Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, the question today is, why pass the Marriage Tax Elimination Act? I believe this series of questions best illustrates why. Do Americans feel that it is fair that working married couples with two incomes pay higher taxes 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 just because they are married than an identical couple with an identical income living together outside of marriage? Do Americans feel that it is fair that our Tax Code actually provides an incentive to get divorced? Of course not. That is wrong, and that is why elimination of the marriage tax penalty is so important. If we think about it, 21 million married working couples, 42 million Americans, pay on the average of $1,400 more just because they are married. That is one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College in the south suburbs of Chicago; three months in a local day care center. It is real money for real people. Mr. Speaker, let us eliminate the marriage penalty. Let us eliminate it now.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, a series of very simple questions state why passage of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act is so important. Do Americans feel it is fair that our Tax Code punishes marriage with a higher tax? Do Americans feel that it is fair that 21 million married working couples with two incomes pay on the average $1,400 more in taxes just because they are married? Do Americans feel that it is right that our Tax Code actually provides an incentive to get divorced? Of course not. Americans recognize the marriage tax penalty is wrong; it is unfair; it is immoral. They also recognize that 21 million married working couples are paying $1,400 more. In the south side of Chicago, in the south suburbs, $1,400 dollars is real money for real people, one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College or 3 months of day care at a local day care center. The Marriage Tax Elimination Act has 238 cosponsors, a majority of the House. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us eliminate it 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 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 case sit 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, let us not forget that today is Earth Day. Of course, Earth Day is an important day for all of us who care about our environment. Clearly, one message of Earth Day we should never forget is to think globally and act locally. I am proud of the locally-led efforts in the South Side of Chicago and the south suburbs of Chicago that have worked to establish some important local environmental initiatives: to establish the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie in the former Joliet Arsenal, efforts to establish the Calumet National Heritage area in the biState area northwest in Indiana, in the South Side of Chicago efforts to save the Kankakee River from sand and silt sedimentation. All three are local priorities, locally led; local partnerships working to save the environment locally. The Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie is the largest conservation area of its kind, the first national tallgrass prairie. Calumet National Heritage Area will be a unique biState national ecological area established in a former industrial area. And, of course, the Kankakee River, the solution to save the Kankakee River, deserves the same kind of national priority as restoration of the Everglades. Let us remember to think globally and act locally. It works.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 150th Anniversary of the Illinois & Michigan Canal. At its 150th birthday, the I&M Canal is one of the best-kept secrets of American history. In 1848, when the I&M Canal connected the Great Lakes and the Mississippi, it created a water highway between New York harbor and the Gulf of Mexico. The Canal opened the floodgates to an influx of new commodities, new people, and new ideas. The I&M, and the railroad and highway lines that soon paralleled its connection between Chicago and LaSalle, became the great passageway to the American West. At a stroke, the opening of the I&M Canal gave Illinois the key to mastery of the American mid-continent. The dream of the canal had animated every vision and underlaid every plan for Illinois for 200 years before. As it was being built, the Canal's commissioners laid out a canal port called Chicago that would grow into a great metropolis. Creative Illinois investors patented new agricultural and industrial machines that would make this the richest economic zone the world had ever seen. That people from all over the world flocked to the region, lending their intelligence and their muscle to building the most populous inland American state, and Chicago the greatest city of the American heartland, is directly traceable to the 97-mile canal that linked the Great Lakes to the Illinois and Mississippi rivers. The Illinois & Michigan Canal did not do the whole job by itself. But it started the ball rolling. In the wake of the canal, Chicago got its first street plan, attracted its first generation of merchants, created its board of trade and system of commodities trading. The railroads would complete the work, but only on the basis of what was pioneered by the canal. In 1984, Congress recognized the I&M Canal's historic significance and future potential by designating the nations' first Heritage Corridor. Private citizens, business and government leaders are cooperating in unprecedented park, trail, and historic preservation projects. After years of economic decline, the newly revitalized Canal Corridor is now becoming a splendid living history museum of American enterprise, technological invention, ethnic diversity, and cultural creativity. The I&M Canal's mix of open space conservation, historic preservation and economic development is fast becoming a national model for regional planning and tourism promotion. The heritage of the I&M Canal is becoming a catalyst for Northern Illinois' future economic health and an inspiration for future generations.