[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 16, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H1271-H1273]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




REPUBLICAN AGENDA IS TO STRENGTHEN SCHOOLS, LOWER TAXES AND SAVE SOCIAL 
                                SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address 
the House this morning.
  I have the privilege of representing a diverse district. I represent 
the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs and Cook and Will 
Counties, bedroom communities like Morris, the town where I live, and a 
lot of corn fields and farm towns. Representing such a diverse district 
of city and suburbs and country, I have learned to listen, to try to 
find the common concerns and ideas and suggestions of the folks back 
home.
  I find one very common message whether I am in the city, the suburbs 
or the country, and that is that the folks back home want us to work 
together to find solutions, and they are looking for real 
accomplishments as we face the issues that are before us here in the 
Congress.
  I am proud to say that over the last 4 years this Congress has met 
that challenge. I am pretty proud of what we have accomplished over the 
last 4 years. We did some things that people told us that we could not 
do. We balanced the budget for the first time in 28 years, we cut taxes 
for the middle class for the first time in 16 years, we reformed 
welfare for the first time in a generation, and we tamed the IRS for 
the first time ever. Those are real accomplishments.
  I find as I talk about those accomplishments, folks say, well, that 
is pretty good, but what will the Congress do next? What are the next 
challenges? Where will we look to find solutions for in Washington that 
really matter to the folks back home? And I find as I listen to the 
concerns of the folks back home, they really offer a simple series of 
questions and a simple agenda that they want us to be working on here.
  My constituents tell me they want good schools, they want low taxes, 
and they want a secure retirement, and that is our agenda here in this 
Congress, I am proud to say. Our agenda, particularly on the Republican 
side, is simple, just like the agenda of the folks back home. We want 
to strengthen our local schools, making sure that our dollars get into 
the classroom and that our schools are run by local school boards and 
local school administrators and local teachers and local parents. We 
want to lower taxes, recognizing the tax burden has never been higher 
than it is today. We want to help the middle class by allowing them to 
keep more of what they earn, because they can spend it better than we 
can for them here in Washington. We also want to provide for a secure 
retirement by saving Social Security and rewarding retirement savings.

[[Page H1272]]

  It is an important agenda, but it is a simple agenda, and that is our 
focus this year. But we also have another challenge and another 
opportunity before us. Thanks to the fiscal responsibilities of this 
Congress, we balanced the budget for the first time in 28 years. We 
have now produced a surplus of extra tax revenue, an estimated $2.6 
trillion of extra money. It is burning a hole in Washington's pocket 
and a lot of people want to spend it. The challenge and the opportunity 
really is what do we do and how do we do the right thing?
  The President gave a great speech back in January in his State of the 
Union. He said a lot of great sounding things. He said we should take 
62 percent of this surplus, this extra tax revenue, and use it for 
Social Security. That sounded pretty good. But if we look at the fine 
print, that 62 percent means he wants to spend the rest on new 
government.
  Now, we Republicans want to take a different approach. We say we want 
to take 100 percent of the Social Security money and use it for Social 
Security. The money that is left over, the income tax surplus, we want 
to use for other purposes. But the reason that is important to point 
out is because when the President says 62 percent of the surplus for 
Social Security, what he is not telling us is that he wants to take 
$250 billion in Social Security surplus trust fund monies and spend 
them on other purposes.
  Now, back home, the senior citizens that I have the privilege of 
representing on the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs and 
rural Illinois tell me that is called raiding the Social Security Trust 
Fund. The President wants to raid the Social Security Trust Fund by 
$250 billion. We on the Republican side of the aisle want to put a stop 
to that. We believe that 100 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund 
should go to Social Security. That is the contract of Social Security. 
We believe it is time to wall off the Social Security Trust Fund so 
that Social Security dollars only go to Social Security, as they were 
promised when we all paid our payroll taxes.
  Also, I want to point out that in the first few years of the surplus 
that almost 100 percent of that surplus, extra tax revenue, is Social 
Security Trust Fund dollars. So when someone wants to create new 
government programs, they are borrowing, as they would say, or raiding, 
as senior citizens would say, to create new government. They are 
raiding the Social Security trust funds. We need to keep an eye on 
that.
  We also need to look at the tax burden, recognizing that the folks 
back home who tell me they want lower taxes, to see why the tax burden 
is so high today. I have been told that for the average family in 
Illinois that almost 40 percent of the average Illinois family's income 
today goes to government. We need to lower taxes.
  Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty, let us save Social 
Security, and let us wall off the Social Security Trust Fund.
  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.
  Many may recall in January, President Clinton gave his State of the 
Union Address outlining many of the things he wants to do with the 
budget surplus. Although we were prepared to dedicate 90 percent of the 
budget surplus to saving Social Security, we agree with the President 
that at least 62% of the Budget Surplus must be used to save Social 
Security.
  A surplus provided by the bipartisan budget agreement which: cut 
waste, put America's fiscal house in order, and held Washington's feet 
to the fire to balance the budget.
  While President Clinton paraded a long list of new spending for new 
big government programs--we believe that a top priority after saving 
Social Security and paying down the national debt should be returning 
the budget surplus to America's families as additional middle-class tax 
relief.
  This Congress has given more tax relief to the middle class and 
working poor than any Congress of the last half century.
  I think the issue of the marriage penalty can best be framed by 
asking these questions: Do Americans feel it is fair that our tax code 
imposes a higher tax penalty on marriage? Do Americans feel it is fair 
that the average married working couple pays almost $1,400 more in 
taxes than a couple with almost identical income living together 
outside of marriage? Is it right that our tax code provides an 
incentive to get divorced?
  In fact, today the only form one can file to avoid the marriage tax 
penalty is paperwork for divorce. And that is just wrong!
  Since 1969, our tax laws have punished married couples when both 
spouses work. For no other reason than the decision to be joined in 
holy matrimony, more than 21 million couples a year are penalized. They 
pay more in taxes than they would if they were single. Not only is the 
marriage penalty unfair, it's wrong that our tax code punishes 
society's most basic institution. The marriage tax penalty exacts a 
disproportionate toll on working women and lower income couples with 
children. In many cases it is a working women's issue.
  Let me give you an example of how the marriage tax penalty unfairly 
affects middle class married working couples.
  For example, a machinist, at a Caterpillar manufacturing plant in my 
home district of Joliet, makes $31,500 a year in salary. His wife is a 
tenured elementary school teacher, also bringing home $31,500 a year in 
salary. If they would both file their taxes as singles, as individuals, 
they would pay 15%.

