Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker that if he votes against this bill, 61,000 married couples, one half of whom are itemizers in the 24th Congressional District of Texas, will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. We need fairness. We can explain it. I am sure the gentleman cannot. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), who has been a real leader in our effort to bring fairness to the Tax Code by eliminating the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker, that my friend, if he votes against this bill, 61,000 married couples, one half of whom are itemizers, from the 12th Congressional District of Michigan, will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. The gentleman may be able to explain that to them, but I sure cannot. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a real leader in the effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, if he votes against this bill, 340,000 married couples in the Fifth Congressional District of California, one-half of whom are homeowners and itemizers, will not get relief from the marriage penalty. The gentleman may be able to explain that to them, but I sure cannot. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), who has been a real leader in her effort to eliminate the marriage penalty.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Florida is correct. We double the standard deduction immediately, so for those who do not itemize, they provide immediate relief. Then we begin phasing in over a short period of time the widening of the 15 percent bracket to help those who are itemizers, such as homeowners. The earned income tax credit is immediate, as well. One thing I would point out to the gentleman from Florida is the primary beneficiaries of the proposal that we are going to vote on tomorrow are those with incomes between $30,000 and $75,000 in combined income. A married couple with a combined income of $30,000 will see almost 97 percent of their tax burden eliminated when we wipe out their marriage tax penalty. A couple making a combined income of $75,000, and most people do not consider that rich today, will see about 10 percent of their income taxes wiped out by wiping out the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, the President in his proposal, his marriage tax relief essentially is 10 years from now. He phases it in over 10 years. He only does the standard deduction, which only benefits those who do not itemize. If you are a middle class working married couple that owns a home and itemize your taxes, the President's proposal, even after the 10 years it takes to fully phase it in, would provide zero relief. I would also point out that the President's proposal after it is phased in after 10 years would only provide relief for about 9 million couples, versus the 25 million who would benefit from our proposal to double the standard deduction, widen the 15 percent bracket to help those who itemize, as well as the earned income tax credit.

Mr. WELLER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. WELLER. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley), for his leadership as an active member of a team of Members of the House who have been working so hard over the last several years to eliminate what we consider to be the most unfair consequence of our complicated Tax Code, and that is the Tax Code's bias against marriage. Our goal with the H.R. 6 legislation we will be working to pass tomorrow, and has 241 cosponsors, as the gentleman pointed out, 30 Democrats have rejected the pressure from their leadership and are cosponsoring this legislation because they agree, it is time we help those 25 million couples. Let me share just very briefly what this proposal contains that we are going to be voting on tomorrow. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is a nonpartisan or I should say bipartisan committee that gives those of us in Congress advice on tax matters, I asked them the question, when it comes to those who suffer the marriage tax penalty, and we are looking at 25 million married ones, who are they? And of course, they pointed out not only is the marriage tax penalty about $1,400, but half of those who file jointly and suffer the marriage tax penalty itemize their taxes. The other half do not. Middle class taxpayers who itemize their taxes primarily itemize their taxes because they own a home. So as we look at how we can eliminate and wipe out the marriage tax penalty, we have to keep both homeowners and those who do not itemize their taxes in mind. There is another consequence in the Tax Code with the earned income tax credit for the working poor. It is a program created by Ronald Reagan back in the 1980s to help those in the work force who are kind of right on the edge so they can get by and raise their family and stay in the work force at the same time. We address marriage tax relief there. So essentially what we do in the proposal that we are going to vote on tomorrow, and I hope receives overwhelming bipartisan support, is we help those who do not itemize their taxes by doubling the standard deduction for joint filers to twice that of singles. For those who do itemize, and frankly, those are basically homeowners, one-half of married couples, we widen the 15 percent bracket. Every one of us, every American, the first part of our income, if we make as a single about $25 or less, it is taxed at 15 percent, and if one is married, under our proposal, that person can make up to about $50,000 as joint filers, combined income, and of course paying the 15 percent bracket. So we widen the 15 percent bracket to wipe out the marriage tax penalty for those who itemize their taxes, and for the earned income tax credit, as the gentleman pointed out, we raise the income eligibility threshold for joint filers, so we wipe out the marriage tax penalty for those who participate in the earned income tax credit. We also have an adjustment in this proposal so no one affected by this legislation is impacted by the alternative minimum tax. So we double the standard deduction, widen the 15 percent bracket, help the earned income tax credit, we provide protections against that horrible alternative minimum tax, and we wipe out the marriage tax penalty for almost 25 million married ones.

