**Color Blind -- Change the background color** |
|
| ||||||
| ||||||
| Home | Site Map | Staff Information | Photo Lab | Links | ||
|
|
|
Read Mark's Speeches before January of 2000 in the Congressional Record |
|
|
|
|
|
Farm Income Averaging Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. LATHAM), a member of the committee. As the gentleman knows, in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Congress enacted a 3-year income averaging provision to protect farmers and ranchers from excessive tax rates in profitable years. Unfortunately, a ruling by the Internal Revenue Service late last year could potentially cost farmers and ranchers thousands more in taxes each year and is inconsistent with the intent of Congress. Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. LATHAM. Yes, that is correct. Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Last October, the IRS proposed final regulations for income averaging failed to clarify that taxable income in the income averaging formula could in fact include a negative number. Current instructions that accompany schedule J of Form 1040 require that taxable income cannot be less than zero. Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 4381 to address this unfortunate situation. This legislation simply amends the Internal Revenue Service code of 1986 by permanently taking into account negative taxable income during the base 3-year period. I believe this legislation, once passed, will codify Congress' original intent and ensure that farmers and ranchers receive the protection they deserve. Unfortunately, I understand that introducing H.R. 4381 as an amendment to this appropriations bill would violate House rules that prohibit legislating on an appropriations bill. As a result, I would ask for the gentleman's assistance and the assistance of the committee in working with me to present this legislation to the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. LATHAM) for his efforts on this subject. I know the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. SKEEN) and I also believe the IRS's interpretation needs to be changed and regret that it cannot be done at this time. I have also seen the rapid and dramatic price fluctuations that farmers and ranchers are so often subject to. The goal of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 was to help reduce the tax effect of these large fluctuations. I agree with the gentleman that the IRS's interpretation will dramatically impair the effectiveness of this legislation. I look forward to working with the gentleman on this important matter, as does the chairman. Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman and the chairman for their help and their attention to this matter.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman from Kentucky? Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Kentucky in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, this bill appropriates $130 million for the Department of Justice to distribute to State and local governments under the Criminal Identification Technical Improvement Act. Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman will yield, that is correct. Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Kentucky knows, among the programs and uses that are eligible for money are those to help State and local crime laboratories in reducing the backlog in their convicted offender DNA sample databases and updating their laboratory equipment for this purpose. These criminal DNA databases are playing a vital role in tracking down the guilty and freeing the innocent. Unfortunately, as we have heard over the last few days, many States and local governments are overwhelmed and are falling behind on getting these DNA samples logged onto their system, and they require additional funding. This is where Federal grants can make an important difference. State and local crime labs need our help to address this growing backlog. Mr. Chairman, through this colloquy today, I hope we can send a strong message to the Justice Department urging them to give grants for these DNA sampling-related activities extra weight and every reasonable consideration. Would the chairman of the committee agree with me on the importance of reducing the convicted offender DNA sample backlogs? Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and appreciate his attention to this pressing issue. I would hope that the Department of Justice shares our views on this and acts accordingly. Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), for his support and commend him on crafting a bill that addresses our crime-fighting needs. Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for yielding to me and appreciate him for bringing this important issue to the floor at this time. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year I testified before the subcommittee concerning the growing nationwide backlog of unanalyzed convicted offender DNA samples. As we are all aware, every day the use of DNA evidence is becoming a more important tool to our Nation's law enforcement personnel; and last year I began to work with the FBI, with New York Governor George Pataki and the New York State Police Department to develop a cooperative and comprehensive resolution of this problem. Consequently, I introduced H.R. 3375, the Convicted Offender DNA Index System Support Act to assist local, State, and Federal law enforcement personnel by ensuring that crucial resources are provided to our DNA databanks and our crime labs. Mr. Chairman, our Nation's fight against crime is never over. The Justice Department estimates that erasing our Nation's convicted offender backlog alone could resolve at least 600 pending cases. I hope the House will pass this final legislation. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) in conference to ensure proper funding to eliminate this DNA backlog. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for their interest and work in this vital issue, and I look forward to working with them to eliminate this backlog.
