[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 135 (Thursday, October 1, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9201-H9202]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        FIRST SURPLUS SINCE 1969

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  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

[[Page H9202]]

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.

                          ____________________