Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to lend my strong support for the FY 2000 Foreign Operations spending package. Mr. Chairman, everyone in this chamber knows that funding America's overseas commitments is not one of the most popular things we do in this body. With tight federal budgets, people back home often ask whey we spend this money, and many people do not realize that this appropriations package is one of the smallest this Congress will consider out of the 13 bills. That being said, I would like to praise the work of Chairman Callahan and the Foreign Operations Subcommittee for bringing to the floor a commonsense package that stretches the taxpayers money and continues the Republican Congress' commitment to slowing foreign assistance. One of the areas I am very concerned about in this bill deals with America's strongest and most reliable ally in the Middle East, Israel. H.R. 2606 proposes $960 million in economic aid to our friend in the Middle East. Mr. Chairman this is almost $120 million less than the FY 99 level which leaves me with some concern, but nonetheless, this is important funding to help insure stability in Israel's economy, and this approach by the committee will eventually lead us down the glidepath of a phaseout of economic assistance. H.R. 2606 also helps to provide for the security of Israel. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides for a $60 million increase over FY 99 for military assistance to a total of $1.92 billion. While I am pleased to hear that the new Israeli leadership is eager to step up efforts in the peace process, it is clear that we cannot have peace in the Middle East without a strong and secure Israel. These funds for Israel are especially important when the United States is still concerned and engaged with threats by Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran and international terrorists in the region. Chemical and biological weapons have already been used in the region, and several enemies or terrorist groups in the region are waiting for the opportunity to disrupt the peace process or commit outright acts of aggression towards Israel. These funds will reduce that threat for our ally and for American interests in the Middle East and around the world. Mr. Chairman, this is a responsible bill that meets our overseas commitments and ensures that America's allies are engaged as active partners in U.S. foreign policy. I thank the Chairman for his attention to the needs of our friends in Israel, and I ask that members support this measure. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs. Eris L. Rudman and the preserved prairie named in her memory located in Frankfort, Illinois. Forty-five years ago, Mrs. Rudman made Frankfort, Illinois her home. She had just served our country in the Korean War as 1st Lieutenant in the U.S. Army Nursing Corps and received combat decoration while serving in an evacuation hospital. Upon arriving in Frankfort, Mrs. Rudman actively developed and maintained the village's first park long before it was acquired officially by the park district. She also indulged in gardening and the people of Frankfort can still appreciate her toils by strolling down Nebraska and Locust streets and gazing at the crab apple trees she and volunteers had planted years ago. Her community spirit did not end with the environment. Mrs. Rudman served on the Frankfort Planning Commission for sixteen years. She also played an integral role in the publishing and editing of the Frankfort News, a weekly community newspaper, for twenty-three years. In 1984, Mrs. Rudman was named Frankfort's first Citizen of the Year. She was also Grand Marshall of the Frankfort Fall Festival Parade in 1994. Sadly, Frankfort lost this civic minded patriot three years ago in 1996. The Eris L. Rudman Prairie in nearly four acres of land located south of the Frankfort Public Library parking lot. It was recently planted with a variety of spring and fall blooming flowers. There are 3,100 plants in all which have been complimented with six different kinds of grasses. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is fitting and appropriate to honor the life of Mrs. Eris L. Rudman, the years of her community building activity, and the prairie which bares her name.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for bringing this important bill to the floor. I wish to thank also Chairman Packard for his leadership and work in crafting this bill, a bill that will directly help the residents of the 11th Congressional district of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill is a good bill, and I ask that all of my colleagues support it. Two specific projects are funded in this bill that are important to the citizens of Illinois. Both the Thornton Reservoir Project and the Kankakee River Feasibility Study have been given significant and important funding under this bill. The Thornton Reservoir project continues funding for the Tunnel and Reservoir Project known as TARP. TARP is an intricate system of underground tunnels and storage reservoirs that provide flood relief and control combined sewer overflow pollution into Lake Michigan, the source of drinking water for a large portion of the Chicago metropolitan area. To the project's merit, the completed segments of TARP have helped to eliminate 86% of combined sewage pollution in a 325 square mile area. The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill will provide $4.5 million dollars in construction funding for the McCook and Thornton Reservoirs. This funding will go toward continuing construction of the reservoir portion of TARP. Once completed, these reservoirs will provide a storage capacity of 15.3 billion gallons and will produce annual benefits of $104 million. The Kankakee River is a very important river for residents of the 11th Congressional District, as well as the residents of Congressmen Ewing and Buyer's districts. The river provides scenic, recreational, and commercial opportunities for many. Unfortunately, the river does experience flooding and sedimentation problems both in Illinois and Indiana. The Appropriations committee has been very generous with funding in previous years, providing funds for the Army Corps of engineers to complete a Corps Reconnaissance Study and begin a Feasibility Study. For fiscal year 2000, the Appropriations Committee has provided $295,000 in funding for the Army Corps of Engineers to continue the Feasibility Study. This is an important project and that will improve the quality of life for those who use or live near the river. I am very pleased to see this continued funding, and thank you again for bringing this important bill to the floor today.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution and urge a ``no'' vote. I stand here today in support of free trade with China, our globe's most populous nation, our fourth largest trading partner. When we have issues such as this before this House, I am often asked, as I travel throughout the diverse district that I have the privilege of representing, what does this all mean. What does this debate that we are having today mean to the folks on the South Side of Chicago and in the south suburbs of Illinois? Exports to China total almost $1 billion from the State of Illinois. An economist will tell you that for every $1 billion in exports, it is over 17,000 jobs that are at stake. Illinois sent over 775 million dollars' worth of manufacturing exports, tractors made in the Quad Cities, industrial heavy equipment made in Joliet, food products, textile mill products, apparel, lumber and wood products, furniture, paper products, printing goods, chemical products, rubber and plastics, leather products, stone, clay and glass products, fabricated metal products, transportation equipment, electronic equipment, farm goods, corn, soybeans, wheat, pork, beef, all from the State of Illinois. I learned firsthand in the late 1970s what it means for free trade with China. After President Nixon opened up China, we sent a shipment of breeding stock, breeding swine from Illinois to China and they came from our farm. That was the first shipment of American breeding stock to China. We learned the advantage personally at that time. But for thousands of Illinoisans, free trade means jobs. When you think about it, this vote today could jeopardize over 17,000 jobs in Illinois. I urge my colleagues when they consider how to cast their vote as to which of their neighbors will lose their job if this resolution succeeds. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saluting the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), our distinguished chairman, putting together a common sense package of tax relief for working families and those who create jobs. This is an opportunity to celebrate. I look back over the last 4\1/2\ years. I remember what it was like when I came here, massive deficits, high taxes. Of course, now we have a great opportunity thanks to Republican fiscal responsibility. We now not only have the third balanced budget that we are working on in 30 years, but we have a massive surplus of extra tax revenue of almost $3 trillion over the next 10 years. The Republican budget this year takes several steps and common sense steps with what to do with that extra money. Of course, step number one is we lock away the Social Security surplus, which means that two out of three dollars of that surplus goes for retirement security and strengthening Medicare and Social Security. Number two, by voting for the rule, and those who voted for the rule voted to pay down the national debt by $2 trillion. Of course, step number three is provide tax relief for working families and the middle class. Let me just take a moment to introduce to my colleagues Shad and Michelle Hallihan of Joliet, Illinois. Shad and Michelle are schoolteachers in the Joliet public schools. They, like 21 million married working couples, suffer the marriage tax penalty. Of course, those 21 million married taxed couples, under our current tax code, these couples pay higher taxes just because they are married. Thanks to legislation that was offered by myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) and others, we have a key provision in this package of tax relief which helps people like Michelle and Shad, providing tax relief for 21 million American working couples who are going to see at least $250 in tax relief. That is a car payment for many. Of course, we simplify the tax code by providing marriage tax relief. I would also point out that Michelle and Shad are due to have a baby any day now. Of course they may choose to send their child to an Illinois school, and they may want to take advantage of Illinois' prepaid college tuition programs. This package of tax relief will help Michelle and Shad Hallihan pay for college, if they choose the prepaid college tuition program, at a public or private school. The benefit for them is, the growth of that package that they buy will be tax exempt. That is good. If their child goes to a public school, the school construction provisions will help the Joliet public schools fix leaky roofs and also help the Joliet public schools add on classrooms. That will help Michelle and Shad because they are school teachers, but their children will probably attend the local public schools. Last, I would like to mention that because Michelle may take a few years off from teaching to be home with her new baby, that we provide for the opportunity for catch-up to allow Michelle, when she goes back into the workforce in the later years and her income is higher, to make up missed contributions to retirement savings. This package helps people like Michelle and Shad Hallihan, schoolteachers back in Joliet, Illinois. It deserves bipartisan support. I urge an aye vote.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, this House and this Congress and the President joined with us in enacting the first balanced budget in 28 years, a balanced budget which contained key middle class tax cuts. Thanks to that middle class tax cut we are enjoying a booming economy and a $3 trillion projected budget surplus. Of course, under the Republican budget, we set aside two-thirds of the surplus for Medicare and Social Security; one-third we use, of course, for tax relief. I would also point out under this Republican budget this year, the third balanced budget in 3 years, we are going to set aside $6 for debt retirement for every dollar in tax relief. I also want to point out in this tax relief package that we are working on right now, that we are addressing a question that I have raised in this House, and that is is it right, is it fair, that under our Tax Code today, married working couples pay more in taxes just because they are married? A key provision of the Financial Freedom Act, of course, is efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty for almost 28 million married working couples, who will receive $243 in marriage tax relief, and it is time. Think about it; $243, that is a month's car payment for a lot of families. This legislation deserves bipartisan support.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing a very, very diverse district. I represent the south side of Chicago, the south suburbs in Cook and Will Counties, industrial communities like Joliette, LaSalle, a lot of cornfields and farm towns. When one represents such a diverse district, city, suburbs and country, one listens for those comments and concerns, issues and problems and questions that link the city and the suburbs and the country. I have often heard, over the course of the last 4\1/2\ years that I have had the privilege of being in this House, a very common message, and that is the common message of working together and solving the challenges that we face; that they want us here in the Congress to work together, solve the challenges that we face, and I am pretty proud in the last 4 years how we have met that challenge that the folks back home have given me: balancing the budget for the first time in 28 years, cutting taxes for the middle class for the first time in 16 years, and, of course, reforming our failed welfare system for the first time in over a generation. Those are all big accomplishments, big accomplishments that came from a committed effort in this Congress over the last 4 years to change how Washington works to make Washington more responsive to the folks back home. As a result now, that success, particularly in balancing the budget and cutting taxes, we have an economy that is doing better than we anticipated. Nine years, since 1991, we have been enjoying economic growth. Tying that in with a balanced budget, we now have projected $3 trillion surplus of extra money over the next 10 years. That is a lot of money when we think about it, because our Federal budget is only $1.7 billion. Well, as we work on the Republican agenda this year of good schools and low taxes and a secure retirement, we have the challenge before us of what to do with the extra money, what to do with the surplus; and of course, historically in Washington they always want to spend it on new government. But if we look at the markup of that money, most of it is Social Security. I am really proud that the Republican budget does something that the folks back home have told me that we should do for a long time, and that is the Republican budget stops the raid on Social Security that has gone on for 30 years. Republicans put a stop to it this year. In fact, in doing so, we set aside two-thirds of the surplus of extra tax revenue for retirement security, meaning we use those funds to shrink Social Security and Medicare so that they are there for 3 generations from now, and that is the centerpiece and the purpose of the Social Security and Medicare lock box. But under our budget by doing that, we take the so-called surplus and we set aside two-thirds of the surplus for Medicare and Social Security, one-third for tax cuts, because we believe that if we look at the tax burden today on families, and I often hear whether I am at the union hall or the VFW or the local chamber or the coffee shop on Main Street or the grain elevator out in the country, folks are frustrated by the tax burden being so high. In fact, since 1985, the tax burden on individuals has gone up. In fact, it has doubled since 1985, and a portion of our economy, the gross domestic product that now goes to the Federal Government in taxes is the highest level ever in peacetime history. Mr. Speaker, 21 percent of our economy is now consumed by the Federal Government in the burden of taxes. Not only do people back home tell me that they feel taxes are too high, but they are frustrated with how complex and complicated and also how unfair our tax code is. They bring up real concerns about issues such as the marriage tax penalty. And I have Shad and Michelle Hallihan here, a young couple, two schoolteachers in Joliette, Illinois, who just got married. In fact, they are expecting a baby any day now. Well, because they are married and both work, their combined incomes when they file jointly as a married couple pushes them into a higher tax bracket. That is called the marriage tax penalty. For couples such as Shad and Michelle Hallihan, the marriage tax penalty, on average, is about $1,400 a year in higher taxes just because they are married. Had Shad and Michelle chose not to get married, they would have saved about $1,400 a year in taxes. That is wrong. Just one of the complications in our tax code. This is why I am so pleased as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means that we succeeded this past week in passing legislation which lowers the tax burden for families, addresses the need to simplify the tax code and the unfairness in the tax code, and also addresses the need through simplification and fairness, and particularly in treatment of small business, to help keep our economy growing, keeping this 9- year period of economic growth continuing into the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, 42 million married working people will enjoy the marriage tax relief that is provided in the Committee on Ways and Means-produced tax cut, the Financial Freedom Act of 1999. We help married couples. We also address the need to help family farmers and family businesses, many of whom are put out of business when the founder passes on because of the so-called death tax which can consume up to 55 percent of the family farm or family business. That is just wrong. We eliminate the death tax in the Financial Freedom Act of 1999. I am often asked by folks back home, is there not a way we can make it easier and more affordable to go to college and send our kids to school; if I am an adult who wants to go back to school to do that as well, we provide education relief. We address the marriage tax relief, we eliminate the death tax, we help small business and family farmers, and we help families better afford education. Mr. Speaker, I ask for bipartisan support for this legislation, which I hope will be voted on later this week.