Fox River Dredging
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh), as he knows, there is report language attached to this bill that tells the EPA not to undertake dredging of contaminated sediments until the completion of a study by the National Academy of Sciences. I understand that similar language has been included in the VA-HUD report in each of the past 2 years. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, yes, that is correct. Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman may know, sediments in the Fox River in Northeast Wisconsin have been determined to be contaminated with PCBs. Last year a number of the paper companies along this river did a dredging demonstration project, commonly referred to as 5657. Unfortunately, the demonstration project did not remove enough of the contaminated sediments to adequately clean up the site. I along with most of the citizens of Northeastern Wisconsin have been pushing both the paper companies and the EPA to complete the cleanup of this site. Fortunately, one of the companies involved recently reached an agreement with EPA and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to go back into 56/57 and complete the dredging to its original specifications. Some people have expressed concern that this report language might have an effect on this agreement and on the overall push for a settlement and cleaning up of the Fox River. I want to ask for a clarification on this matter. Specifically, can the gentleman from New York tell me whether this report language will have any impact on the work scheduled for the Fox River? Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for his inquiry. Specifically, this language says that, and I quote, `exceptions are provided for voluntary agreements,' and therefore I can assure him that this language will not affect the specific project he is concerned with, the site he called 56/57. Furthermore, nothing in this report language should be construed as preventing or discouraging a prompt settlement between the EPA and the paper companies along the Fox River for cleanup of the PCBs. Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for this clarification and for his attention to this matter.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), for his support and work on this legislation, as well as my colleague across the aisle, the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez). I do appreciate their help on this. Mr. Speaker, today we have a chance to reach out to educational institutions all across America. These institutions may be small in number, but they serve a very great need. Most importantly, the need they serve is experience by a dramatically underserved portion of the population. And for this portion of the population, these Americans, it offers, I believe, some great hope. Today, we reach out to tribal colleges, not by spending more money, but making sure that for the dollars we do spend that those dollars are more accessible, distributed more equitably and easier to access by all involved. There are 32 tribal colleges in America right now and 12 States serving 25,000 Americans. My own home State of Wisconsin has two, the Lac Courte D'Oreilles Community College and the Menomonee Indian Tribal College. For the Native Americans served at these institutions, these colleges are closing the gap between the America that is and the America that can be. In 1998, Congress created the American Indian Tribally Controlled College and University Institutional Development Act. In fiscal year 2000, $6 million has been awarded in a competitive grant program for these institutions in this program. Last year, 16 tribal colleges applied for grants and eight received grants. We can do more, I believe; and we can reach more tribal colleges, and we can reach more Americans, the Americans that they serve; and that is what this bill attempts to do. Through technical changes that have been supported on both sides of the aisle, voice voted through the subcommittee and supported by the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, this bill will, by removing barriers, get more dollars to more tribal colleges. As was mentioned previously, it makes some very simple changes. Number one, it directs the Secretary Of Education to simplify and streamline the application process. The current application process requires applicants to address no less than 16 different subject areas, well intended. Unfortunately, I am afraid it may be overkill. It has the unfortunate effect of discouraging fledgling tribal colleges from taking on the grant application process. We worked closely with the Department of Education in developing these minor changes. Secondly, this bill would direct the Secretary of Education to ensure a more equitable distribution of these limited dollars to the maximum number of institutions. We are not talking about a lot of dollars here, but it is obviously crucially important that those dollars go as far as they can. Finally, as has been mentioned, this bill would exempt tribal colleges from the 2-year wait-out period required under title III part A. Again, we have a small number of institutions; but we want to make sure that this money is available to the institutions that most need it, a small number of institutions and perhaps a small number of Americans. But I believe the ripple effect in the area