognize that the marriage tax penalty is not only unfair, it is wrong. It is morally wrong that we tax our society's most basic institution, 21 million married working couples, $1,400 more. That is one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College in the district I represent. That is 3 months of day care at a local child care center, real money for real people. Let us make elimination of the marriage tax penalty a bipartisan priority. Let us make elimination of the marriage tax penalty our number one priority this year. Madam Speaker, I rise today to highlight what is arguably the most unfair provision in the U.S. Tax Code: the marriage tax penalty. I want to thank you for your long term interest in bringing parity to the tax burden imposed on working married couples compared to a couple living together outside of marriage. In January, President Clinton gave his State of the Union Address outlining many of the things he wants to do with the budget surplus. A surplus provided by the bipartisan budget agreement which: cut waste, put America's fiscal house in order, and held Washington's feet to the fire to balance the budget. While President Clinton paraded a long list of new spending totaling at least $46-$48 billion in new programs--we believe that a top priority should be returning the budget surplus to America's families as additional middle-class tax relief. This Congress has given more tax relief to the middle class and working poor than any Congress of the last half century. I think the issue of the marriage penalty can best be framed by asking these questions: Do Americans feel its fair that our tax code imposes a higher tax penalty on marriage? Do Americans feel its fair that the average married working couple pays almost $1,400 more in taxes than a couple with almost identical income living together outside of marriage? Is it right that our tax code provides an incentive to get divorced? In fact, today the only form one can file to avoid the marriage tax penalty is paperwork for divorce. And that is just wrong! Since 1969, our tax laws have punished married couples when both spouses work. For no other reason than the decision to be joined in holy matrimony, more than 21 million couples a year are penalized. They pay more in taxes than they would if they were single. Not only is the marriage penalty unfair, it's wrong that our tax code punishes society's most basic institution. The marriage tax penalty exacts a disproportionate toll on working women and lower income couples with children. In many cases it is a working women's issue. Let me give you an example of how the marriage tax penalty unfairly affects middle class married working couples. For example, a machinist, at a Caterpillar manufacturing plant in my home district of Joliet, makes $30,500 a year in salary. His wife is a tenured elementary school teacher, also bringing home $30,500 a year in salary. If they would both file their taxes as singles, as individuals, they would pay 15 percent.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the selection of Warren P. Shepherd Junior High School as a Blue Ribbon School. Located in Ottawa, Illinois, Shepherd is one of only 166 secondary schools in the nation presented with this prestigious award by the United States Department of Education. The Blue Ribbon Award is sought after by thousands of schools across the country. Blue Ribbon status is bestowed upon schools with qualities including strong leadership, a clear vision and sense of mission, high quality teaching, challenging and up-to-date curriculum, and solid evidence of family involvement. These are the schools that best prepare children for the challenges they will face in the future. Blue Ribbon schools are also effective in meeting local state and national goals. Led by Principal Michael Bannister, Shepherd Junior High School clearly has the characteristics of a Blue Ribbon school. As a seventh and eighth grade junior high school, Shepherd strives to maintain excellence, effectiveness and equity in the education of young people in the ``middle grades.'' This school of 513 students serves both regular and special education students. Shepherd was recognized for its ability to combine these two populations through a successful peer partnering program. As with other Blue Ribbon schools, Shepherd prepares our young people for tomorrow's challenges through active learning programs. Shepherd's hands-on learning philosophy is perhaps best evidenced by its science curriculum. After undergoing several major technology-related renovations last year, Shepherd has become a technology leader in north central Illinois. At least one new computer with multimedia capabilities and Internet access has been installed in each classroom. In addition, clusters of up to six new computers were placed in four locations of the building, and a Special Education computer lab was installed. Among Shepherd's strong points are an integrated curriculum designed by cross-curricular grade level teams, a commitment to the development of skills in the area of language arts and exemplary students, faculty and administrators. These and many other accomplishments led qualified Shepherd for Blue Ribbon status. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize and honor Shepherd Junior High School as a recipient of the prestigious Blue Ribbon Schools Award. Shepherd exemplifies the standard of excellence to which all junior high schools should be held. I am proud to represent a district that includes schools of Blue-Ribbon caliber.