Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I first want to begin by commending the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Bunning) for their leadership on this effort, which not only will save Social Security, but begin the process of eliminating the marriage tax penalty, an issue which affects 28 million married working couples. We hear a lot of rhetoric and have to recognize it is an election year, and politicians in many cases will say just about anything in an election year. Of course, we have heard some claim that this plan somehow harms the Social Security trust fund. I thought it was so important when the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) asked a representative of the Clinton Administration, the Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Chairman Archer asked as a result of the tax bill being considered by the committee, which, of course, we will be voting on tomorrow, will there be any impact on the monies of the Social Security trust funds? And Judy Chesser, the Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration was pretty direct. Sometimes politicians are not very direct, but she had a very simple answer. She said no. This plan in no way harms, hurts, hinders, impacts the Social Security trust fund. So let us be honest about it, this is an important piece of legislation. We are going about saving Social Security here. This is a big day. If you think about it, since 1969 Washington not only was spending money beyond the means of this Federal Government, but we never had the opportunity to save Social Security. Now, thanks to a balanced budget, we have a projected surplus; extra money that we can use for important priorities. Today we are voting to make saving Social Security first the number one priority. If you think about it, the same folks who oppose this effort to save Social Security and to eliminate the marriage tax penalty are the same people that said we could not balance the budget. They are the same people that fought down here and fought against lowering taxes for the middle class. They are the same people who opposed our efforts to change and reform our welfare system that was failing, with more children living in poverty than ever before, and also they are the same people that objected when we wanted to tame the tax collector and bring about IRS reform. This is important legislation because, just as the Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration pointed out that our legislation does not impact the Social Security trust fund, in fact we are going to have extra money to help save Social Security, that we set aside $1.4 trillion. Think about that. When President Clinton gave a speech, which we all applauded, talking about saving Social Security and setting aside the surplus for Social Security, there was $600 billion in the projected surplus at that time. Today we are setting aside more than twice what the President asked for, $1.4 trillion. Think about that. $1.4 trillion. That is a lot of money. Yes, it is 90 percent, but it is more than twice what the President originally asked for. I have often had a series of town meetings and forums on Social Security, and the senior citizens and the working people that attend these forums have had a pretty common message. Number one is they say as we work to save Social Security, let us keep the politics out of it. Let us make it a nonpartisan effort. Democrats and Republicans should work together. This legislation deserves bipartisan support. Let us vote to save Social Security and eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We have that opportunity today and tomorrow.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rangel substitute, and I stand here in support of the Protect Social Security Account legislation offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) which sets aside $1.4 trillion for Social Security. This is what this debate really is all about. Today we are asking a pretty basic question: Can we save Social Security and can we eliminate the marriage tax penalty at the same time? The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) says no; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) says yes, and he has offered a plan. When I think of Social Security, I think of my mom and dad, I think of my Aunt Mary, my Aunt Eileen, my Uncle Jack, my Uncle Bob, all on Social Security, and when I think of the marriage tax penalty I think of my sister Pat and her husband who, like 28 million married working couples, suffer higher taxes just because they are married, and I think we all agree we need to do both. We need to save Social Security and eliminate the marriage tax penalty for married working couples. What is, I think, a great victory about legislation offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) is that we are setting aside $1.4 trillion, which is more than twice what President Clinton said we should set aside back in January. The President said we should set aside the $600 billion surplus at that time. Today, we have the opportunity to set aside more than twice what the President called for, $1.4 trillion. One clear message that I hear back home and that is, let us keep the politics out of Social Security. Let us be honest about it. We need to work together. Republicans and Democrats need to work together. We have an opportunity today to set aside $1.4 trillion to save Social Security. We also have an opportunity tomorrow to eliminate the marriage tax penalty for people like my sister Pat and her husband, 28 million married working couples who are punished under our Tax Code just because they are married. Let us save Social Security. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us vote yes for Mr. Archer today. Let us vote yes for Mr. Archer tomorrow. Let us save Social Security. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to air a few moments of thoughts regarding some issues important to this Congress and not just to the politicians that were elected to this House but to the folks back home in Illinois. I represent a very diverse district. I represent the south suburbs of Chicago and the south side of the city of Chicago, a lot of rural and bedroom communities. They often ask important questions. One of the most important questions we have this year is they know that Social Security long-term has financial problems and they know there is unfairness in the tax code. They say there is a question out there, can we save Social Security and can we eliminate the marriage tax penalty, for example, in the same effort? We Republicans believe that you can, that you can save Social Security and you can bring greater fairness to our tax code by working to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, and we have a plan. When I think of Social Security, just like everyone, you always think of your own family and how issues affect your family. When I think of Social Security, I think of my mom and dad, Marilyn and LaVern Weller, a couple of farmers back home in Illinois who are retired and on Social Security. I also think of my Aunt Mary and my Aunt Eileen, my Uncle Jack and Uncle Bob who are also on Social Security. When I