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to lend my strong support for passage of H.R. 2465, the Fiscal Year 2000 Military Construction Appropriations Act. This $8.5 billion measure recognizes the needs of our military infrastructure, continues our efforts at base closure and realignment, and most importantly puts military families first. One of the much needed items in this bill to improve the quality of life for our people in uniform is the $10.952 million appropriation for the construction of the Marseilles National Guard Training Facility in my Congressional District. The Marseilles complex has been requested by the Illinois Department of Military Affairs and the Pentagon since 1994. Not until this year did the President recognize the need for this facility and I am pleased that President Clinton included funding for this project in his FY 2000 budget. This facility would be the first permanent training complex for the National Guard in the State of Illinois, serving all of the 10,245 members of the Guard in Illinois. Currently, members of the Illinois National Guard are forced to travel to bases in Wisconsin and Kentucky some as far as 350 miles away to conduct routine maneuvers. As you can imagine, this places a severe stress on the scope and timing of military operations, and even greater stress on the members of the Guard and their families. The Marseilles site is easily accessible from Interstate 80 and is in close proximity to Interstates 39 and 55, Chicago, Joliet and Springfield. The Marseilles site is currently used by the Guard for small training exercises that are conducted out of tents and military vehicles with restroom facilities consisting of portable toilets that are of an unacceptable condition for these troops. The proposed complex in Marseilles would reduce travel time to and from training for most Illinois Guard members and would include barracks and dining facilities that would help to boost morale and retention within the ranks. The immediate construction of the Marseilles complex would provide the multiple benefits of substantially helping local business, spurring development in the undeveloped area south of the Illinois River, while providing a convenient training site that will help to ensure troop readiness and an acceptable quality of life. Mr. Speaker, I extend my deep appreciation to Chairman Hobson of the Military Construction Subcommittee, and on behalf of the residents and small business owners of Marseilles and the over 10,000 members of the Illinois National Guard I say thank you for helping to get this important project underway.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I represent a very, very diverse district, a series of communities on the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs, Cook and Will Counties, industrial communities like Joliet and a lot of suburban towns, as well as cornfields and grain elevators. The folks back home have a pretty clear message even in such a diverse district. They want us to meet our challenges and work together and come up with solutions. That is why they are so proud of what this Congress has accomplished in the last 4\1/2\ years, with balancing the budget for the first time in 28 years, cutting taxes for the middle class for the first time in 16 years, reforming welfare for the first time in a generation, and taming the tax collector by reforming the IRS for the first time ever. Those are real accomplishments and folks say, ``Well, that's pretty good, but that's history. What are we going to do next?'' Well, this Congress and this Republican House have several very, very important goals. We want to strengthen and make our schools not only better but safer, we want to strengthen Social Security by locking away 100 percent Social Security revenues for Social Security. We want to pay down the national debt. And, of course, we want to continue working to lower taxes for the middle class and for working families. This year as we work to lower taxes and to lower the tax burden for middle-class families, I believe that the approach we should take is to address the unfairness in the tax code, because when I listen to the folks back home, whether in the union hall or the VFW, a local Chamber of Commerce or at a coffee shop in my hometown down on Liberty Street, people say that not only are their taxes too high, they complain about the complexity and the unfairness of the tax code. I believe this series of questions really illustrates a key area of unfairness that we should make a priority in this Congress this year in getting the job done on eliminating this most unfair area of our tax code, that is why I want to explain why enactment of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act is so important with the question of fairness. Do Americans really feel that it is fair that under our tax code, married working couples pay more in taxes just because they are married? Do Americans feel that it is right that 21 million married working couples pay on average $1,400 more under our Tax Code just because they are married, $1,400 more than an identical couple with identical incomes who live together outside of marriage? Clearly I think the American people agree that the marriage tax penalty is wrong and we need to set it right. The marriage tax is not only unfair, it is wrong. It is wrong that under our Tax Code you are punished for getting married. As I noted earlier, it affects 21 million married working couples on average $1,400 in higher taxes just because they are married. Let me give an example here of a couple in the south suburbs of Chicago. You have a case where a machinist and, of course, this particular machinist works at Caterpillar in Joliet, he makes the heavy machinery that we use to mine and dig things and build things. He makes $30,500. If he is single, after the standard deductions and exemptions he is in the 15 percent tax bracket. But under our Tax Code because two working people who choose to get married, their incomes are combined and in fact you file your taxes jointly, you are pushed into a higher tax bracket. This example of this south suburban couple, this machinist who meets and marries a schoolteacher in the Joliet public schools with an identical income of $30,500, because under our Tax Code they combine their incomes and their combined income is $61,000, pushes them into the 28 percent tax bracket. And because this machinist and this schoolteacher in Joliet, Illinois, in the south suburbs of Chicago chose to get married, they pay more in taxes. That is just wrong. Of course I would like to point out that for this schoolteacher and this machinist in Joliet, $1,400 is real money. $1,400 is one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College, our local community college, and it is 3 months of day care at a local day care center. We need to eliminate that marriage tax penalty. It is wrong that under our Tax Code this machinist and schoolteacher end up paying higher taxes when they get married. Had they chose not to get married and just lived together, their taxes would have been $1,400 less. That is just wrong. Under the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, we eliminate this marriage tax penalty for this machinist and this schoolteacher. In fact, we do it by doubling the standard deduction. We also double the brackets so that joint filers can earn twice as much as a single filer and remain in each bracket. Had the Marriage Tax Elimination Act been law today, this machinist and schoolteacher would have seen the marriage tax penalty eliminated. What is the bottom line? Mr. Speaker, in just a couple of weeks this House of Representatives will be working to pass the tax provisions for this year's balanced budget, the 3rd balanced budget in 30 years, thanks to a Republican Congress. I believe as we work to provide tax relief as part of this balanced budget, our first priority should be making the Tax Code fairer for this schoolteacher and this machinist by working to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I am pretty proud of what we have accomplished. In 1996 we created as part of the Contract With America the $500 per child tax credit benefiting 3 million Illinois children. This year let us help married working couples. Let us help Illinois families by eliminating the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. I want to take a moment just to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for not only his friendship but his leadership on issues important to Illinois and the district I represent, and I particularly want to thank him, Mr. Chairman, for his assistance in response to the Amtrak tragedy that occurred in my district in the village of Bourbonnais, and I really appreciate the assistance and the extraordinary effort that he gave on behalf of the local communities there. I also want to point out that this legislation today that is before us is good for Illinois. I would point out that this legislation includes $25 million in new start funds for extensions, for new extensions, for Metro which is the mass transit rail system serving the suburbs as well as Chicago Metropolitan Area. I point out particularly that one of the beneficiaries of this new funding will be extension of the Southwest Line, an additional 11 miles out to the village of Manhattan in the district that I represent; would also note that this will allow for additional expansion beyond Manhattan, out to the Joliet Arsenal development at the Midway National Tall Grass Prairie and Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery. This legislation also includes $1.6 million for the city of Joliet to assist with their maintenance of mass transit facility and help us with a bridge in the Morris area. So, Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues very much for their able assistance and leadership.