surrounding these institutions will be enormous and help them realize the potential of the American dream. DATE CERTAIN TAX CODE REPLACEMENT ACT Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of both the rule and this bill. Today is a good day because today is the day we learn which party really supports ethics and government reform, because this is where reform truly begins. One cannot, one cannot, seriously and sincerely be in favor of reforming the so-called iron triangle unless you strike at its heart. What is the iron triangle made out of? The Tax Code. That is why the Democrats and that is why the establishment hate this bill so much, because it goes to the heart of their iron triangle. Listen to the excuses they make; listen to how they try to change the subject. The truth is, what is it that Washington special interests focus on most? They focus on the Tax Code, because this Byzantine, complicated, confusing and complex Tax Code is such a monstrosity that it is this Tax Code where they can hide their special interest favors. That is why they support the current Tax Code. That is why they do not want the Tax Code scrapped. That is why they want to change the subject. So I say to my colleagues, if they are truly in favor of ethics reform and government reform and changing the system and changing America, they must support this rule, support this bill, and let us launch ourselves on the real road to reform. CONFERENCE REPORT ON HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 290, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2001
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, it is going to be very interesting to watch this debate today. Everyone here today recognizes that some great things have been happening with the economy. Unemployment is at a 30-year low, the economy continues to grow. Now there are some on the other side who want us to go back to the old days, the days of tax and spend and spend and tax. That is really what they are talking about when they bring out their numbers, their interpolated charts and numbers. That is what they are trying to do. They are trying to move us backward. Still others want us to sit back and do nothing. They want us to enjoy the fruits of our labor and the fruits of this growing economy. But the majority budget, the budget we take up today, recognizes that we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make progress, to secure America's future. That is what this reform budget does. This budget reinforces retirement security to the social security lockbox. Secondly, it pays down the debt, reduces it by $1 trillion over 5 years. It eliminates the public debt by the year 2013. It reinvests in public education, a 9.4 percent increase over last year. It sets in motion a plan for providing prescription drug benefits to seniors. It begins to rescue our military from years of neglect and misuse. Yes, and I know this is blasphemy to some, yes, it does provide tax relief. It allows Americans to keep more of what they earn. I hope today will be a good debate. I think it will show the clear differences between the two parties, between those who want to move backwards and those who want to charge ahead. Today should be a good debate. I urge my colleagues to support this good, open, fair rule. More importantly, I urge my colleagues to vote for this budget. When we go home over the Easter break, I urge them to talk about the great things we are doing, the challenges that we are meeting, and the steps we are taking. AMERICAN HOMEOWNERSHIP AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2000 Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York, for yielding time to me. Let me begin by congratulating the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) for all of his hard work in putting this together. To be honest, I feel as good about this bill as I feel about anything we have done in my brief tenure in Congress. This legislation has something for everyone. It does not solve all the problems of the world, obviously, but I do think it touches upon some very important challenges that we are facing in modern society. I am very proud of what it does in the area of removing regulatory barriers. I do not think we spend enough time in this Congress looking at regulatory areas for affordable housing. As we all know, for every thousand dollars that the cost of a house increases by, we are pricing 1 percent of the population out of the market. This legislation creates a housing impact analysis. It also creates grants for removing regulatory barriers, and creates a regulatory barrier clearinghouse. That is important. Secondly, empowerment. We often use that phrase to mean lots of things, but this bill really is about empowerment. Those who I think are most challenged in terms of getting affordable housing these days are those people among us with disabilities. This legislation creates a pilot project to help people with disabilities afford their own home. Finally, in the area of crime, this even makes some important strides in meeting some of our crime challenges. It contains a pilot project which encourages law enforcement officers to live in those high crime areas as described by local officials. So this legislation in my view really makes some important strides in a number of important areas. I think it is something we can all be very proud of across the aisle. I would strongly encourage my colleagues to support this legislation, vote for it today, and then, quite frankly, go home and talk about it, talk to our constituents about what we have done. I thank my colleague for yielding time to me, and again congratulate him. Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by reacting to something said earlier. I come from a State, Wisconsin, which is one of those States that overwhelmingly passed a ban on partial-birth abortions, a law very similar to the one we are taking up today, although perhaps a bit tougher. It has been upheld twice, so let us be clear on the constitutional arguments. It is not as the opponents portray. It is interesting, some of the tenor of the debate today. Some people are upset that we are taking this bill up because it is inconvenient. It is perhaps annoying to them. I have heard reference that we should not be taking this up because we voted on it seven times before or eight times before. Of course we should be here. We must be here, and we must be here each and every year until this practice is gone. As long as two-thirds of Americans, a supermajority, want this horrible practice to end but the administration and the abortion industry will not listen, we should be here. As long as so many States have outlawed this but the administration and the abortion industry will not listen, we should be here. As long as thousands of these horrible procedures are performed each and every year, we should be here. Absolutely, we should be here. If we fail to take up this cause today, then the other side might just get comfortable. Maybe they will believe that we have lost our resolve, that this matter does not matter to us anymore. Sure we face a tough road ahead. The abortion industry is strong and the White House is not on our side. But if we do not stand up, who will? I urge all of my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit and to
vote for this very important bill this year, next year, every year until
this procedure is gone. Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. As I suspected, today there is a lot of testimony aimed primarily at muddying the water. Let me boil this bill down, this good bill, to two simple facts. Fact number one: Back in 1984, Congress tried to take politics out of this process and turned decision making over to health care professionals. That is this entity we keep hearing about, UNOS, as though it is some alien creature. UNOS is comprised of health care professionals in this field. Now, unfortunately, the bureaucracy is striking back and wants to repoliticize the process. Fact number two: There is a tremendous shortage of organs nationwide. But some States, like my home State of Wisconsin, are doing a great job through public education and have a high percentage of organ donations. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy wants to punish States like Wisconsin, which is doing a good job, and wants to put them down and send the organs elsewhere. Only in Washington would this make sense to some people. Fact number one: Let us keep politics out of this process. Fact number two: Let us reward States that are doing a good job. Please support this bill.
30 March
2000 Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and let me begin by congratulating the gentleman in the manner in which he has conducted this debate. I think he has done a wonderful job, both yesterday and today. I do rise in opposition to this amendment, because I believe it goes too far, it covers too many things, and withdraws from too many places and too many important operations. However, I do want to speak more favorably at least on one aspect of the amendment. This appropriation package has, as its linchpin, aid to Colombia. That is both its greatest strength and, I am afraid, its greatest risk. It is risky because its success in the long run is dependent upon cooperation and commitment, a commitment to justice on the part of the Colombian government, and this is, I am afraid, where I have some doubts. Just over a year ago three innocent Americans were discovered, their bodies. They had been brutally slaughtered in northeast Colombia, slaughtered while they were educating the people of northeast Colombia, slaughtered by thugs from FARC narcoterrorists. One of these Americans was a constituent of mine, Ingrid Washinawatok of Menominee County, Wisconsin. If we are not careful, I am afraid these three Americans may become victimized yet once again. And here is why. Last October, this body unanimously, unanimously, passed a Sense of the Congress Resolution which decried these murders, condemned FARC, but also, and this is the most important part, called upon the government of Colombia to arrest and to extradite to the United States for criminal trial these awful people. Some weeks ago, at a subcommittee hearing before the Committee on International Relations, I had the chance to ask our drug czar, the esteemed General Barry McCaffrey, for help in pushing for extradition. He assured me he would, and he assured me that he would keep me and my constituents posted. Unfortunately, I have to report today that we have heard nothing from him. And now, just recently, we have heard from the president of Colombia that he will not extradite at least one of these murderers, German Briceno. So it looks as though the family of Ingrid Washinawatok may be let down once again. For this initiative, for this initiative aiding Colombia, to work, there must be trust, there must be understanding, and there must be a commitment to justice; and I am afraid that commitment may be slipping away. I see my friend and colleague, the esteemed chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), and I would ask him and ask the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the drug czar, and the President all to help us push for extradition. I do speak in opposition. I believe this amendment goes too far, but some of the sentiments are valid. Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, because I want to assure him that we will try to work with him in conference, and wherever we can, to assist in his desire in getting this criminal extradited. Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. That means a great deal to us. And I thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations as well, Mr. Chairman. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2001 Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Minnesota a little while ago talked about the story of a little red hen. I was reminded of a different story. It is a story about the rooster who used to get up every morning and crow right before the sun came up. One morning the rooster overslept, and the sun came up anyway and the rooster was shattered and crushed. I think our friends on the other side in the minority are like that rooster. They have been crowing, as they have been every year, about how Republican plans would hurt the debt, hurt Social Security and set us back. Yet, every year we have made great progress. Here we are again. We are here today on the threshold of a chance to make history, paying down the debt, strengthening our retirement security system, making major new investments in the programs that families care about. With our budget plan, we will make sure that every family has the tools and the opportunity to pursue the American dream, and we do it in a responsible fashion, built on conservative values and conservative priorities. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this great budget plan. Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Right now we are talking about the so-called progressive substitute amendment. That term, progressive, actually means something very specifically to me, because I come from the State of Wisconsin, where the Progressive Party perhaps reached its greatest heights. Our two statutes, our contribution to Statuary Hall, include Fighting Bob La Follette, really the father of the Progressive Party. I would also say that that progressive tradition is alive and well in Wisconsin today. All of my colleagues know about what we are doing in the area of education reform and welfare reform. Well, it seems to me, from the Wisconsin perspective, if we want to talk about progressive themes and a progressive budget, the budget that we should be supporting, quite frankly, is not the so-called progressive substitute, but is, instead, this budget, the Republican budget plan. Because in my view that is the true Republican progressive plan. Number one, it strengthens retirement security. It protects 100 percent of the Social Security surplus. It sets aside $40 billion to provide for prescription drug coverage. That is progressive, to me. It promotes tax fairness, attacking some of the absurdities, some of the injustices in our Tax Code. It provides for reducing the marriage penalty. It provides for small business tax relief. And thanks to a sense of the Congress resolution that we added in the Committee on the Budget, it also takes care of one of the great problems that our farmers are facing in income averaging. My colleagues may not be aware, but as the IRS is looking to implement
the income averaging plan from the 1997 balanced budget agreement, they
will not let farmers take into account years in which they lose money.
Well, I have news for the IRS. Coming from the Midwest, I know that we
have lots of family farms who are losing money. That to me is a progressive plan. Our budget plan strengthens support for science and education. We increase education funding by 9.4 percent over last year; that is progressive. A difference between our budget and the so-called progressive plan is that our education funding is student centered, not bureaucracy centered. Under our plan, we ensure that money leaves Washington, leaves the bureaucracy and gets in the hands of classrooms and communities all across the Nation. We believe that our budget plan is the true progressive plan, because it seeks to make sure that every American will have the tools and the opportunity to pursue the American dream; that is progressive. Let us take a look quickly at the progressive budget plan. It is well-intentioned; however, it cuts $30 billion out of defense. How is that progressive? How is that progressive? How can you worry about progressive values if you are not secure? How can you worry about progressive values if your Nation is at risk? The progressive plan also raises taxes by about $151 billion over 5 years. How is that progressive? As we all know, the tax burden that we are facing right now is the highest that we faced since World War II. We are paying wartime taxes at a time when we are supposedly at peace. More and more families have to have two wage