think of the marriage tax penalty, I think of my sister Pat and her husband Rich, a teacher and a farmer back in rural Sheldon, Illinois, and they like 28 million other married working couples with two incomes suffer the marriage tax penalty. We have had a big victory today in the passage of legislation which will help save Social Security by setting aside $1.4 trillion, twice what President Clinton suggested back in January we set aside, more than two times the $600 billion, in fact $1.4 trillion we are setting aside for the future efforts over the next couple of years to save Social Security. This is a big victory for people like my mom and dad and the senior citizens in Illinois. I am often asked as well as we work to bring fairness to the tax code a pretty simple question, and, that is, is it fair, is it right that under our current tax code that almost 28 million married working couples, people like my sister Pat and her husband Rich who because they have two incomes under our tax code pay more in taxes just because they are married under our tax code? A lot of us think that is wrong. That is why addressing the marriage tax penalty is such a priority. We have answered the call for bringing fairness to the tax code by making the centerpiece of the legislation this House is going to vote on tomorrow legislation which will eliminate for a majority of those 28 million married working couples paying the marriage tax penalty, will eliminate the marriage tax penalty. In fact, I have an example here of a machinist and a school teacher in Joliet, Illinois. They live in the south suburbs. They have a combined income of $50,000. Currently under our tax code, because the standard deduction for joint filers, for married couples, is now twice what it is for a single, if you figure in their personal exemptions and then give them the standard deduction when they file jointly, that standard deduction currently is only $6,900. If we want to be fair about it, the standard deduction for a joint filer should always be twice what it is for single filers. We do that in the tax package we are going to vote on tomorrow. The result is for this machinist and this school teacher in Joliet, Illinois, with a standard deduction now of $8,500, twice what it is for a single person, they will see a net benefit of $240 in higher take-home pay as a result of our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Now, we eliminate the marriage tax penalty for a majority of those married couples who suffer it by doubling the standard deduction. Not only is that an issue of bringing fairness to the tax code but because we double the standard deduction for married working couples, we also simplify the tax code. The reason we simplify the tax code, now as a result of doubling the standard deduction which 28 million married working couples will enjoy and benefit from, seeing an extra $240 in higher take-home pay, that is an extra car payment, 6 million of those couples will no longer need to itemize. We are simplifying their taxes. In fact they will no longer need to use the Schedule A. All they will need now is just to use the 1040-EZ. That is simplification. Now, the opponents, some of whom we have heard from this evening and who oppose our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty for a majority of those who suffer it, they claim that somehow our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty somehow will hurt and take money out of the Social Security trust fund. Now, there is an important question that was asked in the House Committee on Ways and Means this past week when we acted and produced our effort to save Social Security and eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We asked the representative, the Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, are those charges true? Is as a result of the tax cut being considered by the committee and of course voted on tomorrow, on Saturday, will there be any impact on the moneys in the Social Security trust fund? Judy Chesser, who is the Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, had a very simple answer. Frankly for someone in the bureaucracy, it was very short, sweet and to the point. She said, ``No.'' By saying ``no,'' that means the Social Security trust fund is not impacted. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to vote on a tax package tomorrow that the centerpiece eliminates the marriage tax penalty for millions, in fact the majority of those who suffer it. This package is good because it helps married couples in Illinois, helps family farmers, helps small businesspeople, helps schools in Illinois and helps parents who want to send their kids off to college. We can save Social Security. We can eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We have a good opportunity to do that tomorrow. It deserves bipartisan support. I urge bipartisan support for the Save Social Security Act which passed today as well as the 1998 Taxpayer Relief Act. Let us save Social Security. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and I rise in support of this compromise. Mr. Speaker, one thing that I am very proud of, of course, I represent the South Side of Chicago and the south suburbs, and that is the Chicago region ranks fourth today in high tech. We often think of Silicon Valley and the Boston corridor and Seattle, but the Chicago region is home to over 3,000 information and high tech corporations that are growing and, of course, creating new jobs in the Chicago region. One lesson that we have all learned, though, as high tech jobs grow, as this new industry of the 21st century grows, that we have also learned that there is a shortage of skilled workers who have the computer skills to fill the jobs that are now made available. In fact, there are 340,000 jobs, it is estimated, that went unfilled this past year because of lack of computer skills in the workforce, and that is an issue that we have got to address long term as we work to give computer and Internet access to our schools throughout this Nation. But, short term, we need to solve this problem; and this compromise worked out between the administration and this House of Representatives and the Senate solves the problem; and that is why I stand in support of it. Think about it. Information technology is our future. It is estimated there is 130,000 information technology jobs created in the past year. Over the next 10 years, we expect to create 1.3 million new jobs, and it is important to my home State of Illinois. In 1995, information technology created 189,000 jobs for the people of Illinois, generating $8.5 billion in annual wages. The average industry wage is $45,000. The average private sector wage is only $30,000. These are good-paying jobs, and it is a great opportunity for young people to know that there is a future in high technology. We need to win this fight. If we do not find a way to fill these jobs, we are going to lose out. If we want to compete globally, we have to fill these jobs with qualified workers. This legislation, which provides H-1B visas, raises the caps, will help us fill those positions as we work to prepare more Americans to fill these jobs in the future. I am also proud this compromise between the White House and this Congress also increases protection for American workers. It is a good compromise. It is common sense. That is how this process should work. We protect workers giving the opportunity for our industry to grow and create new jobs, and I am proud that Chicago and the Chicago region, which ranks fourth in high technology, will be the winner when this legislation passes. Again, I ask for bipartisan support.