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I represent a very, very diverse district. I represent the south side of Chicago, the south suburbs, as well as a lot of bedroom and rural communities southwest of the city of Chicago. There is a common series of questions being asked, and these questions really illustrate why passage of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act is so very important to this Congress. These questions are pretty simple, and that is do Americans feel that it is fair that a married working couple with two incomes pays more in taxes just because they are married? Do Americans feel that it is fair that 21 million married working couples pay an average of $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married 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? It is clear that the marriage tax penalty is not only wrong; frankly, it is immoral that our Tax Code punishes our society's most basic institution. This past year, the Congressional Budget Office in a report detailed the facts that the marriage penalty is suffered by 21 million married working couples to the tune of $1,400 each. Of course, that tax is caused because when a married couple chooses to get married, they file jointly, and their combined tax income pushes them into a higher tax bracket, of course, causing that marriage tax penalty. Let me give you an example of a married couple in the 11th Congressional District in the south suburbs of Chicago. This particular gentleman is a machinist who works at Caterpillar making the heavy equipment that builds our roads and bridges. This particular machinist makes $30,500 a year. If he is single, after standard deductions and exemptions on his taxes, he pays the 15 percent rate. But say he meets a gal, she is a tenured schoolteacher at the Joliet public schools. She is making an identical amount of money, $30,500 a year. They choose to get married. Under our current Tax Code, because of the way our Tax Code is currently structured, as a married couple with two incomes, they file jointly, they are pushed into a higher tax bracket producing almost $1,400 more in taxes, just because they chose to get married. That is wrong. If you think about it for this married couple in Joliet, this machinist and this schoolteacher, $1,400 is a lot of money. It is real money for real people. $1,400 is one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College. It is several months of car payments. It is 3 months' worth of child care in a local day care center in Joliet. That is important to working families. Of course, the President has talked about helping working couples with expanding the child care tax credit, and that is a good idea. Of course, we should look at what that means in comparing expanding the child tax credit to eliminating the marriage penalty, and how this machinist and schoolteacher will benefit. Under the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, of course, this machinist and schoolteacher will save $1,400 by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Under the President's proposal on child care, they would be able to save $358 in higher take-home pay. So the question is, which is better? One thousand four hundred dollars, which is 3 months' worth of day care in Joliet, or the President's proposal for $358, which is 3 weeks? Which is better, three weeks or three months, when it comes to helping working families? Clearly, elimination of the marriage tax penalty will help 21 million married working couples. I am pleased to tell you the Marriage Tax Elimination Act now has 238 cosponsors. And what is the bottom line? We should make elimination of the marriage tax penalty our Number 1 priority as we work to provide greater tax relief and work to help working families keep more of what they earn, because we believe that working families should be able to keep more of what they earn, because you can spend it so much better back home than we can for you here in Washington. When the Tax Code is unfair, just as the marriage tax penalty is unfair, we should eliminate it. We should eliminate it now. If we look back at this Congress over the last several years, we have helped families in 1996 with the adoption tax credit to help families provide a loving home for a child in need of adoption. In 1997, we, of course, created the $500 per child tax credit, which is going to benefit 3 million Illinois children $1.50 in higher take-home pay, that will stay in Illinois rather than come to Washington. In 1998, let us stop punishing marriage. In 1998, let's help this machinist and this schoolteacher in Joliet, and the other 21 million working married couples with two incomes who pay more in taxes just because they are married. Mr. Speaker, let us stop punishing marriage. Let us make elimination of the marriage tax penalty our top priority, the centerpiece of this year's budget agreement. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty and let us eliminate it now.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, the question of the day is why is the enactment of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act so important? I believe the best way to answer that question is with a series of questions. 