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, this is an important year. As I look back over the last few years and the challenges that we have, and of course there have been big challenges, doing some things we were told we could not do, I remember when I was first elected in 1994 we came to Washington to change how Washington works. There was a group of us in the majority here, and all of us were committed to doing some things there were those who told us we could not do, balancing the budget, cutting taxes for the middle class, reforming our welfare system, taming the tax collectors. But by sticking together and being persistent, we accomplished those very great challenges. We balanced the budget for the first time in 2 years, we cut taxes for the first time in 16 years. In fact, in Illinois, my home State, 3 million Illinois children now benefit from the $500 per child tax credit. When we think about that, that is $1.5 million that now stays in Illinois, rather than coming to Washington to be spent. I personally think that the folks back home can better spend their hard-earned dollars in Illinois than I can for them in Washington. On welfare reform, the first real welfare reform in a generation is working so well that in my home State of Illinois we have now seen our welfare rolls cut in half. When it comes to taming the tax collector, we enacted a very fundamental change with IRS reform. If Members have ever been audited or gone to court with IRS in the past, they treated one as guilty until proven innocent. But thanks to this Republican Congress, we now have the same rights in the IRS that we have in the courtroom; that is, we are innocent until the IRS proves us guilty. Now we have some big challenges before us again this year, some challenges that the folks particularly on this side of the aisle say cannot be done. Republicans want to strengthen our local schools and make them safer. We want to strengthen social security and Medicare. In fact, we want to lock away for the first time in 30 years 100 percent of the social security surplus, so it is used only for social security. We want to pay down the national debt. We also want to continue working to lower the tax burden on middle class working families. I believe, Madam Speaker, this year as we work to lower the tax burden on the middle class that we should listen to those concerns that I hear in the union halls and the South Side of Chicago and the south suburbs, in the VFW and local coffee shops and grain elevators. Not only do people feel their taxes are too high, but they feel the Tax Code is too complicated, it needs to be simplified, and that the Tax Code is really unfair. I believe the first place we should start as we work to make our Tax Code fairer and more simpler is to address the most unfair consequence of today's Tax Code. That is something that has been nicknamed today the marriage tax penalty. Why it is so important that we address this, this particular important issue that affects working middle class families, is to ask a series of questions. That is, do Americans feel that it is fair, do Americans feel that it is right, that a married working couple with two incomes pays on average $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married? Do Americans feel it is right, do Americans feel that it is fair, that 21 million married working couples, on average, pay $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married? It is just plain wrong that a married working couple pays $1,400 more in higher taxes than an identical couple living together outside of marriage. That is wrong. The marriage tax penalty on average is $1,400. Back home in the South suburbs and in the South side of Chicago that is one year's tuition at a junior college, a local community college. It is 3 months in day care. It is several months worth of car payments. It is real money to real people, and it is just wrong that under our Tax Code married working couples pay more just because they are married. Let me give an example here of a south suburban couple on the south suburbs of Chicago. We have a machinist, who of course works at the Joliet Caterpillar Plant making that big equipment. He makes $30,500 a year. Under our current Tax Code, if he is single and files as a single taxpayer, after we subtract the standard deduction and exemption, if he makes $30,500, he is in the 15 percent tax bracket. But if he meets and decides that he wants to get married to a schoolteacher with an identical income, and her income is $30,500, of course, she is in the 15 percent tax bracket if she is single and stays single, but if she decides to marry this machinist their combined income is $61,000 because they file jointly, which pushes them into the 28 percent tax bracket. With the marriage tax penalty, they pay on average the almost $1,400 in marriage tax penalty if they choose to get married. If they choose not to, they do not pay that marriage tax penalty. Madam Speaker, the Marriage Tax Elimination Act has 230 cosponsors, a majority of this House. Let us make elimination of the marriage tax penalty our number one priority as we work to lower taxes for American families. Let us simplify to make the Tax Code fair to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) for his leadership and his partnership in working with him on no second chances legislation, legislation that is very simple. No second chances for those who prey on kids, murderers, rapists, and those who commit sexual assaults. Fourteen thousand murders, rapes, and assaults on children have occurred each year, and it is time to get them off the streets. When I think of this legislation, I think of a mother who came to me, Mika Moulton, a mother of a child who was murdered in 1995, a child who would be alive today if this legislation was law. In particular, the murderer of Christopher Moulton is a murderer that had already received a short sentence when he was released. This legislation would have kept him in prison for a long time. Let us pass it. No second chance. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, an amendment which will help move forward an important project for Chicago and the south suburbs, a third airport which is badly needed. People often say well, tell us why a third airport is needed for the city of Chicago. So I would like to list three reasons. One, of course, is, as we know, air travel is growing. Air travel is expected to triple in the next 25 years, triple to the point where we will have 90 million passengers travel through the Chicago metropolitan area. O'Hare and Midway will only be able to accommodate 60 million. Clearly, if we are going to accommodate that growth in air travel, the tripling of air travel, we must expand our capacity. The only way to expand our capacity is a south suburban third airport. The second reason, in a metropolitan area of 7\1/2\ million people in the Chicago metropolitan area, there are 2\1/2\ million who reside within a 45-minute radius of the proposed site near Peotone University Park, which is located in the district that I represent, the Chicago south suburbs. A population of 2\1/2\ million people justifies an airport in Baltimore or St. Louis. Third, when we think about the old adage that when we improve transportation we create jobs, we have to be honest and that does give us the opportunity to bring a quarter million new jobs to the Chicago metropolitan area. We can use them on the Chicago south side, the south suburbs. A south suburban third airport has bipartisan support. I am pleased that we have the support in leadership from our new Governor George Ryan, our new Senator Peter Fitzgerald, as well as bipartisan support within the House delegation from Illinois, from the gentlemen from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), (Mr. Hyde), (Mr. Ewing), (Mr. Rush) and myself. It is that kind of bipartisan support that has made this a good project that is important to aviation, as well as the Chicago area. I would also like to note that this past week the Illinois State legislature, as well as the Governor, approved $75 million by the State of Illinois to begin purchasing land and begin the process of moving forward on a south suburban third airport, and that was the key part of Governor Ryan's Illinois First Project proposal which was signed into law last week. This amendment is important because what it does is provides a revenue string to match what the State is already doing, to move forward with the south suburban third airport. I ask for bipartisan support.