Mr. WELLER. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, I look back over the last 5 years and I think of when I was first elected in Congress in 1994, what were the big issues of the day. The Democrat Congress and President Clinton had just enacted the biggest tax hike in the history of this country, raising our tax burden to its highest level ever in peacetime history. We had massive deficits of $200 billion to $300 billion a year as far as the eye could see, and there was a proposed government takeover of our health care system. The American people did not necessarily like that situation, and they gave the Republicans the opportunity to be in the majority for the first time in 40 years. We said that we were going to meet the challenges, we were going to balance the budget, we were going to cut taxes for the middle class, that we were going to reform welfare, and, of course, pay down the national debt. I am proud to say that over the last 5 years, we have accomplished many of those goals, in fact, every one of them. 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. In fact, 3 million Illinois children benefit from that $500 per child tax credit. The first welfare reform in a generation has reduced our Nation's welfare rolls by one-half, and we overhauled the IRS and paid down $350 billion of the national debt. Those are great changes. On top of that, this past year, we stopped the terrible practice, probably Washington's dirtiest little secret, and that is Republicans put a stop to the raid on Social Security. This past year, for the first time in 30 years, we balanced the budget without touching one dime of Social Security, protecting that retirement income for our seniors. Those are great accomplishments. Of course, this year we are working to continue our effort to save social security and Medicare, to pay down the national debt, to help our local schools. We also want to bring about tax fairness. I thought I would take the next hour to discuss the issue of tax fairness. One of the most fundamental questions of fairness that I am often asked in the South Side of Chicago, the South suburbs, the rural areas that I represent, is, is it right, is it fair, that under our Tax Code 25 million married working couples on average pay almost $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married? Does that seem right, that under our Tax Code, that 25 million married working couples pay $1,400 more just because they are married than an identical couple with an identical income, identical circumstances, who live together outside of marriage? That is not right, is it? This House over the last few years has been working to eliminate what we call the marriage tax penalty. We sent to the President last year legislation which would have wiped out the marriage tax penalty. Had it been in effect and not vetoed by the President, it would have provided marriage tax relief for 25 million couples this year. We are back at it again. In fact, tomorrow this House is going to vote on a stand-alone bill, a clean marriage tax elimination proposal, H.R. 6, which I am proud to say has the bipartisan cosponsorship of 241 Members of the House. The State of Illinois that I represent has 1.1 million couples suffering the marriage tax penalty. I have a photo with me of really a fine example of a young couple in Joliet, Illinois, two married schoolteachers who suffer the marriage tax penalty. This is Michelle and Shad Hallihan. They teach in the Joliet schools. They suffer the marriage tax penalty. In fact, Michelle pointed out to me, ``We just had a baby.'' Of course, they benefit from the $500 per child tax credit that we enacted just a few short years ago, but they suffer a marriage tax penalty. Michelle shared. She said, ``Tell your friends in the Congress that if you wipe out the marriage tax penalty for the Hallihan family, that the money that otherwise would have gone to Washington in extra taxes because we are married would buy 3,000 diapers to help us care for our child.'' In the South suburbs of Chicago, $1,400, the average marriage tax penalty, is one year's tuition at Joliet Community College and other colleges in Illinois. It is 3 months of day care at a local day care center. It is real money for real people. We are going to be voting on legislation tomorrow which of course wipes out the marriage tax penalty for a majority of those who suffer it. It is legislation that helps 25 million couples. It does several things. First, we double the standard deduction for joint filers. The marriage tax penalty results from filing taxes jointly. Michelle and Shad Hallihan, two public school teachers with incomes that are nearly identical, are similar to this machinist and schoolteacher. What causes the marriage tax penalty is a married couple files jointly. When you file jointly, you combine your income. If you stay single, you do not. So when you combine your income, that pushes you into a higher tax bracket. There is a case here of a machinist at Caterpillar. Say he is single, making $30,500, basically the identical income to Shad and Michelle. If he stays single, he stays in the 25 percent tax bracket. If he meets a schoolteacher in Joliet with an identical income of $30,500, their combined income of $61,000, because they choose to get married, file jointly, pushes them into the 28 percent tax bracket. As we can see from this example, they pay basically the average marriage tax penalty of $1,400 just because they are married. Madam Speaker, it is just wrong that under our Tax Code this hard- working machinist and this hard-working schoolteacher who made the choice to live in holy matrimony pay higher taxes just because they are married.