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight what is arguably the most unfair provision in the U.S. Tax code: the marriage tax penalty. I want to thank you for your long term interest in bringing parity to the tax burden imposed on working married couples compared to a couple living together outside of marriage. In January, President Clinton gave his State of the Union Address outlining many of the things he wants to do with the budget surplus. A surplus provided by the bipartisan budget agreement which: cut waste, put America's fiscal house in order; and held Washington's feet to the fire to balance the budget. While President Clinton paraded a long list of new spending totaling at least $46-$48 billion in new programs--we believe that a top priority should be returning the budget surplus to America's families as additional middle-class tax relief. This Congress has given more tax relief to the middle class and working poor than any Congress of the last half century. I think the issue of the marriage penalty can best be framed by asking these questions: Do Americans feel its fair that our tax code imposes a higher tax penalty on marriage? Do Americans feel its fair that the average married working couple pays almost $1,400 more in taxes than a couple with almost identical income living together outside of marriage? is it right that our tax code provides an incentive to get divorced? In fact, today the only form one can file to avoid the marriage tax penalty is paperwork for divorce. And that is just wrong! Since 1969, our tax laws have punished married couples when both spouses work. For no other reason that the decision to be joined in holy matrimony, more than 21 million a year are penalized. They pay more in taxes than they would if they were single. Not only is the marriage penalty unfair, it's wrong that our tax code punishes society's most basic institution. The marriage tax penalty exacts a disproportionate toll on working women and lower income couples with children. In many cases it is working women's issue. Let me give you an example of how the marriage tax penalty unfairly affects middle class married working couples. For example, a machinist, at a Caterpillar manufacturing plant in my home district of Joliet, makes $30,500 a year in salary. His wife is a tenured elementary school teacher, also being home $30,500 a year in salary. If they would both file their taxes as singles, as individuals they would pay 15%.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, the question is pretty basic: Why should we pass the marriage tax elimination act. And I think the best way to answer that question is with a series of questions. Do Americans feel that it is fair that the average married working couple pays more in taxes just because they are married? Do Americans feel that it is fair that 21 million married working couples with two incomes pay more in taxes than an identical working couple that lives together outside of marriage, in fact, on average $1,400 more? Is it right that our Tax Code actually provides an incentive to get divorced? That is the only way that you can avoid the marriage tax penalty today. It is not fair, it is not right, it is absolutely wrong that our Tax Code punishes 21 million married working couples just because they are married. Now $1,400 in the south suburbs of Chicago, that is real money. That is 1 year's tuition at Joliet Junior College. That is 3 months of day- care at a local day-care center. That is real money for real people in Illinois in the south suburbs. There is no more unfair provision in the Tax Code. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us eliminate it now.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my dismay at a provision that was slipped into H.R. 3603, the bill to authorize major medical facility projects for the Department of Veteran's Affairs. This provision was included specifically to undo the naming of the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery near Joliet, Illinois in my congressional district. It came to my attention today, that a section was added to the bill which would set up new procedures for the naming of national veterans cemeteries and other properties of the VA. I was appalled to learn that this provision is retroactive to January 1, 1998! This is obviously intended to invalidate the decision of Secretary Togo West to name the cemetery after Abraham Lincoln. This provision is an outrage! It is a direct assault on the wishes of the veterans in Illinois. I would like to note that the naming of the cemetery as the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery was endorsed by the Illinois State American Legion, VFW, Amvets, Disabled American Legion and American Ex-POWs. Clearly the veterans--those who will be buried there--want this name. Clearly, this provision was inserted into the bill to go against the wishes of the veterans. Abraham Lincoln created the national cemetery system. Illinois is the ``Land of Lincoln.'' This name is not only appropriate for the cemetery in Joliet, it is the only name endorsed by the veterans--those who sacrificed for their country. I will fight to have this retroactive provision changed. I submit a copy of my statement to appear in the Congressional Record. Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department of Illinois, Springfield, IL, May 21, 1997. Hon. Jerry Weller, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Weller: The Department of Illinois, Veterans of Foreign Wars, takes great pride in supporting the introduction of legislation naming the new Veterans Cemetery at the former Joliet Arsenal the ``Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery''. In naming the 982 acre site after President Abraham Lincoln, we not only acknowledge the role he played in creating the National Cemetery System, but also honor the memory of the courageous men and women who answered our nation's call to defend democracy and freedom. The Department of Illinois, Veterans of Foreign Wars certainly commend the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, Congress and the local communities for their vision and initiatives in acquiring a portion of the former Joliet Army Ammunition Plant, and the beautiful Hoff Woods site for use as the new National Cemetery to serve the veterans and families of this midwest region. We certainly appreciate your introducing this most important legislation in the House of Representatives and look forward to the passage of same. With warmest personal regards and best wishes, I remain Sincerely, Donald Hartenberger, Department Commander.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, questions are often asked in this body, and I think one of the most important questions asked is: Why is enactment of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act so important for working families in America? I think this series of questions best illustrates why. Do Americans feel that it is fair that our tax code imposes a higher tax penalty on marriage? Do Americans feel that it is fair that 21 million married working couples on average pay $1,400 more a year just because they are married, $1,400 more than an identical coupleS that lives together outside of marriage? Do Americans feel that it is right that our Tax Code actually provides an incentive to get divorced because the only way today to avoid the marriage tax penalty is to get divorced and to live together outside of marriage? Clearly, Americans feel that the marriage tax penalty is not only unfair, it is wrong. It is immoral that our Tax Code punishes society's most basic institution. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that 21 million married working couples pay an average of $1,400 more just because they are married. Let me give you an example of a couple in the south suburbs. I represent the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs of Chicago and Illinois. I have an example here of a south suburban couple, working man and working woman, who pay the marriage tax penalty. The gentleman is a machinist at Caterpillar where they make the big equipment, the heavy earth-moving equipment. This machinist makes $30,500 a year. Under the current Tax Code, if you add in the standard deduction and exemption, he is taxed at the 15 percent rate. Say this machinist meets a schoolteacher a tenured schoolteacher in the Joliet public schools. The schoolteacher has an identical income. She would be in the 15 percent tax rate if she stays single. But if they choose to get married, if they choose to live in holy matrimony, under our Tax Code, this married working couple, a machinist at Caterpillar and a schoolteacher in the Joliet public schools who choose to get married, will pay the average marriage tax penalty of almost $1,400. In Washington, D.C., $1,400 is just a drop in the bucket. But in Joliet, Illinois, in the south suburb of Chicago, $1,400 for this machinist and schoolteacher is real money, real money for real people: one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College, 3 months of day care at the local day care center in Joliet; and it is also several months' worth of car payments. That is real money that Uncle Sam is taking away from this machinist and this schoolteacher just because they are married. We have a solution. We believe that elimination of the marriage tax penalty should be our number one priority as we address the tax provisions in this year's balanced budget which will be, hopefully, the second balanced budget in over a generation. The Marriage Tax Elimination Act, which is now called the compromise as well as Weller-McIntosh II, it is pretty simple. What it does is it doubles the standard deduction for those who do not itemize from $4,150 for a single person, $8,300 for a married couple, simply doubling it, helping eliminate the marriage penalty. Also, for the five tax brackets, we double the income threshold for couples. Currently, you are in the 15 percent tax bracket if you make $24,650. We double that to $49,300, eliminating the marriage penalty. Because, currently, even if you are making $24,650, our current Tax Code, you can only make $42,000. So there is about an $8,000 marriage tax penalty in the 15 percent tax bracket. We want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. The Marriage Tax Elimination Act of 1998 accomplishes that goal. We believe it should be the centerpiece of this year's balanced budget plan. There are always competing ideas, and President Clinton has a good idea. He says our priority should be expanding the current child care tax credit. Under the President's child care tax credit, the average family