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity this week to focus on the people's business. We have an opportunity to adopt what has already been nicknamed the 90-10 plan, a double win, a win-win for the taxpayers, a plan that sets aside $1.4 trillion for Social Security, twice what the President originally asked for, and sets it aside for a long-term plan to save Social Security. This plan also works to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I have often asked, is it right, is it fair that under our tax code, that a married working couple with two incomes pays higher taxes than an identical couple that lives together outside of marriage; that they pay higher taxes just because they are married? We know that is wrong. We have answered that with this 90-10 plan that saves Social Security, and of course, the centerpiece is an effort which will eliminate the marriage tax penalty for a majority of those who suffer. Our friends on the other side of the aisle, they talk about the Social Security trust fund. Judith Chesser, deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration, when asked in the Committee on Ways and Means last week if this tax cut impacts the Social Security trust fund, her answer was simple: No. Let us pass it. It deserves bipartisan support.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, let me ask a basic question of fairness: Is it right, is it fair, that the average married working couple with two incomes pays higher taxes, just because they are married, than an identical couple living together outside of marriage? Is it right that 21 million married working couples pay on the average $1,400 more in taxes just because they are married? $1,400 in the south suburbs in Chicago, that is one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College, three months' worth of day care at a local day care center in Joliet. In the remaining weeks of this session let us go about doing the people's business. Let us ask the President to work with us. Let us help the middle class with the Marriage Tax Penalty Elimination Act. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us do it now, and make it our top priority in the next few weeks.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today, according to the NFIB, one third of small business owners will have to sell outright or liquidate a part of their firm or farm to pay estate taxes. Half of those who liquidate for this purpose have to eliminate 30 jobs or more. This is wrong, just plain wrong. With a $1.6 trillion dollar projected surplus and estate taxes accounting for one percent of annual revenues to the Treasury, the death tax is hardly justifiable in the face of devastation to families, their businesses and farms, the workers they employ or our nation's ability to compete in a global market. If we want to encourage entrepreneurship and job creation, we must do more to address this critical issue than merely allowing the payment of death taxes over a few years. We must send a clear message to all Americans, that if they want to pursue the American Dream we will not punish their children, grandchildren or their employees at their death. That is why I come to the well today to introduce the Family Business and Family Farm Preservation Act. My legislation says that your children can keep the business or farm in the family and avoid paying death taxes on it. All they have to do is continue to run the business as a family enterprise for ten years and plow the profits back into the business over the same time period.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, currently, with the assistance of funding from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran is seeking to complete construction of two nuclear reactors at the Bushehr nuclear power plant. In addition to the two reactors currently under construction, just a few months ago, Russia agreed to assist in building two more reactors at the Bushehr site. The legislation that we are consistently today, H.R. 3743, would withhold U.S. proportional voluntary assistance to the IAEA for programs assisting Iran with this and other projects. Undoubtedly, if we continue to fund the IAEA's plans to assist Iran in building these nuclear reactor, we threaten our own national security interests as well as those of Israel and much of Europe. The transfer of civilian nuclear technology and training could help to advance Iran's nuclear weapons program. This is simply not acceptable. In fact, Iran suggests that it needs these reactor as a source of energy for its population. In reality, Iran has oil and gas reserves so large that it is second only to Russia in the depth of its energy supply. The United States has an obligation to support our very loyal and only democratic ally in the Middle East Israel. We have a key responsibility to think long term--the long term security of Israel and the Middle East, as well as for our own national security here in the United States. In fact, within just the past week, Iran successfully tested a missile with a range of about 800 miles.This range would allow a missile with nuclear warheads to hit any city in Israel or Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, this test makes it clear that Iran is interested in acquiring and show casing the ability to deliver nuclear weapons. We must not allow this to occur, and we most certainly should not aid them in advancing their knowledge of this technology. I have attached a CNN report about last week's Iranian missile test for the record. It is imperative that we protect our allies by stopping the advance of Iran's nuclear program. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3743 so that we can protect ourselves, and our allies such as Israel, from the proliferation of Iranian nuclear weapons or mass destruction. [From CNN Interactive, July 23, 1998] Report: Iran Tested Weapon That Could Reach Israel, Saudi Arabia New York.