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, this year House Republicans have several goals. We want to strengthen and make our schools safer. We want to strengthen Social Security by locking away 100 percent of Social Security revenues and surpluses for retirement security. Republicans want to pay down the national debt, and Republicans also want to lower the tax burden for middle-class working families. I believe this year, as we work to lower the tax burden for middle- class families, that we should focus on making our Tax Code simpler and making our Tax Code fairer to families. And let me raise a series of questions today that really illustrate what I believe is the most unfair tax, and that is the tax on marriage. The marriage tax is not only unfair, it is wrong. Is it right that under our Tax Code, married working couples pay higher taxes than two single people living together outside of marriage? Do Americans feel that it is fair that 28 million married working couples pay on average $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married? That is right. Under our Tax Code today, a husband and wife who both are in the work force pay higher taxes than two single people living together with identical incomes. Mr. Speaker, that is wrong. Let me give an example here of what it means. As I pointed out earlier, there are 28 million married working couples paying on average $1,400 more in higher taxes. Here is an example of a South Chicago suburban couple. I represent the south suburbs of Chicago. If we take a machinist who works for Caterpillar in Joliet and a schoolteacher in the local public schools of Joliet, and they have a combined income of $62,000, the machinist makes $35,500 and as a single individual when he files his taxes, if we subtract the personal exemption and the standard deduction, he pays a certain amount of taxes. But if he chooses to marry, and his schoolteacher wife with an identical income, and when they are married they file their taxes jointly, their combined income of $62,000, when he subtracts the standard deductions and exemptions under our current Tax Code, this machinist and his schoolteacher wife making $62,000 a year pay the average marriage tax penalty of $1,400. Now, there are those, particularly on that side of the aisle, who believe that this is no big deal. That is money that we have to spend in Washington. Back in Joliet, $1,400 is 1 year's tuition in Joliet Community College; 3 months of day care in the local child care center; and, also several months' worth of car payments. The Marriage Tax Elimination Act, which I am proud to say has 230 cosponsors, a bipartisan majority of this House, we propose to eliminate the marriage tax penalty for all Americans. Under our legislation, we double the standard deduction for joint filers to twice that for single filers. We double the brackets so that those who are married filing jointly can earn exactly twice what a single filer can make and be treated fairly under taxes. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is the Marriage Tax Elimination Act would eliminate the marriage tax penalty for this machinist and this schoolteacher wife who are married in Joliet, Illinois. Eliminating the marriage tax penalty is really an issue of fairness and will help simplify the Tax Code. What is the bottom line? The Marriage Tax Elimination Act puts two married people on equal footing with two single people. That is fair, and that simplifies the Tax Code. I am proud to say I was part of this Congress when Republicans succeeded in passing into law the Adoption Tax Credit to help loving families find a home for a child in need of adoption. We accomplished that as part of the Contract With America in 1996. And we followed up in 1997 by enacting into law the centerpiece of the Contract with America, the $500 per child tax credit, which benefits 3 million Illinois children. That is $1.5 billion that will stay in Illinois rather than coming to Washington. And, of course, I believe the folks back home can better spend their hard-earned dollars back home than we can here in Washington. Mr. Speaker, we can build on that helping working families by working to simplify our Code, by working to bring fairness to our Tax Code, by eliminating what is the most unfair tax of all, and that is the tax on marriage. Let us stop taxing marriage. Let us pass into law the Marriage Tax Elimination Act and eliminate the marriage tax penalty once and for all. Let us make the elimination of the marriage tax penalty the centerpiece of this year's tax cut.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Ben Cardin, to introduce ``The Nuclear Decommissioning Funds Clarification Act.'' The need for this legislation results from the emergence of a competitive electricity market out of a regulated environment. Because of this structural change, the tax treatment of nuclear decommissioning funds is not clear under current law. Understanding that decommissioning a nuclear power plant represents a uniquely large and signficant financial undertaking for a utility, in 1984 Congress enacted ``Code section 468A'' which was designed to have public service commissions authorize that certain costs could be charged by an electric utility company to its customers to dedicate to a nuclear decommissioning fund (Fund). In 1986, the Code was further amended to allow an electric utility company with a direct ownership interest in a nuclear power plant to elect to deduct contributions made to a nuclear decommissioning fund, subject to certain limitations. The Fund must be a segregated trust used exclusively for the payment of decommissioning (shutting down) costs of nuclear power plants. Decommissioning the nation's 110 nuclear power plants represents a large financial commitment--so large that nuclear plant owners accumulate the necessary funding over the plant's 40-year operating life. As a result of Federal and state laws enacted since 1992, 21 states have approved plans to introduce competition, and all states are considering deregulation. Fifty-four nuclear power plants are located in 15 of the states that have undergone restructuring, more than half the nation's 103 operating plants. Under current law, deductible contributions made to a nuclear decommissioning fund (Fund) are based on limitations reflected in cost-of-service ratemaking. In a competitive market, companies will no longer operate in a regulated, cost-of-service environment and will not be able to deduct contributions to decommissioning funds. Therefore, it is appropriate to clarify the deductibility of nuclear decommissioning costs under market-based rates and to codify the definition of ``nuclear decommissioning costs'' that limit contributions to a Fund. In addition, restructuring has brought regulatory and market forces to bear upon continued ownership of nuclear power plants. As more companies move away from the nuclear generation--either by chioce or state mandate--companies such as illinois Power in my home state are planning transfers and sales of nuclear power plants. These new business activities have triggered unforeseen tax consequences that, if not corrected, could force the early shutdown of nuclear units that cannot be sold. Hence, a number of nuclear power plants may be forced to shut down before their licenses expire, resulting in the loss of jobs and a reduction of energy supply. Decommissioning nuclear power plants is an important health and safety issue. it is essential that monies are available to safely decommission the plant when it is retired. It is also necessary, in many cases because of restructuring laws passed by states, to clarify the tax treatment for nuclear power plants that transfer ownership. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important bill.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Dunn), for yielding time to me and giving me the opportunity to speak this afternoon on important legislation. I also want to thank this House for bringing this important legislation before us today, and welcome the opportunity to speak about two very, very specific provisions included in this legislation. This past year, Mr. Speaker, I introduced H.R. 4190 and H.R. 4191, legislation which temporarily suspends duties on the importation of pharmaceuticals which inhibit cancer and the spread of HIV and AIDS. This is important legislation. It is compassionate legislation which deserves bipartisan support, legislation which will help families reduce the cost of treating AIDS and cancer, benefiting thousands upon thousands of American families. It is estimated that every year thousands of American men and women and children fall victim to these deadly diseases. In 1997, almost 17,000 new cases of HIV and AIDS were reported, making the total number affected almost 600,000 Americans. Today the average cost of treating someone with HIV or AIDS is approximately $17,500 a year, and the lifetime cost is almost $100,000. Additionally, it is estimated that this year, in 1999, more than 1.2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States alone. More than 560,000 individuals will be lost to this disease, while millions of family members and friends will suffer great emotional loss. Mr. Speaker, the average cost of treating a breast cancer patient is estimated to be about $37,000. This legislation, H.R. 435, suspends duties on important cancer inhibitors, helping reduce the financial toll of these terrible diseases on families and, of course, the victims. Mr. Speaker, this is compassionate legislation. It deserves bipartisan support. This legislation, taking advantage of free trade, will help the victims and their families of HIV, AIDS, and cancer. I ask for bipartisan support.