that will qualify would see about an extra $368 in total take- home pay a year. If we eliminate the marriage tax penalty for that machinist and schoolteacher, they would see an extra $1,400 in take-home pay. So let us think about that which is better. If we eliminate the marriage tax penalty, $1,400 will pay for almost 3 months of child care at a local day care center in Joliet. If we forget about eliminating the marriage tax penalty and just do the expanding the current child tax credit, the President's $358 will pay for 3 weeks worth of day care in Joliet, Illinois. So which is better, 3 weeks or 3 months? Clearly, elimination of the marriage tax penalty is a better deal for working couples and working married couples throughout America. What is the bottom line? We want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It is wrong that our Tax Code punishes society's most basic institution. It is time that we stop punishing marriage. We think about it. This Congress in the last 3 years has made helping families by raising take-home pay a real priority. We strengthened families by providing the adoption tax credit in 1996 so that families who hope to provide a loving home for a child in need of adoption can better afford it. In 1997, we provided the $500 per child tax credit which will benefit 3 million children in Illinois, an extra $1\1/2\ billion in higher take-home pay that will stay in Illinois rather than coming to Washington. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. $1,400 is real money for real people. Let us make elimination of the marriage tax penalty the centerpiece of this year's budget agreement.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I, too, have also been receiving letters and E-mails as well of those who have been suffering from the marriage penalty. Like our friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), I have been written by a number of tax preparers who have shared examples. One gentleman, a Robert Eckert of Jacksonville, Florida, in a letter that he shared with us, he says, ``As a seasonal tax preparer and enrolled agent, I find the marriage penalty can be very significant; 12 percent of after-tax income or 33 percent increase in tax liability for many couples. This marriage penalty hits all ages and all incomes.'' He has several examples here; I will mention a couple of them. One is a retired couple and the other is a low income couple. The retired on Social Security couple, he says this couple got married midyear, each with about $20,000 in company pension income and $12,000 in Social Security payments. As singles, they would pay no tax on the Social Security income; but as married, $16,000 of combined Social Security payments become taxable for a penalty of $2,400. Think about that. A married, retired couple paying $2,400 just because they are married. Another example that he shares is of a low income couple, and he says, this is really the saddest event of his 7 years of preparing tax returns. Mr. Eckert says, a cemetery grounds keepers and his county clerk spouse, one making $16,000, the other making $11,000, are married, and they have twin 6-year-old boys. They also have neighbors, an unmarried couple with twin 5-year-old girls working at the same cemetery and county office building and have similar incomes who not only pay $460 less in taxes, but receive a $2,563 in earned income tax credit check. The married couple, the cemetery grounds keeper and his county clerk, pay over $3,000, 12 percent of their after-tax income just because they are married. There are several other examples. Mr. Speaker, I include these letters for the record. The text of the letters are as follows: October 1, 1997. Representative Jerry Weller, U.S. House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Weller: As a seasonal tax preparer and Enrolled Agent, I find the marriage penalty can be very significant, 12% of after tax income or 33% increase in tax liability. The marriage penalty hits all ages and all incomes. Some examples: Retired on Social Security: This couple got married mid year, each with $20,000 company pension income and $12,000 social security payments. As single, they pay no tax on the social security income, as married $16,000 of combined social security payments become taxable for a penalty of $2,400. High Income Executives: Two spouses with $80,000 and $50,000 incomes pay $1,584 more in taxes than if, as an unmarried couple they filed single returns. High School Teachers: Two $40,000 a year public school teachers, each a single parent of a teenage son, got married New Year's Eve. They felt very strongly their sons would have a better chance of staying away from drugs with the emotional support and economic stability of a married two parent family. More important, they believed boys in single parent environment are six times more likely to become involved with the juvenile justice system. They became ``very emotional'' when I determined their tax liability increased from $4500 each, $9000, to $12,434--a 35% increase for getting married and trying to help their sons to a better life. Low Income: This is the saddest event of my seven years preparing tax returns. A cemetery grounds keeper and his county clerk spouse, $16,000 and $11,000 incomes, are married with twin six year old boys. They have a neighbor, an unmarried couple with twin five year old girls, working at the same cemetery and county office and similar incomes who not only pay $460 less taxes but receive $2563 in earned income tax credit. My married couple pay over $3000, 12% of their after tax income for being married!!! Sincerely, Robert Eckert, E.A.