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 working married couples pay an average of $1,400 more in higher taxes than an identical couple living together outside a marriage? Do Americans feel it is right that our Tax Code actually provides an incentive to get divorced? The answer is clear. Of course not. It is not only wrong, it is unfair. It is immoral that our Tax Code punishes marriage. The south side of Chicago, in the south suburbs, $1,400, the average marriage tax penalty, is 1 year's tuition at Joliet Junior College. It is 3 months of child care at a local child care center. It is real money for real people. The Marriage Tax Elimination Act has 238 cosponsors, effectively eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us do it 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 lease $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 it fair that the average married working couple pays almost $1,400 more in taxes than a couple with almost identical income living together outside of marriage? Is it right that our tax code provides an incentive to get divorced? In fact, today the only form one can file to avoid the marriage tax penalty is paperwork for divorce. And that is just wrong! Since 1969, our tax laws have punished married couples when both spouses work. For no other reason than the decision to be joined in holy matrimony, more than 21 million couples a year are penalized. They pay more in taxes than they would if they were single. Not only is the marriage penalty unfair, it's wrong that our tax code punishes society's most basic institution. The marriage tax penalty exacts a disproportionate toll on working women and lower income couples with children. In many cases it is a working women's issue. Let me give you an example of how the marriage tax penalty unfairly affects middle class married working couples. For example, a machinist, at a Caterpillar manufacturing plant in my home district of Joliet, makes $30,500 a year in salary. His wife is a tenured elementary school teacher, also bringing home $30,500 a year in salary. If they would both file their taxes as singles, as individuals, they would pay 15%.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, questions are often asked why should we pass the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, and I think a series of questions best explain why. Do Americans feel that it is fair that working married couples pay more, that they pay higher taxes than identical couples living together outside of marriage? Do Americans feel that it is fair that 21 million married working couples pay on the average of $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married? Do Americans feel that it is fair that there is actually an incentive in our Tax Code which encourages divorce? Of course not. Americans recognize the marriage tax penalty is unfair, that 21 million married working couples pay $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married. On the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs, $1,400 is 1 year's tuition at Joleit Junior College, 3 months of day care at a local day care center in the south suburbs. The Marriage Tax Elimination Act, which would eliminate the marriage tax penalty, eliminate it now, now has 238 cosponsors. It deserves bipartisan support. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us eliminate it now.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, there is an important question out there and that question is: Why is enactment of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act so important for American families? And I think it is best to ask a series of questions. 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 married working couples, 42 million Americans, pay on average $1,400 more in taxes just because they are married, $1,400 more than an identical couple who chooses to live together outside of marriage, even though they have identical incomes? Do Americans feel that it is right that our Tax Code actually provides an incentive to get divorced? Well, the answer is pretty clear: Of course not. Not only is the marriage tax unfair, it is wrong. It is immoral that our Tax Code actually punishes our society's most basic institution, the institution of marriage. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office last year reported that 21 million married working couples paid on average $1,400 more in taxes. Let me share an example. I will take a couple from Joliet, Illinois, a community in the district that I have the privilege of representing. This one gentleman is a machinist at the local Caterpillar manufacturing plant. He makes $30,500 a year in income, and after taking out the standard exemption that he is able to claim as a single person, he is in the 15 percent tax bracket, which means he is taxed at the 15 percent tax rate. Say he meets a gal and she is a school teacher in the Joliet public schools and she has an identical income of $30,500. If they choose to get married, their combined income of $61,000 pushes them into the 28 percent tax bracket, producing the average marriage tax penalty of $1,400. In Joliet, Illinois, $1,400 is a lot of money. Here in Washington, D.C., it is a drop in the bucket. But for this couple, this machinist and public school teacher in Joliet, $1,400 is one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College. It is 3 months of day care at a local day care center and several months of car payments and even a significant portion of a down payment on a home. I mentioned child care and the President talks about increasing the child care tax deduction. So a lot of questions are which is better, eliminating the marriage tax penalty or increasing that child care tax deduction. I noted earlier that $1,400 is 3 months' worth of day care at a local day care center in Joliet, Illinois. One of the President's ideas, expansion of the child care tax credit, the average family that will qualify with a combined income of less than $50,000, they would see $358 more in net take-home pay. Under the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, they would see $1,400 more in net take-home pay. And in Joliet, Illinois, $358 will pay for 3 weeks of day care. Elimination of the marriage penalty for that machinist and that school teacher will pay for 3 months. So which is better, 3 weeks or 3 months of day care? Clearly, elimination of the marriage tax would be a bigger help to this working family in Joliet, Illinois. Under the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, we give this machinist and this school teacher the power of choice where rather than filing jointly, which penalizes them with a $1,400 marriage tax penalty, they can choose to file as two singles. It would be to their financial advantage and they would save that $1,400 by enjoying the lower tax rate. What is the bottom line? The bottom line is the Marriage Tax Elimination Act would put a married couple with two incomes on equal footing with the working couple