--Iran this week successfully tested a missile with a range of about 800 miles, meaning it could hit Israel or Saudi Arabia, The New York Times reported Thursday. The test comes a month after Secretary of State Madeleine Albright praised Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, a moderate who took office last summer and who has confronted considerable resistance from religious and other conservatives. A U.S. spy satellite detected Wednesday morning's test of the medium-range missile the Iranians call Shahab-3, the Times reported, citing unidentified Clinton administration officials. ``This weapon would allow Iran to strike all of Israel, all of Saudi Arabia, most of Turkey and a tip of Russia,'' a senior administration official told the Times. The officials, while sure of the test, could not provide immediate information on the location of the launch or landing, both inside Iran. Intelligence experts investigating the launch believe Iran bought the missile from North Korea, which has said it would sell to any nation with hard currency. Iran also has bought technology from Russia and China, and wants not to strike its enemies but to be seen as a political and military force in the Middle East, officials said. Israel is the only nuclear power in the region, and its missiles are believed to be capable of striking any nation in the Middle East. Iran is working on developing a nuclear warhead but is believed to be years away from building and testing a weapon, the Times said. ``This test shows Iran is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, because no one builds an 800-mile missile to deliver conventional explosives,'' Gary Milhollin, an expert on the spread of weaponry, told the newspaper.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer my support for the FY99 VA-HUD Appropriations bill. A project in the VA-HUD bill, called TARP, is very important to not only the people of the 11th congressional district of Illinois, but the entire Chicago Metropolitan Area. This bill contains $6.5 million for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in fiscal year 1999 to go toward construction of the Calumet System of TARP--the segment that directly affects my constituents. During the summer of 1996, floods plagued the South Suburbs of Chicago. Frequent flooding in the Chicago area causes disruptions in major expressways; and rainwater and raw sewage back up into the basements of over 500,000 homes and contaminate local drinking water supplies. As you know, TARP is an intricate system of underground tunnels, pumping stations and storage reservoirs used to control flooding and combined sewage pollution in the Chicago Metropolitan Area. It is important to note that TARP will remove four times the amount of pollution as the City of Boston's projected removal--for approximately the same cost. To date, 93 miles of control tunnels have been completed, or are under construction, and 16 miles of tunnels have yet to be completed. To the projects' merit, the completed segments of TARP have helped to eliminate 86 percent of the combined sewage pollution in a 325 square mile area. While we tend to think of this project as a critical flood protection measure, the truth is that the water protection is just as important. Since TARP has come on-line, we have seen a striking improvement in the quality of our waterways, bringing fish--and commerce-- back to our rivers. Probably the biggest protections TARP brings is the return of our drinking water supply, Lake Michigan, to good health. By protecting Lake Michigan from raw sewage, TARP provides assurance that our water supply and that our children will be protected. I believe that Chicago and the South Suburbs cannot afford any more delays in completing this project. In fact, the flooding that occurred this winter filled the TARP system to capacity and forced the release of 4.2 billion gallons of combined rainwater and sewage into Lake Michigan. This must be prevented. Home and business owners are suffering, our drinking water supply is at risk, flood insurance premiums are increasing while property values are decreasing. The annual damages sustained by the flooding exceed $150 million. If this project were finished these damages could be eliminated, not to mention the disaster relief funds that will be saved. Let me point out that TARP was judged by the EPA twice as the most cost-effective plan to meet the enforceable provisions of the Clean Water Act. The South Suburbs have built a strong base of local support for this vital project. That is why it is essential that we receive the fiscal year 1999 funding to continue construction of TARP.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Mr. Dale Vander Boegh as he retires from his post as chief of the Manhattan Volunteer Fire Department in Manhattan, Illinois. Mr. Vander Boegh's outstanding service to his community exceeds 50 years on the volunteer fire department, including 30 years as the chief. Dale, known as Chubb to his family and friends, has set an example through his dedication to his community and neighbors that few of us can comprehend. For nearly fifty-two years, Dale made himself available at all hours of the day and night to fight a dangerous fire or offer help to anyone in need. Remarkably, Dale even kept the fire department's emergency telephone in his family's home for many years. By all means, there are many families in Manhattan and throughout Will County who are eternally thankful for Dale's leadership and heroic efforts. One can only imagine the number of lives and properties Dale has saved throughout his service. Mr. Speaker, it is only right and proper to honor Chief Dale Vander Boegh and his family for the remarkable lifetime commitment they have made to their community and neighbors. Chief Vander Boegh is a fine American and a true hero. I wish he and his wife, Beverly, the best life can offer in their retirement.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and for this legislation, the FY 1999 Interior appropriations bill. I also want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), the ranking member, for their bipartisan support of the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie at the former Joliet Arsenal in Illinois, what we call the Land of Lincoln. The former Joliet Arsenal in my congressional district was converted to peacetime uses by way of legislation passed by this House and signed into law by the President in 1996. Out of this legislation came the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, the largest conservation area of its kind, 19,000 acres, which will be available for generations to come. The Midewin Prairie was established to conserve and enhance native populations and habitats of fish, wildlife, and plants; to provide opportunities for environmental education and scientific research; and to provide recreational opportunities for the millions of people in the Chicago Midwest and throughout our Nation. This committee has been very helpful in support of the development of the Midewin. The Midewin is now on its way to becoming what some have called the Yellowstone of the Midwest. This legislation contains $2.7 million for operations, planning and design and for development so that visitors can be coming in the coming year. As my colleagues know, this is a high priority environmental initiative. This project has long had bipartisan support, including support from the entire Illinois delegation. My friend and colleague the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) has been a great advocate and supporter of the Midewin, and I salute him for that. Creation of the Midewin Tallgrass Prairie was widely supported by business, labor, veterans, the environmental community, local elected officials, and our outgoing Governor Jim Edgar. The U.S. Forest Service, in partnership with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, has been working with various agencies, organizations and individuals, including to the point where ``Team Midewin'' has obtained $2.3 million in private sector support for the development of the Midewin Prairie. This is an excellent example of a public-private partnership. I again want to thank the Committee on Appropriations, under the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates), for funding this project. It is important to Illinois. It is important to our Nation. It is a top environmental priority. I thank them for supporting the Midewin Tallgrass Prairie. I urge support of this legislation.