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana; I want to thank him for the partnership we have had to eliminate what we all consider to be not only the most unfair, but really immoral provision in our Tax Code, which is the marriage tax penalty. I represent a pretty diverse district. I represent the south side of Chicago, the south suburbs in Cook and Will Counties, a lot of bedroom and farm communities, and I find that some pretty simple questions come forward which I really believe illustrate why elimination of the marriage penalty should be the number one priority of this Congress when it comes to the tax provisions in this year's budget agreement. Some questions that I have been asked as a legislator, when I have had town meetings, or at the local VFW or the local union hall or the local plant, folks just say that Americans do not feel that it is fair that our Tax Code punishes marriage with a higher tax. Do Americans feel that it is fair that a working married couple with two incomes who are married happen to pay higher taxes just because they are married, in comparison to a couple that lives together outside of marriage in an identical income bracket? I say to my colleagues, if we think about it, our Tax Code actually provides an incentive to get divorced, because for 21 million married, working couples, they pay on the average $1,400 more just because they are married. In the district that I represent, the south side of Chicago, the south suburbs, $1,400 is one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College; it is 3 months of day care at a local child care center in Joliet as well. That is real money for many people. Let me give an example here. Of course we have all had so many constituents who have shared with us and written us some pretty heartfelt letters regarding the marriage tax penalty and how the marriage tax penalty hurts them. But let me give an example right here in the district that I represent, outside of Chicago; Joliet is the largest community that I represent. Take an example of a machinist who works at Caterpillar. Caterpillar is a major manufacturer in the district that I represent; they make the real heavy earth-moving equipment, the bulldozers and earth-scrapers and other things, and folks work hard there. We have a case of a machinist who works at Caterpillar, and this machinist makes $30,500 a year. If this machinist is single with this $30,500 a year income, if we take into consideration the standard deduction and exemption, he falls in the 15 percent tax bracket, if he is single. Now, say he meets a gal in Joliet and they decide to get married, and the gal he wants to marry is a school teacher, a tenured school teacher in the Joliet public schools. She makes an identical income of $30,500. Well, under our current Tax Code, if they are married, they file jointly and when they do, their combined income is $61,000. Even after you take into consideration the standard deductions and exemptions, they actually are pushed into the 28 percent tax bracket. And by being pushed into the 28 percent tax bracket, just because they are married under our Tax Code, that produces an almost $1,400 marriage tax penalty. Now, is it right that when this machinist who works hard every day at caterpillar in Joliet, Illinois, marries a school teacher who works hard every day at the Joliet public schools, just because they are married, they are punished under our Tax Code and required to pay almost $1,400 more just because they are married? Now, if they chose to live together outside of marriage they would save almost $1,400. I think that is just amazing that our Tax Code actually does that, because for this machinist or school teacher, if they would choose to go to Joliet Junior College and decide to go back to school, that $1,400 would pay for 1 year's tuition at Joliet Junior College. That really illustrates why I think it is so important that the marriage tax penalty be eliminated. Because when we think about it, 21 million married, working couples suffer the marriage tax penalty. That is 42 million taxpayers. April 15, of course, was the day that everyone had their taxes be due, and 21 million couples, if they were not aware of it before, discovered they were paying the marriage tax penalty. That is why I believe that elimination of the marriage tax penalty should be our number one priority this year. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank so many in the profamily groups that have worked with us and a lot of our colleagues in both the House and Senate who have come together, of course, with essentially a compromise bill that we put together, legislation called the Marriage Tax Penalty Elimination Act of 1998, legislation that will eliminate the marriage tax penalty in a very simple way. Of course, we double the tax brackets. Right now, under, say, the 15 percent tax bracket, if one is making $24,650, one is in the 15 percent tax bracket, but if one gets married, one can only make about $42,000 and stay in the 15 percent tax bracket. We double it from 24,650 to 49,300. It is very simple. We also double the standard deduction which this machinist and school teacher would be able to enjoy. It is simple legislation. The other thing I want to point out, as well, there is no unintended consequence from our legislation. The marriage tax penalty resulted from unintended consequences as the Tax Code was changed over the last 30 years. No one sought to create it, but unfortunately, it was created because our Tax Code, a progressive Tax Code, has become more complicated over the years. But we can help this machinist at Caterpillar and this school teacher in Joliet with passage of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act. I think it is important legislation. I want to commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), and all of those who have been working so hard who have been putting together this legislation.