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, I want to reclaim my time and thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his leadership in helping families. He has been a tireless advocate in making the Tax Code fair. That is what it is all about. Our goal is to make the Tax Code fair for working families, those who work hard, pay their bills on time, and pay their taxes on time. They all tell me they pay too much in taxes, but they complain even more about how unfair the Tax Code is; that it is too complicated and that our Tax Code punishes marriage, it punishes family, it punishes those who are entrepreneurs and create small businesses. Clearly, a decision has been made by our leadership, under the leadership of our House Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), that we are going to do something that is a good idea. We are going to send to the President a stand-alone bill that does one thing. So there are no excuses. There are no excuses for Bill Clinton to veto this bill this time. And that is we are going to send to the President legislation that will help 25 million married working couples by bringing fairness to the Tax Code, that wipes out the marriage tax penalty. The proposal we will vote on tomorrow does several things. It helps those who do not itemize, by doubling the standard deduction for joint filers to twice that of singles, and that will take care of about 9 million couples. We also widen the 15 percent bracket to help those who itemize their taxes. And as we all know, the primary reason middle- class families itemize their taxes is because they own a home. So if we want to help those other couples, and we are going to help 25 million couples, we have to help those who itemize; those who own a home and pursue the American dream. They should not have to continue paying the marriage tax penalty just because they are a homeowner. That is wrong. We also help those who participate in the earned income credit, the working poor. Those who are at the edge that need a little extra help. Of course, Ronald Reagan created the earned income credit program back in the mid-1980s to help families that are working poor and of course want to be in the work force and be able to support their children and raise their families in a good quality of life. So we wipe out the marriage tax penalty for 25 million married working couples, we help those who itemize and suffer the marriage tax penalty, and we help low-income families. And under our proposal, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the biggest beneficiaries are those with incomes between $30,000 and $75,000. In fact, for a couple making $30,000 in combined income, 97 percent of their Federal income tax is wiped out when we wipe out their marriage tax penalty. For those making $75,000, we reduce their tax burden by about 11 percent when we wipe out their marriage tax penalty. I think of young couples like Michelle and Shad Hallihan, two public school teachers in Joliet, Illinois, who suffer the marriage tax penalty. They both teach in Joliet public schools. They just had a baby, and they are excited about that. And as Michelle told me, she says if we can convince the Congress and the President to wipe out the marriage tax penalty, what the marriage tax penalty means to couples like Michelle and Shad Hallihan is about 3,000 diapers for their newborn child. The marriage tax penalty is real money for real people. It is $1,400 on average. Twenty-five million married working couples suffer the unfairness of the Tax Code when they pay $1,400 more in higher taxes. In the south suburbs of Illinois, on the south side of Chicago, the area I have the privilege of representing, $1,400 is 1 year's tuition at Joliet Junior College, the local community college. It is 3 months of day care. It is several months of car payments. $1,400, the average working tax penalty, is a significant contribution to an individual's retirement account, those IRAs. It is real money for real people. Tomorrow, H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, will be brought to the floor of this House to be debated. My hope is it will pass with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. It is all about fairness, bringing fairness to the Tax Code. My hope is Democrats will join with Republicans in wiping out the marriage tax penalty. I am pleased that thanks to the leadership of my colleague and friend, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner), who is our chief Democratic cosponsor of H.R. 6, we have 30 Democrats that have joined as cosponsors as part of the 241 that are in support of this bill. Tomorrow is a big day. Let us wipe out the marriage tax penalty. Let us bring fairness to the Tax Code. Let us have a strong bipartisan show of support for H.R. 6, wiping out the marriage tax penalty and bringing fairness to the Tax Code.

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota, who has been a tireless advocate for wiping out the marriage tax penalty and speaking out on behalf of families in Minnesota. I appreciate very much his leadership. The gentleman from Minnesota made an important point. He said that the legislation we are going to pass out of the House of Representatives tomorrow, hopefully with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, is a stand-alone bill that does one thing, and that is this legislation wipes out the marriage tax penalty for couples like Shad and Michelle Hallihan, two public school teachers from Joliet, Illinois. If we think about it, last year, when President Clinton and Vice President Gore vetoed our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, it was part of a package. There were other tax unfairness issues we were trying to address. And President Clinton and Vice President Gore said they would much rather spend the money than bring fairness to the Tax Code. This year there are no excuses, because we are going to send to the President a stand-alone bill that does one thing, wiping out the marriage tax penalty for those who suffer it, and that is 25 million married working couples who pay higher taxes just because they are married. It is not right. It is not fair. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), who has been a tireless advocate as well in our efforts to wipe out the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) for her leadership and efforts to wipe out the marriage tax penalty. She has made a very important point that those who really suffer the most from the marriage tax penalty tend to be working women. Traditionally, and it is changing, but traditionally the second earner has been a women. Now it has changed where more women are becoming the primary bread winner, but traditionally that has not been the case. Right now, if a woman is in the work force, that causes a marriage tax penalty. It is just not right that she is punished, as well as her husband, if she goes into the work force because they want a little extra money to make ends meet and care for their children. So, clearly, as we work to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, there is a lot of people who benefit, 25 million married working couples who benefit from our efforts to wipe out the marriage tax penalty. As the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) also pointed out, the primary beneficiary of the legislation that we are going to vote on tomorrow are those with incomes between $30,000 and $75,000 in combined income, joint income between husband and wife who suffer the marriage tax penalty. With the legislation we are going to pass out of the House tomorrow, hopefully with an overwhelming bipartisan support, and I would note that there are 30 Democrats that are cosponsoring, along with a total of 241 bipartisan cosponsors, almost every Republican is a cosponsor of this bill, that we wipe out the marriage tax penalty. But also for a couple making $30,000 a year, we essentially wipe out their tax burden entirely. In fact, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, a bipartisan tax advisory panel that gives tax advice when it comes to tax issues to the House Committee on Ways and Means as well as other Members of the House and Senate, if a married couple has a combined income of $30,000, which is a pretty moderate income, they would see almost 94 percent of their tax burden wiped away as a result of this legislation. If a couple has a combined income of $75,000 between husband and wife, they would see about a 10 to 11 percent reduction in their tax burden as a result of wiping out the marriage tax penalty. That is real money when we think about it. The average marriage tax penalty is $1,400. It is just not right that marriage couples pay an average $1,400 more because they are married compared to an identical couple with identical couple who are not married and may live together. Back in the south suburbs of Chicago and the area I represent, there are 1.1 million Illinois married couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty. Fourteen hundred dollars is 1 year's tuition for a nursing student at Joliet Junior College, our local community college. It is 3 months of day care for a family with children with a child in a local child care center. So it is real money for real people. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) who has been a real leader in our effort to bring fairness to the tax code by eliminating the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) for his tireless work on our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. As the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) pointed out, it is all about fairness. As we work this year to pay down the national debt and help our local schools and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, we also want to work to make the Tax Code fair. A lot of us believe that the most unfair consequence of our complicated Tax Code is the marriage tax penalty suffered by 25 million married working couples who, on average, pay $1,400 more just because they are married. Now, tomorrow we are going to have an opportunity to vote on legislation which will essentially wipe out the marriage tax penalty for 25 million couples. I am disappointed that those on the other side, particularly the Democrat leadership and some of the bureaucrats down at the Treasury Department, only want to help about one-fourth of those who suffer the marriage tax penalty. In fact, they say if one owns a home and itemizes their taxes, they do not want to help one. I do not think that is fair either. If we want to help those who suffer the marriage tax penalty, we should help everyone who suffers the marriage tax penalty. I find, whether I am at a union hall, the steelworkers' hall in Hegwish in the south side of Chicago, or a grain elevator in Tonica, or the Weits' Cafe in my hometown of Morris, Illinois, regardless of folks' background or what they do for a living, if they are filing jointly and they are married and they both work, they suffer the marriage tax penalty. We should help everyone who suffers the marriage tax penalty. The proposal we are going to pass, hopefully with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of support tomorrow, will wipe out the marriage tax penalty for a vast majority of those who suffer it, helping 25 million married working couples who suffer from the marriage tax penalty. It is all about fairness. Let us be fair to everyone who suffers the marriage tax penalty, those who itemize, those who own a home, as well as those who do not itemize, those under earned income credit all benefit from our effort to wipe out the marriage tax penalty. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), and I appreciate very much her leadership and her efforts to wipe out the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for his leadership as one of the new Members that has joined our effort to wipe out the marriage tax penalty. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) really pointed out a really important point. This is all about fairness. As we have often asked in this debate over our efforts to wipe out the marriage tax penalty for 25 million American working couples who pay $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married, is it right? Is it fair? I do not believe that there is one American who believes that the marriage tax penalty is fair; that our Tax Code punishes 25 million married working couples. That is 50 million Americans who pay higher taxes just because they are married. That is not fair. My biggest disappointment, as we go into this debate tomorrow, is that the President says that he only wants to help those who do not itemize their taxes. So is it really fair that if there is a young married couple or older married couple who pursues the American dream and buys a home and, of course, many itemize their taxes because they own a home, that they still have to pay the marriage tax penalty? That is not right. I know tomorrow and later today we may hear a debate from the Democrats saying they do not want to help homeowners. They will just say they only want to help those who do not itemize. Well, I know of thousands of middle-class, married couples who are homeowners who itemize their taxes in the district that I have the privilege of representing. One half of married couples, and there are 1.1 million married couples in Illinois that suffer the marriage tax penalty, so over 500,000 of them itemize their taxes because they probably own a home or they give money to charity or their church or synagogue or temple or mosque, or they have college expenses that are paying off student loans. Those folks itemize and the alternative that the Democrats are going to call for tomorrow will not provide marriage tax relief to them. They will just say, sorry, they still have to pay the marriage tax penalty, and that is not right. It is not fair. Madam Speaker, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), who has been another leader in our effort to wipe out the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I again thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), for his leadership and hard work and effort as we work to wipe out the marriage tax penalty for 25 million married working couples. Let us be frank here. Of course I am a Republican and we have been working as Republicans to wipe out the marriage tax penalty over the last several years, but I was pleased the President had a change of heart. Last year he vetoed our effort to wipe out the marriage tax penalty, and he made passing reference to it in the State of the Union speech. So there has been a change of position, because it broke the hearts of 25 million couples when he vetoed it last year. He has come up with a proposal, as we said, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) pointed out, that takes 10 years to phase in. So essentially 10 years from now, those who do not itemize would see their standard deduction doubled. So it barely keeps up with inflation and only provides about $210 in marriage tax relief for those couples, 9 million couples. The proposal that we are bringing to the floor tomorrow, H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, has 241 cosponsors, including a dozen Democrats. We provide, as we essentially wipe out the vast majority of the marriage tax penalty, up to about $1,250 in marriage tax relief for married couples. We benefit 25 million married working couples. Think about it. What is $1,200? That is several months' worth of car payments, 3 months of day care for a family with children that are in a child care center. It is, of course, a down payment on a home. It is a contribution to an individual retirement account. It is real money for real people. So this is why it is so important that we work in a bipartisan way. That is why I really want to salute my friend, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner), for her leadership as a Democrat, our chief Democrat cosponsor of H.R. 6, and for her efforts to make this a bipartisan effort, because that is what it should be. Politics should not stand in the way of our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Madam Speaker, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, over the last 3 years, many of us have asked a pretty fundamental and basic question, and that is, is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code, 25 million married, working couples pay higher taxes just because they are married. In fact, the 25 million married working couples pay an average of $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married; and 1.1 million of those American working couples live in Illinois, married couples who pay higher taxes just because they are married. I have with me a photo of Shad and Michelle Hallihan. They are an average couple suffering the marriage tax penalty, two public schoolteachers in Illinois. Michelle points out the marriage tax penalty for her would buy 3,000 diapers for their newborn child. It is real money for real people. Tomorrow the House is going to vote on a bipartisan proposal. Madam Speaker, 241 Members of the House are now cosponsoring H.R. 6, legislation which will essentially wipe out the marriage tax penalty for the majority of those who suffer from it. Let us set aside partisanship, let us work together to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Valentine's Day is next week. What better gift could this Congress give 25 million married, working couples than passage of this legislation tomorrow to wipe out the marriage tax penalty for couples like Michelle and Shad Hallihan.