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, earlier this summer this House made a commitment to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I thought this morning that I would talk about why it is so important that we follow through on that commitment, and follow through on that commitment with a series of simple questions that I hear in the South suburbs and the South Side of Chicago, the area that I have the privilege of representing. That is, do Americans feel that it is fair that our tax code imposes a higher tax on married working couples? Do Americans feel it is fair that 21 million married working couples pay, on average, $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married? Do Americans feel that is fair that this couple pays higher taxes than an identical couple that lives together outside of marriage? Do Americans feel it is fair that our tax code actually provides an incentive to get divorced, because the only way today to avoid the marriage tax penalty is to get divorced and to file that paperwork? That is wrong. It is unfair. Frankly, really, it is immoral that our tax code punishes society's most basic institution for 21 million married working couples; that is, $1,400 in higher taxes. Let me give an example of a south suburban couple from Illinois that suffers the marriage tax penalty. The gentleman in the couple is a machinist at Caterpillar. That is where they make the big heavy earth- moving equipment in Joliet. This machinist makes $35,500. If he is single, under our tax code he files and, of course, with the standard exemption and deduction, he is in the 15 percent tax bracket. He meets a schoolteacher, a schoolteacher in the public schools. She has an identical income of $35,500. If she stayed single, just like her machinist fiance, she would be in the 15 percent tax bracket. Under our tax code, if they choose to get married, they will file jointly. When they file jointly, because they combine their income, and their combined income is $61,000, that pushes them into a higher tax bracket. They are now taxed in the 28 percent tax bracket just because they are married, producing an almost $1,400 marriage tax penalty just because they are married. That is wrong that this couple, just because they choose to get married, pay higher taxes. If we think about it, what is the bottom line, here? We propose the Marriage Tax Elimination Act which puts a working married couple like our machinist and schoolteacher on parity with an identical married couple that lives outside marriage. In 1996 this House of Representatives led the way by working to provide an adoption tax credit to help families provide a loving home for a child in need of adoption. In 1997 this House led the way in convincing the President and the Senate that we should provide a $500 per child tax credit which will benefit 3 million Illinois children. That helped families. Of course, this year we can help families again by strengthening marriage and no longer punishing marriage. Let me share how we propose eliminating the marriage tax penalty. The Marriage Tax Elimination Act, H.R. 3734, is very simple. It is legislation which essentially doubles relief for working married couples by doubling the standard deduction from its current level of $4,150 to $8,300, and also doubling the income tax threshold, which of course you file in the 15 percent if you are single, and just over 24,000, doubling that to a little over 49,000. So when you are single and you choose to get married, your tax essentially doubles. Your rates are double the income. That brings fairness to the tax code. That is a very simple way of eliminating the marriage tax penalty under the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, doubling the standard deduction, doubling rates, so married taxpayers are not punished just because they are married. That is a simple solution. This House, of course, made a commitment about 2 months ago to address and eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Our friend, the President, he has a proposal of his own which he says is a better idea. He says we should just expand the child care tax credit for families that are lower-income and, of course, happen to have children. So I thought I would compare, for this machinist and this schoolteacher in Joliet, Illinois, which is really better. Under the President's proposal, under the President's proposal for a child tax credit, those couples or families that have qualified for the President's expanded tax credit, and they already have one, he just wants to make it a little bigger, they would see about a $350 net increase on take-home pay, money to spend on child care. I looked into this and asked some local day care providers in Joliet, what does that mean? They said that the average weekly day care cost is about $127 in Joliet, so under the President's proposal, for a working married couple with a child who goes to day care, they would see just less than 3 weeks of day care financed by the President's proposal. If we compare this with this machinist and schoolteacher, eliminating the marriage tax penalty, $1,400, with the same weekly day care costs for this machinist and schoolteacher, if they have a child in day care, it is almost 3 months' worth of day care. So which is better, 3 months or 3 weeks? Mr. Speaker I ask Members to make a bipartisan commitment to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. This House of Representatives made a commitment earlier this summer to address the marriage tax penalty, and make elimination the centerpiece of this year's budget. Let us follow through on that commitment. Let us help working families. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. For 21 million couples, $1,400, that is real money for real people. Let us help married couples, and eliminate the marriage tax penalty now. 