                        MARRIAGE PENALTY EXAMPLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           School
                              Machinist   teacher     Couple     H.R. 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted gross income.......    $31,500    $31,500    $63,000    $63,000
Less personal exemption and      $6,950     $6,950    $12,500    $13,900
 standard deduction.........                                    (Singles
                                                                    x 2)
Taxable income..............    $24,550    $24,550    $50,500    $49,100
                                (x .15)    (x .15)   (Partial    (x .15)
                                                       x .28)
Tax liability...............   $3,682.5   $3,682.5     $8,635     $7,365
Marriage penalty............                           $1,270  .........
Relief......................                                      $1,270
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  But if they chose to live their lives in holy matrimony, and now file 
jointly, their combined income of $61,000 pushes them into a higher tax 
bracket of 28 percent, producing a tax penalty of $1,400 in higher 
taxes.
  On average, America's married working couples pay $1,400 more a year 
in taxes than individuals with the same incomes. That's serious money. 
Millions of married couples are still stinging from April 15th's tax 
bite and more married couples are realizing that they are suffering the 
marriage tax penalty.
  Particularly if you think of it in terms of: a down payment on a 
house or a car, one year's tuition at a local community college, 
or several months worth of quality child care at a local day care 
center.

  To that end, U.S. Representative David McIntosh (R-IN) and U.S. 
Representative Pat Danner (D-MO) and I have authored H.R. 6, The 
Marriage Tax Elimination Act.
  H.R. 6, The Marriage Tax Elimination Act will increase the tax 
brackets (currently at 15% for the first $24,650 for singles, whereas 
married couples filing jointly pay 15% on the first $41,200 of their 
taxable income) to twice that enjoyed by singles. H.R. 6 would extend a 
married couple's 15% tax bracket to $49,300. Thus married couples would 
enjoy an additional $8,100 in taxable income subject to the low 15% tax 
rate as opposed to the current 28% tax rate and would result in up to 
$1,215 in tax relief.
  Additionally the bill will increase the standard deduction for 
married couples (currently $6,900) to twice that of singles (currently 
at $4,150). Under H.R. 6 the standard deduction for married couples 
filing jointly would be increased to $8,300.
  H.R. 6 is enjoys the bipartisan support of 230 co-sponsors along with 
family groups, including: American Association of Christian Schools, 
American Family Association, Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for 
America, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern 
Baptist Convention, Family Research Council, Home School Legal Defense 
Association, the National Association of Evangelicals and the 
Traditional Values Coalition.
  It isn't enough for President Clinton to suggest tax breaks for child 
care. The President's child care proposal would help a working couple 
afford, on average, three weeks of day care. Elimination of the 
marriage tax penalty would give the same couple the choice of paying 
for three months of child care--or addressing other family priorities. 
After all, parents know better than Washington what their family needs.
  We fondly remember the 1996 State of the Union address when the 
President declared emphatically that, quote ``the era of big government 
is over.''
  We must stick to our guns, and stay the course.
  There never was an American appetite for big government.
  But there certainly is for reforming the existing way government does 
business.
  And what better way to show the American people that our government 
will continue along