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, as well as strong support of this historic legislation, the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999. How many of us over the last 30 years, and I have only been in the House and had the privilege of serving here for the last 4\1/2\ years, have been asked in town meetings and senior citizens centers, union halls, VFWs, and other public forums, when is Washington going to stop dipping into, when is Washington going to stop raiding the social security trust fund to spend social security on other things other than social security? Today we are going to pass legislation that will do that, that will stop the raid on social security. Let us review the history here. For over 30 years now Washington has been dipping into the social security fund. Regardless of the rhetoric on the other side where they say it has not, it has gone on. Back when President Johnson and the Democrat-controlled Congress 30 years ago began raiding the social security trust fund, they have run up quite a bill. According to the social security trustees appointed by President Clinton, the social security trust fund has been raided by more than $730 billion over the last 30 years. I have a check here written on the social security trust fund. It is a blank check. Washington for the last 30 years has used the social security trust fund as a slush fund and as a blank check to pay for other programs. This walls off the social security trust fund and puts a stop for those who want to raid it. We set aside those funds for social security and for Medicare. I believe that is an important first step, setting aside 100 percent of social security and locking it away before we consider any other reforms or changes to social security. Let us lock it away first. That is an important first step. We can use those funds to strengthen Medicare and social security. This legislation accomplishes this goal. I would like to point out, of course, that not only is the social security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box a centerpiece of this year's balanced budget, but there is a big difference between the Clinton-Gore Democratic budget and the Republican budget. The Republican budget sets aside 100 percent of social security for social security. The $137 billion social security surplus this year will go to social security. If we compare that with the Clinton-Gore Democrat budget, that only uses 62 percent of social security for social security, and the Clinton-Gore Democrat budget spends $52 billion of social security money on other things; all good programs: Education, defense, things like that. But the Clinton-Gore Democrat budget raids the social security trust fund. This lockbox will prevent the Clinton-Gore raid on social security. I would also point out that the social security and Medicare safe deposit box sets aside $1.8 trillion. The President talks about 62 percent. Sixty-two percent is $1.3 billion. Over the next 10 years Clinton-Gore will raid the social security trust fund by $12 billion. Let us put a stop to it.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me, and for the opportunity to say a few words in support of this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, let me ask this House a very basic question. My friends on the other side of the aisle have been claiming that existing rules and existing laws already protect the social security trust fund. If that is the case, then, let me ask Members of this House, why do the social security trustees report that this Congress over the last 30 years and the President have raided the social security trust fund to the tune of $730 billion? Obviously, the so-called protections that they claim are in place are not really there. That is why this legislation is so important as we take the steps to save social security for future generations, not just today but for the next three. The first step, the important step, is to lock away 100 percent of social security for social security; not part of social security, but all of social security. I represent a diverse district, the South Side of Chicago, the south suburbs, in Cook and Will counties, a lot of bedroom and rural communities. Whether I am at the union hall, the VFW, the grain elevator, the local coffee shop on Main Street, I am often asked a pretty basic question: When are you guys, when are you politicians in Washington, going to stop raiding the social security trust fund? Because they have been watching Congress and the President do that now for 30 years, to the tune of $730 billion. This legislation is important because we set aside $1.8 trillion of social security revenues, 100 percent of these revenues, for social security and Medicare. That is a big victory, because when we compare that with the alternative, and I point out, this is an important first step as we work to save social security for the long-term. I would like to point out the alternative here. If we look at why this is the centerpiece of this year's budget, 100 percent of this is for social security. On this chart I have here, in this coming year $137 billion is the projected social security surplus. With the lockbox, we set aside $137 billion, the entire social security surplus, over the next year. The Clinton-Gore Democrat alternative sets aside only 62 percent, continuing the raid on social security. In fact, the Clinton-Gore budget would spend $52 billion of the social security surplus on other things. That is why this legislation is so important. We want to wall off the social security trust fund. We need measures that work. Obviously the current rules, the current laws, do not protect the social security trust fund. That is why the Medicare, social security and Medicare safe deposit box is so important. Let us give it bipartisan support. Let us take this important first step as we work to save social security.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important legislation today, and first, let me begin by commending my friend and colleague from Illinois (Mr. Crane), chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, putting forward a good bill, a bill which was endorsed by unanimous bipartisan vote, the Committee on Ways and Means just this past week. I rise in support of this legislation, the Trade Agency Authorizations, Drug-free Borders, Prevention of On-line Pornography Act of 1999. It is important legislation designed to protect children from drugs and child pornographers. Amongst the most important provisions of H.R. 1833, the bill authorizes $10 million for the Child Cyber Smuggling Center to provide the U.S. Customs Service with the necessary tools to prevent child pornography and child sexual exploitation initiated over the Internet. I also want to commend my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for her leadership on this issue as she authored the original legislation that was included in this bill today. Protecting children from Internet predators is an issue that is important to the folks back home in the south suburbs of Chicago. This last year I received a phone call from a mother asking for help in responding to a situation affecting her 9-year-old daughter. An Internet predator posted her child's name on several pornographic Internet sites and in chat rooms and advertised for certain favors. To protect their daughter, their family was forced to move from their home and to hide from those they feared would contact them as a result of this Internet advertising. When they sought the help of local police, they were told there is no law preventing predators from doing this to young children. I am proud that legislation I authored, which became law last year, the Protecting Children From Internet Predators Act which made it illegal to use the Internet to target an individual under the age of 16 for sexually explicit messages or contacts, is now law, and I want to thank this House for the bipartisan support. Let me explain very clearly with some startling facts and statistics why this legislation is so important and deserves bipartisan support, because we should all care about kids, and we should all care about child pornography and its impact on children. It is estimated that by the year 2002 more than 45 million children will be on-line with access to the Internet. The number of child pornography and pedophilia sites is impossible to determine, but the Center for Missing Children estimates that are 10,000 web sites maintained by pedophiles while the CyberAngles organization estimates 17,000 pedophile web sites available via the Internet. The United States alone law enforcement has confiscated more than 500,000 indecent images, photos of children, some as young as 2 years of age, and since January 1 of 1998 federal law enforcement has arrested over 460 adults for Internet-related child sexual exploitation offenses. Mr. Speaker, we need to do more to protect kids from child pornography, to protect children from being exploited by those who would prey on them via the Internet. This legislation gives the United States Customs Service the tools they need. It deserves bipartisan support. Let us protect the kids from pornographers.