[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 138 (Tuesday, October 6, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9593-H9594]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY WHILE PROVIDING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH TAX 
                                  CUTS

  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.

[[Page H9594]]

  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.

                          ____________________