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. What is really interesting, the gentleman from Indiana and I were elected in 1994 and of course we were part of the class of freshmen in 1994 and we made a commitment to the people and the people who elected us that we were going to change the way Washington works. One of the most fundamental changes that we made was not only to balance the budget for the first time in 28 years, and my colleagues know darned well that if it had not been for the freshmen in 1994 that we would not have a balanced budget today, but we gave the middle-class working families the first tax cut in 16 years. Our philosophy when we came in in 1994 was that we want families to keep more of what they earn because they work so hard. And of course they can better spend their dollars back home in Illinois and Indiana and North Carolina than we can here in Washington. It was interesting, when the President was asked by Washington reporters what he thought about eliminating the marriage penalty, as was pointed out earlier, he said well, gee, it is a problem but basically indicated we need the money to spend. That is unfortunate because think about it. Those who object to eliminating the marriage penalty always say, gee, it is going to cost Uncle Sam. Think about it: $1,400, that is real money for real people. And think how much $1,400 costs middle-class working couples. One thing the President has said earlier this year, he had an idea which frankly it is a pretty good one. He talks about expanding the already existing child care tax credit. He thinks maybe that is a better idea than eliminating the marriage penalty. My staff and I did the numbers. We figured how much tax relief this machinist and school teacher that I referred to in Joliet, Illinois, would enjoy if they have a child who goes to the day care center. Under the President's proposal the average married couple that would qualify for the child care tax credit would see an extra $358 a year. That pays in Joliet, Illinois, less than three weeks of day care. If we eliminate the marriage penalty for this working married couple in Joliet, this machinist at Caterpillar and a school teacher, we save them $1,400. In Joliet, that is almost 11 weeks of child care at this child care center. Mr. Speaker, which is better? Three months of day care with eliminating the marriage tax penalty or three weeks of day care under the President's proposal? Clearly, by eliminating the marriage penalty we can help married couples with children in a much bigger way.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, there is a letter from Palm Springs, California. Sonny Bono was such a dear friend to all of us, and of course he was a co-sponsor of our original legislation. We are now joined by his wife, who is going to do a terrific job in representing the area that was represented by her late husband. But Pam Mann of Palm Springs, California says, ``I recently heard that you are sponsoring a bill to not have tax penalty on married couples as it now exists. Our beloved Congressman is no longer with us but he was a personal friend, and I also worked on all of his campaigns. I remember discussing things with him. We talked about the government having things backwards sometimes and rewarding people that are not working and penalizing the working people and somehow sending the wrong message.'' She supports our legislation. She says she is praying for this legislation. She thinks it is important that we do something and do the right thing; that is, eliminate the marriage tax penalty. If you think about it, 21 million married working couples pay an average $1,400 more just because they are married. Frankly, not only is it not right, but it is wrong that our tax code actually punishes marriage. $1,400. That is a year's tuition at Joliet Junior College. That is three months' daycare at a local child care center. That is why I am pleased this legislation is gaining such strong support. It deserves bipartisan support.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, last night, during the Rollcall vote on Mr. McGovern's amendment to H.R. 6 (No. 124), the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, I inadvertently voted ``no'' when I wished to vote ``aye.''