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as we work this year to strengthen our local schools, lower taxes for the middle class and save Social Security and Medicare, I particularly want to the thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the committee for this opportunity to honor the work and dedication of Alderman John J. Buchanan who retired last month as alderman for the 10th Ward in the City of Chicago after almost 20 years of public service. I introduced H.R. 1377 to recognize Alderman Buchanan's outstanding public service record in Chicago and honor him through the designation of the United States Post Office at 13234 South Baltimore Avenue as the John J. Buchanan Post Office. I have enjoyed working with the alderman personally over the last 4 years in a bipartisan effort to help 10th Ward residents who have particularly worked very closely for improvements to Brainard Avenue in the Hegewish area and the continued construction of the Deep Tunnel Project designed to protect our Lake Michigan drinking water. John Buchanan has been a life-long resident and public servant for the 10th Ward. The only time he left the community was during his years of service in the United States Navy. He was first elected to office in 1963 and served the community until 1971. From 1972 until 1977, he served as coordinator of economic development for the Chicago Mayor's office. While in this position, he successfully instituted programs for the retention and attraction of new business and industry. In 1991, Alderman Buchanan was once again elected to serve as alderman of the 10th Ward of Chicago. His city council committee membership included Aviation; Budget and Government Relations; Rules and Ethics; Economic and Capital Development; Finance; Human Relations; and Police and Fire. Alderman Buchanan and his wife, who I would point out is his high school sweetheart, have two children and five grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to report that every Member of the Illinois Congressional Delegation has agreed to support this legislation as cosponsors. I want to thank the gentleman and the committee for this opportunity to recognize the exceptional public service of Alderman John J. Buchanan through this special honor.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to the Music Department of Ottawa Township High School of Ottawa, IL, for the remarkable achievement of winning the Illinois State Championship in Music competition for the third consecutive year. For nearly the past two decades, the Ottawa Township High School Music Department has dominated the Illinois High School Association music competition by finishing in the top three places fourteen times and never lower than ninth place. On only four occasions in the history of the music competition have schools compiled more than 1,000 points. Two of these four 1,000-plus point finishes belong to Ottawa Township High School. The Ottawa Township High School Music Department also holds the State record for most points earned in the Illinois High School Association Solo and Ensemble contest. Clearly, Ottawa Township High School offers its students and community many outstanding music education opportunities. Currently, 270 students take advantage of these opportunities by participating in Concert Choir, Treble Choir, Freshman Girls Choir, Symphonic Band, Jazz Choir, and Jazz Band. Special congratulations must be offered to Mr. Roger Amm, Vocal Music Director, and to Ms. Sarah Reckmeyer, Director of Bands. Their hard work, commitment, and leadership have undoubtedly played a major role in building the statewide dominance of Ottawa Township High School's Music Department. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am proud and pleased to be able to offer to my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives the example of Ottawa Township High School as an educational institution where excellence in the fine arts is strongly encouraged. From its outstanding music program to its incredible, multi-million-dollar collection of artwork on display throughout the school building to its vibrant 25 year old annual music festival, Ottawa Township High School provides its fortunate students with an all too rare appreciation of the fine arts.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to represent a very diverse district in Illinois. I represent the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs in Cook and Will Counties, a lot of bedroom communities and farm towns, too. When one represents such a diverse district, they learn to listen to the concerns back home and try and respond to those concerns. I have had one very common message that I hear in the city and in the suburbs and in the country in the diverse district that I represent, and that message is pretty simple. People back home want us to work together and find solutions to the challenges that we are facing. I am proud to say that over the last 4\1/2\ years, we have listened and we have responded to those concerns to work to change how Washington works, to make Washington more responsive to the folks back home. I am proud to say that we accomplished some things we were told we could not do. We were told we could not balance the budget. We were told we could not balance the budget and lower taxes. We were told we could never reform our welfare system, but we did. I am proud to say in the last 4\1/2\ years that we balanced the budget for the first time in 28 years, producing a projected $2.8 trillion surplus of extra tax revenues. We lowered taxes for the middle class for the first time in 16 years and 3 million Illinois children now qualify for the $500 per child tax credit back home in my State of Illinois. That is $1.5 billion that will stay in Illinois rather than coming here to Washington. We also reformed our welfare system, which was failing beyond imagination. We reformed our welfare system for the first time in a generation. As a result of our welfare reform, we have seen the welfare rolls in Illinois cut in half. We have balanced the budget. We lowered taxes for the middle class. We reformed our welfare system. That is pretty good. Folks often say those are real accomplishments, but what is next on Congress' agenda? We are working to continue responding to the issues and concerns of the folks back home and we have a simple agenda in this Congress. The Republican agenda is simple: Good schools, low taxes and a secure retirement for all America, and our budget that were working on today reflects that. I am often asked some questions in town meetings back home. One of the most important ones we addressed this year. I am often asked by folks, whether at a senior citizen's center, a union hall or a VFW, when are the politicians in Washington going to stop raiding the Social Security trust fund? That is a pretty important, basic question. Of course, Washington has raided the Social Security trust fund for over 30 years. Back when LBJ was president, Washington began that process, and bad habits are hard to break. I am proud to say this Republican Congress is going to lock away 100 percent of Social Security revenues for social security only. Let me point out here what this means, and I will compare the Republican budget with the Clinton-Gore budget on Social Security. The Republican budget, of course, locks away 100 percent of Social Security for Social Security. I would point out that $137 billion of the Social Security surplus under our lockbox will stay in Social Security. Now, the President talks about 62 percent of the surplus for Social Security, and what the President and Vice President Gore are talking about doing is spending 38 percent of Social Security on other things. That is what the folks back home call raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. Republicans say 100 percent of Social Security for Social Security. Clinton-Gore, they say 62 percent and spend the rest on other things. We want to put a stop to that, and that is why the lockbox proposal Republicans are moving through the Congress is so important, because it is the first step we should take as we work to save Social Security. Let us lock away Social Security first before we consider any other reforms. Another question I am often asked is no one ever talks about the national debt. Let me point out that in this budget this year, we are in a position where we are going to be able to pay down $1.8 trillion of the national debt. Last year we paid off $50 billion; this year we are projected to pay off $100 billion of the national debt, and under our budget we propose the potential of paying down $1.8 trillion of the national debt. Saving Social Security, paying down the debt. I am also asked at the union halls and the VFWs and the other community centers and the grain elevators in the district that I represent, when are we going to do something about the tax burden on families? Today the average family in Illinois sends 40 percent of their income to Washington and Springfield and the local courthouse in taxes. The tax burden today for the middle class is at its highest level ever in peacetime history. Twenty-one percent of our gross domestic product goes to Washington. That is the highest level ever in peacetime history, and it is putting a tremendous squeeze on middle class families. I believe as we work to lower the tax burden on middle class families we should simplify the Tax Code; we should work to bring fairness to the Tax Code, beginning with the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. It is simply wrong that under our Tax Code 21 million married working couples on average pay $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married. Let us lower taxes by simplifying the Tax Code by eliminating the marriage tax penalty, let us pay down the national debt and let us save Social Security.