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. In January, President Clinton gave his State of the Union Address outlining many of the things he wants to do with the budget surplus, a surplus provided by the bipartisan budget agreement which: cut waste, put America's fiscal house in order, and held Washington's feet to the fire to balance the budget. While President Clinton paraded a long list of new spending totaling at least $46-$48 billion in new programs--we believe that a top priority 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 martrimony, 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 come to the well today to commend my friend from New York, Chairman Lazio for moving this important resolution to demonstrate the federal governments' commitment to safe and affordable housing. I believe that home ownership is a key part of achieving the American Dream. Increased homeownership leads to stronger families stronger communities and local economic growth development. That is why we must work to reverse the decline in homeownership among those of us under 40 years of age. Making homeownership more affordable is a critical factor in our effort to turn this trend around. I am happy to report that the 104th Congress made great strides in making homeownership more affordable. For example, I offered an amendment that would reduce the cost of homeownership by $200 a year for first time buyers using the FHA program. This provision was part of the FY 1998 VA-HUD Appropriations. While we all recognize the need to make government smaller, smarter and more effective, I am committed to saving and improving programs that provide an indispensable service. That is why I authored legislation to make the FHA Single Family Program a government corporation. My legislation ensures that FHA's mission will continue and that the program will be given the latitude to create new products to meet market changes. It will remain independent of federal bureaucracy and will have to remain self sufficient. This format will keep FHA mortgages affordable and will remove taxpayer liability. FHA has made the dream of homeownership a reality for 250,000 families and individuals each year who would not otherwise have been able to afford a home; primarily first time buyers, minorities and those with low and moderate incomes. We must do everything we can to preserve and improve upon this success story. FHA's Title One program is yet another success story that has been under utilized in recent years. The program provides opportunities for families to buy older homes, rehabilitate them and breathe new life into tired communities. While the Title One program increased its volume by 73% from 1994 to 1995 for a total of $1.324 billion, there were only $273.3 million in Illinois. Many former industrial communities that spread across this region could be revitalized with an infusion of additional Title One loans. There also remains a national need for affordable rental units. Each year 100,000 units are lost to demolition, abandonment or a higher use of income going to meet non-housing expenses such as food and health care. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit has been responsible for financing the construction of units to replace that are lost each year. In addition to providing affordable housing, the success of this credit can be seen in the thousands of jobs it has helped create. This credit is a fine model of the public private partnership that we want to foster. It empowers local communities to address housing needs with minimal federal bureaucracy. My Colleagues and I have founded a housing opportunity caucus to promote programs like the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, FHA Single Family and Title One Programs and other as building blocks for creating sound and compassionate housing opportunity policy that fosters homeownership as an opportunity for all Americans.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. This is true. According to a report prepared by the Illinois Department of Public Health, certain areas surrounding Ottawa Radiation Sites contain very high cancer rates. The study compared the incidence of cancer rates with another city in northern Illinois, and found that Ottawa has nearly 30 percent more cancer. The study also indicated a concentration of those incidences along the north side of the city, where the radiation sites are located.

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

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to engage in a colloquy with him. As you know, there are over 13 hundred sites on the Superfund National Priority List that are still in need of remediation. Of course, we would like to see comprehensive Superfund reform enacted this year that will help get these sites cleaned up faster. However, today I wanted to specify to you about one site in particular and ask that this site be given special priority by the Environmental Protection Agency. The City of Ottawa in my Congressional district is home to 14 NPL sites contaminated with radioactive waste from factories that used radium-based paints from 1918 to 1978 to make glow in the dark clock dials. Ten of the sites have been remediated. However, due to the complex nature of disposing of radioactive waste, the cost rose over $30 million, and there are four large sites yet to be cleaned. The remediation of the first ten sites involved shipping about 40,000 tons of contaminated soil to Utah.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's concern, and, along with the residents of Ottawa, Illinois, we can look forward to clean up being completed at these sites.

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 would also like to commend the leadership of House budget Chairman Kasich for including elimination of the marriage tax penalty as a top priority in his budget resolution. The Republican House Budget Resoluiton will save a penny on every dollar and use those savings to relieve families of the marriage penalty and restore a sense of justice to every man and woman who decides to get married. Many may recall in January, President Clinton gave his State of the Union Address outlining many of the things he wants to do with the budget surplus. A surplus provided by the bipartisan budget agreement which: cut waste; put America's fiscal house in order; and held Washington's feet to the fire to balance the budget. While President Clinton paraded a long list of new spending totaling at least $46-$48 billion in new programs--we believe that a top priority 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 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 decison 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 ythey would both file their taxes as singles, as individuals, they would pay 15%.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, let me first begin my brief comments just saluting the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, for his leadership and his tenaciousness in bringing this issue to a head and succeeding. And also I wish to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member, for his bipartisan cooperation. This legislation is a big victory for the taxpayer. Clearly, reforming the IRS, holding the IRS accountable to those who work hard, live by the rules and pay the bills, is a big victory. One other big victory that is a key part of this bill was one of those issues that was a quiet issue and became more and more important. I found over the last 3\1/2\ years that I have represented the South Side of Chicago and the South Suburbs that I have had a half a dozen constituents contact me every year, usually divorced single moms struggling to raise the kids, and there were cases where a deadbeat dad was a deadbeat taxpayer and the IRS could not find him. Mr. Speaker, whose door did the IRS show up at to collect the taxes? That of the poor, struggling working, single, divorced mom with the kids whose husband was not paying the child support. This is a big victory for taxpayers.