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, why is it so important that we pass the Marriage Tax Elimination Act of 1998? I think a series of questions best illustrates why. Do Americans feel that it is fair that the average working married couple pays higher taxes just because they are married? Do Americans feel that it is fair that 21 million married working couples pay on the average $1,400 more just because they are married? Do Americans feel that it is right that our Tax Code actually provides an incentive to get divorced? Of course not. Americans recognize that the marriage tax penalty is unfair. Twenty-one million married working couples pay on the average $1,400 more just because they are married. That is real money for real people. One year's tuition at Joliet Junior College in the south suburbs of Chicago equals $1,400. Fourteen hundred dollars is 3 months of child care at a local day care center in Joliet as well. That is real money for real people. Let us make elimination of the marriage tax penalty our number one priority in this year's budget. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us eliminate it now. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight what is arguably the most unfair provision in the U.S. tax code: the marriage tax penalty. I want to thank you for your long term interest in bringing parity to the tax burden imposed on working married couples compared to a couple living together outside of marriage. In January, President Clinton gave his State of the Union Address outlining many of the things he wants to do with the budget surplus. A surplus provided by the bipartisan budget agreement which: Cut waste, put America's fiscal house in order, and held Washington's feet to the fire to balance the budget. While President Clinton paraded a long list of new spending totaling at least $46--$48 billion in new programs--we believe that a top priority should be returning the budget surplus to America's families as additional middle-class tax relief. This Congress has given more tax relief to the middle class and working poor than any Congress of the last half century. I think the issue of the marriage penalty can best be framed by asking these questions: Do Americans feel its fair that our tax code imposes a higher tax penalty on marriage? Do Americans feel its fair that the average married working couple pays almost $1,400 more in taxes than a couple with almost identical income living together outside of marriage? Is it right that our tax code provides an incentive to get divorced? In fact, today the only form one can file to avoid the marriage tax penalty is paperwork for divorce. And that is just wrong! Since 1969, our tax laws have punished married couples when both spouses work. For no other reason than the decision to be joined in holy matrimony, more than 21 million couples a year are penalized. They pay more in taxes than they would if they were single. Not only is the marriage penalty unfair, it's wrong that our tax code punishes society's most basic institution. The marriage tax penalty exacts a disproportionate toll on working women and lower income couples with children. In many cases it is a working women's issue. Let me give you an example of how the marriage tax penalty unfairly affects middle class married working couples. For example, a machinist, at a Caterpillar manufacturing plant in my home district of Joliet, makes $30,500 a year in salary. His wife is a tenured elementary school teacher, also bringing home $30,500 a year in salary. If they would both file their taxes as singles, as individuals, they would pay 15%.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, some ask why is it so important we pass the Marriage Tax Elimination Act. Clearly I think three questions best answer that big question. Do Americans feel that it is fair that a working married couple pays higher taxes just because they are married? Do Americans feel that it is fair that 21 million married working couples pay on average $1,400 more in taxes than an identical couple living together outside of marriage? Do Americans feel that it is right that our Tax Code actually provides an incentive to get divorced? Of course not. Americans recognize that the marriage tax is wrong and it is time to do something about it. If you think about it, 21 million Americans paying $1,400 more just because they are married, that is real money for real people. The south side of Chicago, the south suburbs that I have the privilege of representing, $1,400 is one year's tuition at a local community college, three months of day care at a local child care center, several months worth of car payments. The Marriage Tax Elimination Act is gaining momentum. Let us eliminate the marriage tax. Let us eliminate it now.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight what is arguably the most unfair provision in the U.S. Tax code: the marriage tax penalty. I want to thank you for your long term interest in bringing parity to the tax burden imposed on working married couples compared to a couple living together outside of marriage. In January, President Clinton gave his State of the Union Address outlining many of the things he wants to do with the budget surplus. A surplus provided by the bipartisan budget agreement which: cut waste, put America's fiscal house in order, and held Washington's feet to the fire to balance the budget. While President Clinton paraded a long list of new spending totaling at least $46-$48 billion in new programs--we believe that a top priority should be returning the budget surplus to America's families as additional middle-class tax relief. This Congress has given more tax relief to the middle class and working poor than any Congress of the last half century. I