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1480, the Water Resources Development Act. This important legislation includes a provision that will advance a flood control project important to thousands of my constituents and many residents of Chicago's South Suburbs. H.R. 1480 will advance the construction of the Thornton Reservoir, which is located in my Congressional District, through an innovative approach allowing the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago to work with the Natural Resources Conservation Service to build a transitional reservoir for Thorn Creek. Because of this project, my constituents in the South Suburbs of Chicago will see the much needed benefits of flood control more than a decade earlier than previously anticipated by the Army Corps of Engineers. The innovative approach included in H.R. 1480 will allow the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Chicago to secure credit for the advance work which is critical to the development of the permanent Thornton Reservoir. The approach couples early protection with local/ federal partnering resulting in significant benefits to area communities. Frequent flooding has been a constant problem in the Chicago area. This has consistently been the cause of disruptions in major expressways, as well as rainwater and raw sewage back up into the basements of over 500,000 homes. The solution comes from the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP) through an intricate system of underground tunnels, pumping stations and storage reservoirs used to control this flooding and combined sewage pollution in the Chicago Metropolitan Area. The Thornton Reservoir is a crucial component of the TARP project. Once completed, the Thornton Reservoir will provide 5 billion gallons of floodwater storage. The reservoir will have a service area of 91 square miles and will provide flood relief to 131,000 dwellings in 18 communities. The continuation of the TARP project and the Thornton Reservoir is important to 500,000 families in Chicago's South Suburbs. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1480.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today with my colleagues, Mr. Kleczka, Mr. McCrery, Mr. Neal, Mr. Ramstad and Ms. Baldwin, to introduce the Former Insurance Agents Tax Equity Act of 1999, a bill designed to expand a provision in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (TRA) that ensured that certain retired insurance agents are not unfairly subjected to self-employment tax. This bill will continue our efforts and will bring consistency and fairness to the tax treatment of similarly-situated former insurance agents. Congress, recognizing that valued, long-time insurance agents with certain termination contracts were being improperly subjected to self- employment tax, enacted a provision in the TRA designed to clarify that termination payments received by former agents are exempt from self- employment tax. In particular, the TRA amended Sec. 1402 of the Internal Revenue Code to provide that an agent's eligibility for termination payments could be tied to the agent's length of service. Unfortunately, the provision did not also allow for the actual amounts of the payments to depend on an agent's length of service. As a result, some termination payments are exempt from self-employment tax, but others are not since insurance companies structure their agreements with agents in slightly different ways. Some companies tie a former agent's eligibility for termination payments to his or her length of service with the company. While the agent's eligibility for payments is tied to length of service, the actual amount of the termination payment is not. Under current law, these former agents could receive termination payments indefinitely without incurring self-employment tax. (The payments, of course, continue to be subjected to income taxes.) Other companies structure their agreements slightly differently. These companies limit the period in which a former agent receives payments and they vary the amount of the payments according to each agent's length of service and performance during his or her last year of service. This payment structure is designed to encourage agent loyalty since agents are rewarded for long-term service with the company. However, since the amount of payment is tied to the agent's length of service, these payments would be subject to self-employment tax under current law. There is no policy justification for providing different tax treatment for these substantially similar arrangements. Both types of contracts seek to satisfy the same goal of rewarding loyal, long-time agents with more compensation. It should not matter for tax purposes whether this result is achieved by varying the actual amount of compensation rather than the term of compensation. The Former Insurance Agents Tax Equity Act of 1999 simply would strike language in the Internal Revenue Code that prevents companies from using a former agent's length of service in determining the amount of termination payment the agent will receive. In doing so, this bill provides equitable tax treatment for similarly-situated former agents. This provision is supported by thousands of insurance agents around the country, as well as the National Association of Life Underwriters, the Coalition of Exclusive Agents, and the National Association of Independent Insurers. This issue affects a small number of agents and any revenue implications of making this clarification should be negligible. In the interest of ensuring that termination payments to former insurance agents are treated fairly and consistently under our tax laws, I hope that you will join me in supporting the Former Insurance Agents Tax Equity Act of 1999.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Kankakee County Sheriff Tim Bukowski; Bourbonnais Mayor, Grover Brooks; Bourbonnais Police Chief, Joseph Beard, Bourbonnais Fire Chief, Mike Harshbarger; employees of Riverside Medical Center; employees of Provena St. Mary's Hospital; paid and volunteer firefighters and emergency personnel; employees of Birmingham Steel; employees of Farm & Fleet; all policemen and firemen in Kankakee County; as well as all those who reside in the Kankakee River Valley for their acts of heroism during the recent Amtrak train tragedy in Bourbonnais. The Village of Bourbonnais is known as the ``Village of Friendship''. The Village as well as the entire Kankakee River Valley has proven worthy of the title. Both local and national news accounts were filled with stories of heroism and acts of kindness. The world was watching and Bourbonnais arose to the occasion. People of all ages rose to the occasion. Half a million pennies collected by Kankakee County school children during the past year even helped save lives. The pennies were recently used to purchase a night vision camera which was used to help see in the night through the fumes and smoke from the wreckage. I have been told of small acts of kindness throughout the Kankakee River Valley. Anyone who took part in the rescue effort would not be allowed to pay for their own meals in any area restaurant. Food, clothing, and toy donations poured into the local hospitals for over 8 hours. Offers of assistance came from all surrounding communities and counties. Even local teenagers donated blood to the Red Cross. The Village of Bourbonnais was incorporated in 1875, nearly two centuries after French explorer Cavalier de La Salle established contact with the Potawatomi Indians who lived there. According to Village history, the town takes its name for an early pioneer, Francois Bourbonnais, Sr., a French-Canadian Fur trapper who set up a trading post in 1830. Today, Bourbonnais is a growing community and was named by Reader's Digest as one of the best communities in the United States in which to raise a family. Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to identify and recognize other towns and villages in their own districts whose actions have so greatly proven to be a community which works together during both good and bad times.