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 would also like to commend the leadership of House budget Chairman Kasich for including elimination of the marriage tax penalty as a top priority in this budget resolution. The Republican House Budget Resolution will save a penny on every dollar and use those savings to relieve families of the marriage penalty and restore a sense of justice to every man and women who decides to get married. Many may recall in January, President Clinton gave his State of the Union Address outlining many of the things he wants to do with the budget surplus. A surplus provided by the bipartisan budget agreement which: cut waste, put America's fiscal house in order, and held Washington's feet to the fire to balance the budget. While President Clinton paraded a long list of new spending totaling at least $46-$48 billion in new programs--we believe that a top priority 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 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. Speaker, let me explain why enactment of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act is so important for working families, with a series of questions. Do Americans feel that it is fair that our Tax Code imposes a higher tax on working married couples just because they are married? Do Americans feel that it is fair that 21 million married working couples pay on the average $1,400 more in higher taxes than an identical couple with an identical income who live together outside of marriage? Do Americans feel it is right that our Tax Code actually provides an incentive to get divorced? Twenty-one million couples pay on the average $1,400 more just because they are married. Back in the south suburbs of Chicago where I have the privilege of representing, $1,400 is one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College, our local community college. It is three months of day care at a local day care center. That is real money. This summer this House made a commitment to address and eliminate the marriage tax penalty with the passage of the House budget resolution just a short 2 weeks ago, a budget that spends less and taxes less. Let us honor that commitment, let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us eliminate it now. Unfairness in Tax Code: Marriage Tax Penalty

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report. What is terrific about this conference report is it not only helps public schools, but it also helps private and parochial schools in the district that I represent. I represent the south suburbs of Chicago, and we are fortunate to have a very strong Catholic school system in Joliet in the south suburbs as well as other faith-based and also public schools. This legislation helps both. That is what is really great about this legislation. We are helping all sorts of families, and we are helping all sorts of parents who make different choices for their kids. I realize there is some that do not want to do that, and that is why they oppose this bill. As I look at what you can do if you set aside $2,000 a year in this education savings account, I think of the parents and public school kids who are faced with fees for textbooks and faced with whether they need to buy a laptop computer so their son or daughter can do better in a public school. Of course, as a result of these savings accounts, they have a mechanism where they can set aside money just like an IRA and use that to meet these costs of local, public education. Of course, the kids that go to the Catholic school system in Joliet would benefit as well. That is good. We raised those contribution limits from the current $500 to $2,000, allowing the family to set aside up to $10,000 by the time a child is ready to enter first grade. We are concerned about public education. This legislation also makes a pretty good commitment. Right now, only 70 cents on the dollar of every Federal education dollar that we appropriate actually reaches the classroom. That means almost 30 cents of every education dollar that we appropriate here in Washington is consumed by the bureaucracy in Washington before it reaches the classroom. This legislation makes a commitment to raise that to 95 cents on the dollar so that the money that we spend and provide to help public education back home actually reaches the classroom. That is a pretty important goal. I also look at another provision which was also, I think, pretty significant. This legislation allows private colleges and universities to offer prepaid tuition programs that will benefit the students that go to Olivet Nazarene University in Kankakee County as well as Saint Francis and Lewis. This is good legislation. It helps public schools, and it helps private schools. It deserves bipartisan support.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, 3 weeks ago this House made a commitment to eliminate the marriage tax penalty in the budget that we passed, and I think a series of questions best illustrate why it is so important. These are pretty simple questions. Do Americans feel that it is fair that our Tax Code actually provides a higher tax on a married couple just because they are married? Do Americans feel that it is fair that 21 million married, working couples pay on the average of $1,400 more just because they are married? Do Americans feel that it is right that the only way today to avoid the marriage tax penalty is to file for divorce? Of course, Americans all agree that is wrong. Mr. Speaker, $1,400 in the south suburbs of Chicago, that is one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College; that is 3 months day care at a local day care center. Higher taxes just because you are married are wrong. We made a commitment in the budget that we passed out of this House a few short weeks ago to eliminate the marriage penalty. Let us work together in a bipartisan way. I hope President Clinton will join with us in making this a bipartisan effort to eliminate the marriage penalty. Let us eliminate the marriage penalty, and let us eliminate it now.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Washington State for yielding me this time. I rise in support of the rule as well as this legislation. Really what this vote is all about, when we cast the vote later today on setting a date certain when we will replace the Tax Code, is really a simple choice for all of us in Congress, and that is are we happy with the status quo. In town meetings that I have, whether I am at the union hall, the VFW, the business or professional women's club meeting, the local chamber of commerce, or at a coffee shop on Main Street, there is a pretty clear message that I hear as I listen, and that is people are very frustrated. Over half of Americans hire someone else to do their taxes. They are afraid of getting audited by the IRS. They believe the Tax Code is much too complicated, it is clearly unfair, and the tax burden is too high. In fact, today the tax burden is at its highest level since World War II. One example I want to use of why we need to replace the Tax Code is what is really probably the most unfair provision in the Tax Code today, and that is the marriage tax penalty, which is suffered by 21 million married working couples. It really is an issue of fairness, if we think about it. Do Americans feel it is really fair that 21 million average working married couples pay on the average of $1400 more just because they are married under other Tax Code? Of course not. That is unfair. And $1400 in the south suburbs of Chicago, that is real money. That is one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College; that is 3 months of day care at a local day care center in Joliet, Illinois. Clearly, we need to work to make the Tax Code fair. We have begun a lot of work in reforming and replacing the Tax Code already. Our efforts to restructure the IRS, to make the IRS, the tax collector, accountable to the folks that live by the rules and pay the bills back home. Restructuring the IRS is going to be a major achievement for this Congress when it is sent to the President and signed into law later this summer. That is a big step forward in tax