think the issue of the marriage penalty can best be framed by asking these questions: Do Americans feel its fair that our tax code imposes a higher tax penalty on marriage? Do Americans feel its fair that the average married working couple pays almost $1,400 more in taxes than a couple with almost identical income living together outside of marriage? Is it right that our tax code provides an incentive to get divorced? In fact, today the only form one can file to avoid the marriage tax penalty is paperwork for divorce. And that is just wrong! Since 1969, our tax laws have punished married couples when both spouses work. For no other reason than the decision to be joined in holy matrimony, more than 21 million couples a year are penalized. They pay more in taxes than they would if they were single. Not only is the marriage penalty unfair, it's wrong that our tax code punishes society's most basic institution. The marriage tax penalty exacts a disproportionate toll on working women and lower income couples with children. In many cases it is a working women's issue. Let me give you an example of how the marriage tax penalty unfairly affects middle class married working couples. For example, a machinist, at a Caterpillar manufacturing plant in my home district of Joliet, makes $30,500 a year in salary. His wife is a tenured elementary school teacher, also bringing home $30,500 a year in salary. If they would both file their taxes as singles, as individuals, they would pay 15%.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. I am here to talk about Social Security today. I want to rise in support of the rule as well as this legislation, H.R. 3546, legislation which will create a national dialogue on Social Security, an important effort and frankly what should be a bipartisan effort. Over the last 3 years that I have had the privilege of representing the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs, clearly one of the most diverse districts in Illinois, city, suburbs and country, I have heard a pretty clear message from the folks back home when it comes to Social Security. One of the most clear messages that I have heard is that as we work to solve the long-term challenges of Social Security, we need to work in a bipartisan way. We also need to work to honor the contract of Social Security, not just for today's seniors but for every generation, the children and grandchildren of those who are currently collecting Social Security, frankly people like my mom and dad, my Aunt Mary, my Aunt Eileen, my Uncle Jack, my Uncle Bob, their wives and families. Social Security is pretty important. Frankly, it is going to require a team effort and a bipartisan effort. Just a few weeks ago, a few of us participated in a national dialogue with President Clinton in a bipartisan effort to solve the challenges facing Social Security. The President hosted a town meeting in Kansas City and he asked five of us to participate in a satellite hookup with town meetings back in our own districts. There was a very clear message at the South Holland home for retirees in South Holland, Illinois, in the south suburbs of Chicago. Three hundred seniors were gathered there. They were thrilled that they were going to have an opportunity to communicate directly with the President of the United States, even though he was not there personally, it was via a satellite hookup. But they had a pretty clear message when it came to Social Security. They said, ``Number one is, Mr. President, let's keep the politics out of Social Security. If we're going to solve Social Security's challenges, Republicans and Democrats need to work together. For those who wish to demagogue and those who wish to play politics, just tell them to be quiet and work together and to work in a bipartisan way. Because Social Security is not a Democrat program, it is not a Republican program. Social Security belongs to the folks back home, the people who pay the bills and work hard. We want Social Security solved in a bipartisan way.'' One other very clear point that the seniors at the Holland home in South Holland, Illinois also made when we communicated with the President in our bipartisan dialogue on the future of Social Security is that the seniors refuse to support a tax increase on their children and grandchildren to save Social Security. Clearly that was a loud message: No more taxes on their children, no more taxes on working Americans to fix Social Security. Let us do a better job of managing the program, because there is a lot out there, and we can do a better job. That is why this legislation is so important. We are putting in place in the statutes a mechanism, a bipartisan commission made up equally of Republicans, equally of Democrats, which will help solve the problem. In closing, I just want to say this legislation is so important because this legislation to establish a national dialogue on Social Security lays out the basic rules: Solving Social Security must be a bipartisan effort. Republicans and Democrats should work together. Every American should be part of this dialogue. Every American has so much at stake. Every American should be part of the process. Let us keep the politics out of Social Security. Let us pass this rule. Let us pass this legislation. Let me close by saluting the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) for their good work in keeping this a bipartisan effort.