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. I want to thank both of you and Chairman Archer for the pledge to bring H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, to the floor for consideration before Valentine's Day. This is truly one of the best Valentine's Day presents we can give to America's working couples. As you know, H.R. 6, as considered by the Ways and Means Committee, will provide $182 billion in marriage penalty relief over 10 years. This is a significant increase over the $45 billion proposal offered by President Clinton just before this year's State of the Union Address. Ultimately, as a result of H.R. 6, 28 million working couples will receive up to $1,400 in marriage tax penalty relief. This month President Clinton gave his State of the Union Address outlining many of the things he will spend the budget surplus on. House Republicans want to preserve 100% of the Social Security surplus for Social Security and Medicare and use the non-Social Security surplus for paying down the debt and to bring fairness to the Tax Code. 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 parades a long list of new spending totaling $72 billion in new 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 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 rise today to honor Fire Chief Angelo Petrarca who retired on January 31, 2000 after 40 years of service in South Chicago Heights. Fire Chief Petrarca joined the South Chicago Heights Fire Department in June 1970. He became a Lieutenant in May 1971 and was appointed Assistant Fire Chief in May 1973. On May 1, 1974, Mr. Petrarca was appointed as Fire Chief. Chief Petrarca has been a resident of South Chicago Heights since 1959, and is known to be completely dedicated to his career as well as to ensuring the health and well-being of the community. The major highlight of Chief Petrarca's career this past year involves the improvement of the fire departments response time which was previously, on average 6-7 minutes, before November 1998. The response time is now an impressive two minutes from the time of call to the actual arrival of EMS personnel on site. This is mostly due to Chief Petrarca's decision to staff the fire department with a 24 hour a day on duty paramedic along with another EMS professional on call seven days a week. Chief Petrarca also believes in giving of his time to various organizations both professionally and for the good of the community. Some of his affiliations include: Member of the Illinois Fire Chief Association; Past President of the WILCO Fire Chiefs Association; Member of the International Association of Arson Investigators; Chairperson of the ETSB; Member of the National Emergency Number Association; and Member of South Chicago Heights Y2K Readiness Committee. Fire Chief Angelo Petrarca'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 Fire Chief Petrarca is both timely and appropriate. I urge this body to identify and recognize others in their congressional districts whose actions have so greatly benefitted and enlightened America's communities.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the village of Monee and its quasquicentennial celebration. The village of Monee was formed in the year 1874 and the residents of Monee have celebrated their 125 years of history with dozens of different events throughout the year 1999. It has been my great privilege and honor to serve the residents of Monee. I am pleased to recognize their strong and admirable sense of community pride. The village of Monee, which lies in my 11th congressional district, is situated in northern Will County. Although the village is located less than 30 miles from the city of Chicago, the village has been able to maintain its small-town ambiance and sense of pride in its history and progress. Both the village and local organizations contribute time and money to hosting family-orientated events and activities. The village of Monee was founded by Augustus Herbert in November of 1853 when he recorded his plat of land at the Will County Courthouse. The village is believed to be named for a French-Ottawa Indian woman, Marie LeFevre Bailly. The French called Marie ``Mah-ree'' but the Ottawa Indians had no sound for the letter ``r'' and called her ``Mah- nee.'' French treaty clerks later wrote the name as ``Mo-nee.'' The Indian princess, Marie was renowned as one of the most beautiful women in the northwest area. In 1833, the Treaty of Camp Tippecanoe made with the Pottawatomie Tribe made a gift of property to the four daughters of Marie and her husband Joseph Bailly. This gift of property is possibly the only connection between ``Princess Monee'' and the village named in her honor. Today, the village of Monee has a growing population of approximately 1,044. The current village president is the Honorable Larry Kochel. Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to identify and recognize other towns and villages in their own districts which are proudly celebrating special occasions.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Elizabeth (Beth) S. Ruyle for her 21 years of service and dedication as executive director for the South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association (SSMMA). Ms. Ruyle became the executive director of South Suburban Mayors and Managers in June 1978. South Suburban Mayors and Managers is a council of government which includes 38 municipalities in South Suburban Cook and Eastern Will Counties. Through Beth's hard work, many of the communities' goals have been realized. These goals include the development of regional planning programs in transportation, solid waste, flood management, and housing. Twenty municipalities now have an intergovernmental self insurance pool for property and casualty. Twelve municipalities can now boast they have an intergovernmental self insurance pool for employee benefits. All thirty-eight municipalities can now rely on fire, police, and public works mutual aid agreements in times of emergency. Under the direction of Ms. Ruyle, the SSMMA was one of the first entities to establish a multimunicipal bond bank which now has $50 million in assets. Before coming to work at the SSMMA, Beth and her husband, Craig Hullinger, lived in Atlanta, GA where she had the position of governmental relations coordinator for the Atlanta Regional Commission. Beth completed her undergraduate studies at the University of Florida in 1968. In 1975, She received her M.P.A. graduate degree from the University of Georgia. Beth has won several Urban Innovations awards during her career such as an award for Employee Assistance Program, an award for South Suburban Drug Enforcement Program, and a reward for Cost Savings/ Revenue Enhancement. In January 1996, Beth was listed in ``Crain's Chicago Business'' as one of the ``100 Most Influential Women In Chicago''. Beth Ruyle's commitment and impact on her 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 Beth Ruyle is both timely and appropriate. I urge this body to identify and recognize others in their congressional districts whose actions have so greatly benefitted and enlightened America's communities.