earners, not by choice, they have to have two wage earners just to make ends meet. And, yet, the progressive plan would increase their tax burden. My friends, I do not believe it is progressive. I am afraid I believe it is regressive. It is going backwards. It is going back to the days of tax and spend. Look carefully at what our budget does. It strengthens the retirement security system by locking away 100 percent of the Social Security surplus and providing for prescription drug coverage; that is progressive. It retires the debt by the year 2013 to hopefully keep interest rates down and keep the economy growing and keep those good jobs coming; that is progressive. It strengthens dramatically our investment in education and science; that is progressive. It promotes tax fairness for families and farmers and seniors, and, yes, it provides for defense. My friends, this is the progressive budget plan. I urge you all to vote for it. I urge you all to reject the
well-intentioned, but, I am afraid, regressive progressive budget
plan. ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) for yielding, and also I congratulate him as we stand, I think, on the threshold of a wonderful victory. I am a freshman, obviously, but I can say this, that from the first day that we met over a year ago, the gentleman has been preaching the gospel of eliminating the marriage penalty; and finally it has become a chorus, and I think again we are poised to do great things. I congratulate the gentleman for his hard work. I think we are poised to do great things. Something I would like to add to it, why this is especially appropriate to take up right now, the President in the State of the Union speech talked about all the wonderful things that are occurring in the American economy, and he should. There are a lot for all of us, Republican and Democrat, to be proud of. Unemployment is at a 30-year low. Inflation is relatively low. The economy is growing at historic levels. Wonderful, wonderful things. There is a dark side to it. We also have to understand that so many American couples have to have two wage earners. Now, if families decide to make that choice, that is one thing; but so many families have to have two wage earners just to make ends meet in this economy. So there are so many wonderful things. The tough side is that many families do have to have two wage earners. If, in fact, economic reality is forcing that, then it is particularly unfair that we have a Tax Code that punishes that. So it is especially important right now, as we have this economy, as we have so many two wage-earner families, that we do take on eliminating the marriage penalty. I think it is awfully important. We talked a bit about the tax relief it provides, but to me it is a matter of fairness because we do have so many couples who are forced into two wage-earner situations. As we all know, the Tax Code and the IRS suffer a lack of respectability. So many of us do not have a high regard for the Tax Code and all the absurdities in it. This perhaps is at the top of the list. When we talk to our constituents about what they dislike most about the IRS code and paying taxes, this is it. People are willing to pay their fair share. People are willing to work with a Tax Code that is fair; but when we take a look at how we punish these working couples, obviously there is nothing fair about that Tax Code. Finally, I think the gentleman boiled it down to its most important element, the type of tax relief that we are poised to provide, hopefully on a bipartisan measure and hopefully the President will give in and sign this, in very practical terms it will make an important difference. Whether it be affording health insurance or affording day care, this is real money and this is a real difference for working couples. The timing could not be better. It is critically important that we not only pass it, but pass it through both Houses and get it signed as quickly as possible, so the great prosperity that we all point to with pride can be enjoyed by working couples all over America. Once again, I congratulate the gentleman for his hard work. He has done
a great job, and I am real excited about what is going to happen
tomorrow. DEALING WITH THE BUDGET SURPLUS AND THE NATIONAL DEBT The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ganske). Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention a very important issue facing the American public, something that we dealt with today in the Committee on the Budget and something I talked about with the constituents I represent in the First Congressional District of Wisconsin throughout the past 2 months during the Christmas recess, and that is this: What are we going to do about our Social Security surplus, what are we going to do about our non-Social Security surplus, and what are we going to do about our national debt? These are the issues that are driving our Federal budget process now. In doing so, the President, as he is required by the Constitution, sent the budget that he is proposing to pass into law to Congress yesterday. This morning we had a hearing in the Committee on the Budget where the President's budget director outlined the budget. I would like to share a few of those details with the viewing public tonight and my colleagues. First, we finally have agreement, we have progress on the fact that all Social Security money should