[[Page H1273]]

the path to reform and prosperity than by eliminating the marriage tax 
penalty.
  Ladies and Gentleman, we are on the verge of running a surplus. It's 
basic math.
  It means Americans are already paying more than is needed for 
government to do the job we expect of it.
  What better way to give back than to begin with mom and dad and the 
American family--the backbone of our society.
  We ask that President Clinton join with Congress and make elimination 
of the marriage tax penalty a bipartisan priority.
  Of all the challenges married couples face in providing home and 
hearth to America's children, the U.S. tax code should not be one of 
them.
  Let's eliminate The Marriage Tax Penalty and do it now.
  Madam Speaker, I include for the Record a copy of a newspaper article 
dealing with the Tax Code and handling the budget surplus.

               [From the Chicago Tribune, Jan. 31, 1999]

                    How To Handle the Budget Surplus

       Washington.--Four years ago when I was first elected to 
     Congress, I ran on the need for fiscal restraint in 
     Washington, D.C., and a return of power to people back home. 
     We fought for our belief that we could balance the budget and 
     provide a tax relief for America's working families. For 
     months we were told by Washington insiders and the media that 
     it couldn't be done. Well, we proved them wrong, and we did 
     it ahead of schedule.
       Today Congress has a great opportunity as well as a 
     significant challenge before it. A massive surplus of extra 
     tax revenue is projected as a result of a balanced budget. 
     The challenge lies in what Congress chooses to do with the 
     budget surplus.
       Saving Social Security is the first priority for the 
     surplus. It's a bipartisan consensus. Last fall, House 
     Republicans showed tremendous responsibility and leadership 
     by passing a plan that earmarked 90 percent of the surplus 
     for Social Security. President Clinton used this month's 
     State of the Union message to call for setting aside a 
     minimum of 62 percent of the surplus ($2.7 trillion over 15 
     years) for Social Security.
       Although we were prepared to set aside much more to save 
     Social Security, Republicans agree to the president's request 
     to set aside 62 percent of the surplus for Social Security. 
     But the question remains of what to do with the rest. 
     President Clinton proposes to spend it on big, new, expensive 
     programs; Republicans want to give this back as tax relief.
       Those who oppose tax cuts will fight tooth and nail against 
     lowering today's tax burden. According to the U.S. Treasury, 
     the total income tax take from individuals and families has 
     increased 63 percent since 1992. In fact, according to the 
     Tax Foundation, if you add up the local, state and federal 
     tax burden, taxes are almost 40 percent of the average 
     family's income. Wouldn't most people agree that today's tax 
     burden is too high?
       We can save Social Security and cut taxes at the same time. 
     Some say we can't--they were the same ones who opposed 
     balancing the budget and cutting taxes. We proved them wrong. 
     For example, using only 25 percent of the surplus (allowing 
     for an additional 13 percent of the surplus to be dedicated 
     to shoring up Social Security or paying down the national 
     debt) we could enact a 10 percent across-the-board tax cut 
     for all American taxpayers while still eliminating the unfair 
     marriage tax penalty and relieving family farms and family 
     businesses of the inheritance or ``death'' tax.
       The president's step gives us a window of opportunity to 
     save Social Security. We commend the president for his new-
     found willingness to work with us to save Social Security, 
     secure retirement savings, provide sorely needed tax relief 
     and equip the next generation to compete in a global economy. 
     But now that we have agreed on the first step in saving 
     Social Security, we need to focus on the details. It is 
     irresponsible to spend the people's surplus on new, big 
     government programs. We must give this money back to the 
     American people. Saving Social Security, paying down our 
     national debt and offering real and substantial tax relief to 
     all working Americans are three strong ways to spur our 
     economy and lead the way into the next century.
     --U.S. Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.).

                          ____________________