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, over the last several years, many of us have been asking a question that we hear time and time again back home. I have the privilege of representing the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs, communities like Joliet and Lancing and Morris and rural communities like Tonica and elsewhere; and they often ask me a pretty basic question. That question is, as we talk about taxes, they say, why? Why do married working couples, a husband and wife who are both in the workforce, why do they pay higher taxes when they get married? They ask, is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code, married working couples pay higher taxes? On average, 25 million married working couples pay, on average, $1,400 more in higher taxes than identical couples who choose not to get married, but live together outside of marriage. That is not right. The folks back home tell me that it is time that those of us here in Washington should do something about it, that we should work to eliminate what has been called the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, $1,400, the average marriage tax penalty, is a lot of money back home in Illinois. Mr. Speaker, $1,400 is one year's tuition for a nursing student at Joliet Junior College, our local community college; it is three months of day care for a working mom and dad with children. It is almost 4,000 diapers for a family with a newborn child. It is real money for real people; and there are, of course, some here in Washington who say they would much rather spend that money here in Washington than bring about tax fairness by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Well, I am proud to say this House is doing something about the marriage tax penalty. Last year we passed and sent legislation to the President which would have wiped out the marriage tax penalty for over 25 million couples; and unfortunately, President Clinton and Vice President Gore vetoed that bill. They had a lot of excuses. They wanted to spend that money. But this year, there is no excuse. We have Valentine's Day approaching, and what better gift to give 25 million married working couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty than to pass legislation wiping out the marriage tax penalty. This Thursday, we will be considering in the House legislation approved by the Committee on Ways and Means, H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, which I am proud to say now has 236 cosponsors, including almost 30 Democrats who have joined with us in our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We help real people. Let me introduce a couple here. This couple here, Shad and Michelle Hallihan of Joliet, Illinois, two public school teachers in Joliet, Illinois. They happen to make about $60,000 in combined income from their two teaching salaries, and Shad and Michelle suffer almost the average marriage tax penalty. Well, under the legislation that the House is going to be considering this week, Shad and Michelle will benefit, because two public school teachers who chose to get married who now suffer the marriage tax penalty will essentially have their marriage tax penalty wiped out. Michelle told me the other day, she says, Congressman, tell your friends in the Congress, particularly those who believe it is not a good idea to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, what wiping out the marriage tax penalty would mean for them. They say $1,000, which is essentially the marriage tax penalty, would buy 3,000 diapers for their newborn baby. That is money that is currently going to Washington that they could use to take care of their child. Frankly, if we want to be fair, it is their money. We should eliminate the marriage tax penalty. This Thursday, H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, will help couples like Shad and Michele Hallihan. We do it in several ways. We double the standard deduction. One-half of married couples do not itemize their taxes; they use the standard deduction, so we double it for joint filers. The marriage penalty is created when a married couple of course get married, they file their taxes jointly, their combined income usually pushes them into a higher tax bracket. That is what pushes Shad and Michelle into the 28 percent bracket. What we want to do, of course, is for the nonitemizers, which is about half of the married couples who suffer the marriage penalty, to double the standard deduction for joint filers to make it twice that of singles. For those who itemize, who are the other half of married couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty, those who itemize are homeowners. The average middle-class family itemizes their taxes because they own a home. We want to help them and provide marriage tax relief as well. So we widen the 15 percent bracket, the basic tax bracket that every one of us pays. We are all in the 15 percent bracket, regardless of our income, for the lowest bottom bracket of our income. By widening the bracket so that joint filers, married couples, can earn twice as much as a single filer and be in that same bracket, we help those who itemize. We also help the working poor. There is a marriage penalty for the earned income credit, and we provide tax relief for them. This Thursday, let us have an overwhelming bipartisan majority. Let us work together. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. There are no excuses. We want to be fair. Eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