reform. In bringing fairness to the Tax Code, we need to begin with eliminating the marriage penalty. I believe it should be the centerpiece of this year's budget and, hopefully, we will get that done this year. But we need to set a date certain. Politicians in Washington talked a long time about balancing the budget. Politicians in Washington said it is something we should do, but politicians in Washington took 28 years, over a generation, in order to balance the budget. Let us set a date certain. It took 28 years before Washington balanced the budget and does something that our families do back home every day, and that is live within our means. We need to set a date certain that we are going to replace the Tax Code. If I ask for a show of hands, I very rarely ever find taxpayers back home who feel our Tax Code is simple, that our Tax Code is fair, that the tax burden is not enough. We need to reform our Tax Code. We need to make our Tax Code simpler, fairer, and we need to lower the rates for average, working, middle class Americans. That is the goal of tax reform. We need to set a deadline. We need to make a commitment to getting the job done. And of course there will be those who do not want to make that kind of commitment. We know how Washington can take a long time. We need a date certain. I support this rule and this legislation. Let us get the job done, let us reform the Tax Code, let us make the Tax Code fairer, simpler, and also let us lower taxes for average, middle class, working Americans.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago this House of Representatives did something that many said could not be done. I remember when I came to Congress, there were those that said we could not balance the budget and lower taxes for the middle class at the same time. Well, we did that last year with the bipartisan budget agreement, and 2 weeks ago, the House passed the second balanced budget in over a generation. What was significant about that balanced budget is it was a balanced budget that not only spent less, but it taxed less; and of course, when it made taxes lower for middle class families, it made elimination of the marriage tax penalty the centerpiece and the number 1 priority. I thought I would take a few minutes today to talk about why elimination of the marriage tax penalty is so important for middle class Americans throughout this country. I think a series of questions really best illustrate why the marriage tax penalty should be eliminated, and that is, do Americans feel that it is fair that our Tax Code imposes a higher tax on marriage? Do Americans feel that it is fair that 21 million average, married, working couples pay on the average $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married; that a married couple pays higher taxes than an identical couple with identical income that lives together outside of marriage? Do Americans feel that it is right, or is it fair, that the only way to avoid the marriage tax penalty is to file for divorce? It is clear that the marriage tax is not only unfair, it is wrong; and really, it is immoral that our Tax Code punishes our society's most basic institution, the institution of marriage. Let me remind my colleagues again that 21 million married, working couples pay on the average $1,400 more in higher taxes. I have an example of a couple in Joliet, Illinois, in the south suburbs of Chicago that I have the privilege of representing, and let me just give an example here of how the marriage tax penalty works. Usually the way it works is the husband and wife get married, they both work; when they file their taxes, they file jointly and it pushes them into a higher tax bracket. In this case we have a machinist at Caterpillar, and Caterpillar makes the heavy earth-moving equipment, and their biggest plant is right in Joliet in my district. We have a machinist who works there, and he makes $30,500 a year in annual income as a machinist at Caterpillar. After we factor in the standard exemption and deduction for which he qualifies, he is going to be taxed at a rate of 15 percent. Now, say across town he meets a gal, she is a school teacher in the Joliet public schools, and she has an identical income of $30,500. Now, if she stayed single, she would be taxed at 15 percent. But under our Tax Code when they marry, they file jointly, even after we factor in for this couple the standard deductions and exemptions for this married couple, this machinist and school teacher in Joliet, Illinois, they end up paying more in taxes just because they got married. In fact, this couple, this machinist and school teacher pays the average marriage tax penalty of $1,400, just because they got married. Now our Tax Code actually says, stay single and live together outside of marriage. It is to your financial advantage. That, of course, we believe is just wrong. Mr. Speaker, if we think about it, $1,400 for this couple in Joliet, Illinois is real money, real money, as I say, for real people. That is because $1,400 is one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College; it is 3 months' day care at a local day care center. Now, we have proposed a solution for eliminating the marriage tax penalty, and the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, also known as Weller- McIntosh II, is legislation which is simple. It eliminates the marriage penalty and of course it is very simple and does not complicate the Tax Code. What we propose to do is to double the standard deduction. In this case, by doubling the standard deduction, it would help that machinist and school teacher, and also we double the brackets in the Marriage Tax Elimination Act. Right now, if one is married or if one is single, one pays 15 percent on just less than the first $25,000 in income; but if one is married, one only has a 15 percent rate up to about $41,000. Clearly, what our legislation does is essentially double the bracket for married couples to exactly that of singles. That is fair; that is a simple way of eliminating the marriage penalty. The Marriage Tax Elimination Act doubles relief for married couples by doubling the standard deduction as well as doubling the brackets to eliminate the marriage penalty. That is simple legislation. I think it is pretty important as we work to make elimination of the marriage tax penalty the centerpiece of this year's budget and, hopefully, the President will join with us and make it a bipartisan effort. Remember in 1997 the President embraced the Republican proposal for a $500-per-child tax credit. We made it a bipartisan effort and we succeeded, and 3 million children in Illinois now qualify for that, providing $1.5 billion in higher take-home pay for Illinois families in the coming year because of the $500-per-child tax credit. Elimination of the marriage penalty is the centerpiece of the House budget that we passed this past week. The elimination of the marriage tax penalty should be a number one priority as we finalize the budget this year. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight what is arguably the most unfair prevision 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 would also like to commend the leadership of House budget Chairman Kasich for including elimination of the marriage tax penalty as a top priority in his budget resolution. The Republican House Budget Resolution will save a penny on every dollar and use those savings to relieve families of the marriage penalty and restore a sense of justice to every man and woman who decides to get married. Many may recall in January, President Clinton gave his State of the Union Address outlining many of the things he wants to do with the budget surplus. A surplus provided by the bipartisan budget agreement which: cut waste; put America's fiscal house in order; and held Washington's feet to the fire to balance the budget. While President Clinton paraded a long list of new spending totaling at least $46-$48 billion in new programs--we believe that a top priority 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 that 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 out 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%.