go to Social Security in paying off the debt we owe to the program. If you recall, Mr. Speaker, last year in this well, before the Nation and before Congress, the President in his State of the Union address said he wanted to dedicate 62 percent of the Social Security trust fund to Social Security, thereby spending 38 percent on other government programs. Last year this Congress said no, that is not enough. I actually authored the Social Security lockbox bill with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) which requires that from now on, if you are going to pay Social Security taxes, it goes to Social Security; that 100 percent of the Social Security taxes we pay, 100 percent of the Social Security surpluses actually go to the program, go to the trust fund and go to pay off our national debt so we can create more solvency in the Social Security trust fund. So there was a difference last year. Congress was for protecting 100 percent of the Social Security trust fund last year; the President was for protecting 62 percent of the Social Security trust fund. Now we have good news. The President has finally come around and agreed that, finally, for the first time in 30 years, we should pass legislation to protect 100 percent of the Social Security trust fund. I am very encouraged by this news. However, I am a little concerned at what Jack Lew, the OMB Director, the President's chief budget writer, said this morning, and that was this: They support the idea of putting 100 percent of the Social Security surpluses back into Social Security and paying off our debt, but they are not in support of legislation to ensure that this happens. That is a little odd, I think. So I would like to see this administration walk the walk and not just talk the talk. But then what happens when we look at the non-Social Security surpluses? Today in America people are overpaying their taxes. They are overpaying their taxes in two very fundamental ways: They are overpaying their taxes with Social Security taxes. That spending of the surplus has occurred for years. We have actually raided that fund for 30 years, this government has, to spend on other government programs. For the first time in 30 years, last year this Congress stopped the raid on the Social Security trust fund. I am seeking to pass our lockbox legislation which will make sure we never go back to the days of raiding the Social Security trust fund. But on the other side of the Federal Government ledger book, the non-Social Security part, millions of American taxpayers, hard-working families, are overpaying their income taxes. So we now have a non-Social Security surplus approaching $2 trillion over the next 10 years. That is astounding. We were looking at deficits as far as the eye could see just a few years ago. Now we have the opportunity, now we have the good fortune, based on good discipline in spending and based on a great economy, to have a $4 trillion surplus; $2 trillion for Social Security, $2 trillion from an overpayment of income taxes. Here is what the President is proposing to do. He is finally agreeing with Congress that we take the $2 trillion from the Social Security surplus and apply that back to Social Security, towards shoring up the program and paying off our National debt, which consequently is some money we owe back to Social Security. But on this non-Social Security part, the income tax overpayment, the President in this budget is proposing to spend $1.3 trillion of that surplus. He is proposing to spend 70 percent of the non-Social Security surplus on new government programs in Washington. Specifically, as we analyzed this budget in the Committee on the Budget as we did so this morning, the President is calling forth creation of 84 new Federal spending programs to be launched this year by the Federal Government, to be paid for by the income tax overpayments of the American taxpayer. Now, Mr. Speaker, I held over 60 town hall meetings in the district I serve in southern Wisconsin, the First Congressional District, where I posed a lot of questions to my constituents to ask them about this. They said that if they are given a choice between tax reduction and debt reduction with this money, they were evenly split. But if they were given a choice between spending their income tax overpayments on new spending in Washington or reducing our national debt further and reducing our tax burden on families, they would clearly side with reducing taxes and reducing the national debt. Mr. Speaker, this budget will probably fall to a similar fate as last year's budget, which was a vote of 422 opposed and 2 in favor of the President's budget. Mr. Speaker, I urge this administration to come back to the table, save these surpluses for paying down our national debt, shoring up Social Security and giving people their money back if they still overpay their taxes, instead of using it to spend $1.3 trillion on the creation of 84 new Federal Government programs. I would urge all of my colleagues to support not only this very reasonable rule but also the underlying bill. |
|
Congressman Mark Green complies with the rules and regulations of the US House of Representatives Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards and is solely responsible for the content of this Web page. Questions or Concerns about the web page should be directed to the damon.nelson@mail.house.gov |