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. I want to thank both you and Chairman Archer for the pledge to bring H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, to the floor for consideration before Valentine's Day. This is truly one of the best Valentine's Day presents we can give to America's working couples. As you know, H.R. 6, as considered by the Ways and Means Committee, will provide $182 billion in marriage penalty relief over 10 years. This is a significant increase over the $45 billion proposal offered by President Clinton just before this year's State of the Union Address. Ultimately, as a result of H.R. 6, 28 million working couples will receive up to $1,400 in marriage tax penalty relief. This month President Clinton gave his State of the Union Address outlining many of the things he will spend the budget surplus on. House Republicans want to preserve 100 percent of the Social Security surplus for Social Security and Medicare and use the non-Social Security surplus for paying down the debt and to bring fairness to the Tax Code. 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 parades a long list of new spending totaling $72 billion in new 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's fair that our tax code imposes a higher tax penalty on marriage? Do Americans feel it's 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, over the last several years many of us have asked a very fundamental question, and that is, is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code if individuals get married they pay higher taxes than if they stay single? Is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code that 28 million married working couples pay on average $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married? Well, this House, under the leadership of the Speaker, is going to do something about that. Today, the House Committee on Ways and Means is going to have committee action on H.R. 6, legislation which will wipe out the marriage tax penalty for the vast majority of those who suffer it, providing marriage tax relief for 28 million married working couples; couples such as Shad and Michelle Hallihan, two public school teachers from Joliet, Illinois, who suffer the marriage tax penalty just because they are married. Now, their marriage tax penalty is about $1,000, just below average. But Michelle Hallihan told me, she said, ``Tell your friends in Washington that the marriage tax penalty is real money for real people.'' That thousand dollar marriage tax penalty that Shad and Michelle suffer, they just had a baby, and she pointed out that that $1,000 would purchase for her and her husband and her child 3,000 diapers. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I am pleased a dozen Democrats have finally joined with us. We are going to make a bipartisan effort and wipe out the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), for the opportunity to say a few words on this important discussion tonight. I also want to commend the gentleman for his leadership in our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Thanks to your effort, as well as the gentlemen from South Dakota and Pennsylvania, we now have 231 Members of the House of Representatives now joined as cosponsors of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act. We have often asked in the well of this House, is it right or fair that under our Tax Code 28 million married working couples pay an average of $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married? Is that right? Certainly the folks back home in the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs that I represent say it is not. Whether you are in the union halls, or the VFW, or the Legion posts or the local coffee shop, the local grain elevator, people keep asking me, when are the folks in Washington going to eliminate the marriage tax penalty? Of course, it broke my heart last year when President Clinton vetoed our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It was part of a bigger package of tax relief. Fortunately, this year the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, has made I think a very important strategic decision. The Speaker says no more excuses. We are going to send a stand-alone piece of legislation which wipes out the marriage tax penalty for the vast majority of those who suffer it by itself. It is the only thing the proposal is going to do. Tomorrow the Committee on Ways and Means has scheduled to have committee action on H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Elimination Act legislation, which will wipe out the marriage tax penalty, providing marriage tax relief for 28 million married working couples. Let me introduce a couple that time and time again I have referred to in this debate over the need to wipe out the marriage tax penalty, and that is Michelle and Shad Hallihan. They are two public school teachers from Joliet, Illinois. They suffer about $1,000 in marriage tax penalty. Of course, that is a little bit less than the average marriage tax penalty. But Shad and Michelle just recently had a baby. Michelle Hallihan said, ``Tell your colleagues in the Congress what that marriage tax penalty means to us.'' She said, ``They should know that that $1,000 would buy 3,000 diapers for our baby.'' The marriage tax penalty, whether it is $1,000 for the Hallihans or $1,400 more for the average married couple, it is real money for real people. In fact, $1,400, the average marriage tax penalty in Joliet, Illinois, the home of Michelle and Shad Hallihan, is one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College, our local community college; it is 3 months of daycare at a local daycare center; it is several months' worth of car payments; it is the majority of an IRA contribution for their annual retirement account. It is really money for real people. The legislation that, of course, we are going to be acting on in committee tomorrow, will wipe out the marriage tax penalty for a majority of those who suffer it by doubling the standard deduction for those who do not itemize for joint filers to twice that of singles. One of the benefits of that, not only will it provide marriage tax relief for many low and moderate income families who do not itemize their taxes, but 3 million married working couples will no longer need to itemize, simplifying their tax form. For those who do itemize their taxes, like a homeowner, when you own a home, in many cases you itemize, or if you give to charity or have other deductible contributions, you itemize your taxes. Under this proposal, not only do we double the standard deduction, but we widen the 15 percent tax bracket. Every working American is in the 15 percent tax bracket, and under our legislation, by widening the tax bracket so that joint filers can earn twice what single filers can earn and be in the 15 percent tax bracket, we provide tax relief for those who itemize their taxes as well. The third component is an important one as well. The earned income credit, which helps working poor families make their ends meet, there is a marriage penalty there as well. We adjust the income threshold so that joint filers, married couples, qualify equally with single people for the earned income credit. So it is an issue of fairness, and I am proud that this House is now scheduled after the Ways and Means Committee acts tomorrow, to vote on our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty a week from Thursday, on February 10th. That is good news. I really want to salute Speaker Hastert and the House Republican leadership for making elimination of the marriage tax penalty first out of the box in our efforts to bring fairness to the Tax Code. I am proud of that. I again want to thank the gentleman from California for his leadership in organizing today's discussion.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, it is a great day here and today we are, of course, responding to an important question that we have asked in this well of the House over the last several years and that is a pretty basic fundamental question. That is: Is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code married working couples pay more in taxes than an identical couple in an identical situation living together outside of marriage? It is just wrong that under our Tax Code 28 million married working couples pay, on average, $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married. Mr. Speaker, is it right that under our Tax Code that couples are punished, that they are penalized when they choose to participate in society's most basic institution? That is the fact today. I represent a diverse district on the south side of Chicago. In the south suburbs in Cook and Will Counties, in Joliet and the bedroom and farm communities they all ask the same question. They wonder why for 30 years now Washington has punished marriage and no one has gone back to fix it. I am pleased that under the leadership of the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), this House has made it a top priority to eliminate and wipe out the marriage tax penalty suffered by 28 million married working couples. The Speaker has said that the elimination of the marriage tax penalty will be fast out of the box and on a fast track through the Senate and to the President, wiping out the marriage tax penalty and stopping the Tax Code from punishing marriage. The marriage tax penalty really results from our very complicated Tax Code. And, unfortunately, because we have a progressive Tax Code, if couples get married, they get punished. That is just wrong. Mr. Speaker, here is how the marriage tax penalty works. Here is how it ends up. Say there is a machinist and a school teacher in Joliet, Illinois. A machinist who works at Caterpillar at the local plant. The machinist makes that heavy equipment, the big bulldozers and cranes and earth-moving equipment. He makes $31,500 a year. If he is single, he pays taxes in the 15 percent tax bracket. Now, Mr. Speaker, if he meets a tenured public school teacher in the Joliet Public School System with an identical income, as long as she is single she pays in the 15 percent tax bracket. But if this school teacher and machinist choose to get married, when they are married they file jointly and add together their income. What happens then is their combined income is $63,000 and that pushes them into the 28 percent tax bracket, and they are punished with an almost $1,400 marriage tax penalty. If they chose to stay single and live together outside of marriage, they would avoid that marriage tax penalty. In this case, because this machinist and school teacher chose to live in holy matrimony, society's most basic institution, they are punished under our Tax Code. I find most Americans, whether they live in the city or the suburbs or the country, think it is just wrong and they want Congress and the President to do something about it. That is why I am so pleased, because I have a another couple from Joliet, Illinois, two public school teachers, Shad and Michelle Hallihan. They came and told me they suffered a marriage tax penalty of $1,000. They just had a baby. Michelle told me, ``Congressman, tell your colleagues in the Congress that $1,000 average in marriage tax penalty is 3,000 diapers.'' Of course, they point out that $1,400, the average marriage tax penalty, is one year's tuition in the local community college. Well, House Republicans are going to do something about this. We are going to work to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and the Speaker has put it on a fast track. This Wednesday, tomorrow, the House Committee on Ways and Means will have committee action on legislation that will essentially wipe out the marriage tax penalty for a majority of those who suffer it. We double the standard deduction for joint filers to twice that of singles, which will not only help 3 million couples who will no longer have to itemize their taxes, but will essentially wipe out their marriage tax penalty for those who do not itemize. Of course, many homeowners itemize. In order to help homeowners and those who itemize from suffering the marriage tax penalty, we widen the 15 percent bracket so that joint filers can earn twice as much as single filers and still pay in the 15 percent bracket. And for low- income families who benefit from the Earned Income Tax Credit, we also provide marriage tax relief for poor families and low-income families who suffer from the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, it is good, common-sense legislation and deserves overwhelming bipartisan support. There is no excuse to vote against legislation wiping out the marriage tax penalty. The Speaker of the House has also indicated that by Valentine's Day that we are going to pass this through to help couples like Shad and Michelle Hallihan who suffer the marriage tax penalty. And what better Valentine's Day gift to give 28 million married working couples than legislation which will eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Think in these terms: $1,400 is a drop in the bucket here in Washington. It is chump change for the Washington bureaucrats and the big spenders here in Washington. But back home in Illinois, a $1,400 marriage tax penalty is one year's tuition at a local community college; 3 months of day care for Shad and Michelle for their child; it is several months' worth of car payments; it is most of the contribution to an IRA for Michelle. It is real money for real people. House Republicans are making it a priority. We invite the Democrats to join with us. Let us make it a bipartisan effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. What better Valentine's Day gift to give 28 million married working couples. I urge my colleagues to pass the legislation with bipartisan support and send it to the Senate and send it on the President. 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. This month President Clinton gave his State of the Union Address outlining many of the things he will spend the budget surplus on. House Republicans want to preserve 100% of the Social Security surplus for Social Security and Medicare and use the non-Social Security surplus for paying down the debt and to bring fairness to the tax code. 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 parades a long list of new spending totaling $72 billion in new 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 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 idential 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%.