with identical income living together outside of marriage. That is an issue of fairness, and I believe that we should stop punishing marriage. In 1996, this Republican Congress helped families by providing for an adoption tax credit so that families could better afford to provide a loving home for a child in need of adoption. In 1997, this Republican Congress provided for a $500-per-child tax credit which would benefit 3 million children in Illinois. $1.5 billion in higher take-home pay will stay in Illinois to meet the needs of local Illinois families rather than coming here to Washington. We believe that those Illinois families can better spend their hard-earned dollars better at home than we can here in Washington. Mr. Speaker, this year let us help the American family again by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Let us allow those 21 million married couples who are currently paying on average $1,400 more, just because they are married, under our Tax Code to keep that money to meet their own needs. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty and let us pass the Marriage Tax Elimination Act and let us do it now.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the work and dedication of Don Turner who will retire from his post as Superintendent of Bradley-Bourbonnais Community High School at the end of the 1998 school year. Mr. Turner retires from Bradley-Bourbonnais Community after thirty- five years of service to the High School. Mr. Turner grew up in Chrisman, Illinois where his dream in life was to become a basketball coach. After graduation from High School, Mr. Turner entered Eastern Illinois University to pursue that dream but left halfway through to serve in the Korean War. After serving his country, Mr. Turner returned home and finished his degree at Eastern Illinois University. Mr. Turner's dream of becoming a coach became true when he became the head basketball coach at Lafayette High School. After two years of coaching at Lafayette, he moved to Serena, Illinois to become the high school basketball coach. It was during this time that Mr. Turner decided to make a career change. He returned to college and obtained a master's degree in education administration from the University of Illinois. After receiving his master's degree, he became principal at Gilman Grade School and after one year he became principal at Gilman High School. In 1963, Mr. Turner was hired by Bradley-Bourbonnais Community High School. During his tenure at Bradley-Bourbonnais High School, Mr. Turner has been dean of boys, dean of students, and assistant superintendent. In 1982, Mr. Turner became the Superintendent at Bradley-Bourbonnais High School. Mr. Turner has seen Bradley- Bourbonnais High School grow dramatically and has been instrumental in the additions of the pool, computers and the new auditorium. Mr. Turner's best memories of the school include all the people who have passed through its doors. In spite of numerous job offers, Mr. Turner has never considered leaving Bradley-Bourbonnais High School. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize this gentleman for his honorable career, uncommon loyalty, and education impact. I urge this body to identify and recognize others in their communities whose actions have so greatly benefited and strengthened America's schools.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, why is enactment of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act so important? 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 married working couples pay on the average of $1,400 more a year than an identical couple living together outside of marriage? Do Americans feel that it is fair that our Tax Code provides an incentive to get divorced? Of course not. The marriage tax penalty is not only unfair, it is wrong that we punish marriage. The marriage tax penalty results when we have a couple with two incomes that are married and they file jointly and it pushes them into a higher tax bracket. Twenty-one million married couples pay on the average of $1,400 more. In Chicago and the south suburbs that I have the privilege of representing, $1,400 is one year's tuition at a community college; that is three months' worth of day care at a local child care center. The Marriage Tax Elimination Act now has 238 cosponsors, Republicans and Democrats. Our legislation would immediately eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty and do it now. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight what is arguably the most unfair provision in the U.S. Tax code: the marriage penalty. I want to thank you for your long term interest in bringing parity to the tax burden impose 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 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 purnished married couples when both spouses work. For no other reason than the decision to be joined in holy matrimony, more than 21 million couples a year are penalized. They pay more in taxes than they would if they were single. Not only is the marriage penalty unfair, it's wrong that our tax code punishes society's most basic institution. The marriage tax penalty exacts a disproportionate toll on working women and lower income couples with children. In many cases it is a working women's issue. Let me give you an example of how the marriage tax penalty unfairly affects middle class married working couples. For example, a machinist, at a Caterpillar manufacturing plant in my home district of Joliet, makes $30,500 a year in salary. His wife is a tenured elementary school teacher, also bringing home $30,500 a year in salary. If they would both file their taxes as singles, as individuals, they would pay 15%.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, why is enactment of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act so important? Do Americans feel that it is fair that our tax code imposes a higher tax penalty on marriage? Do Americans feel that it is fair that 21 million American married working couples pay $1,400 more in taxes than an identical couple with identical incomes living together outside a marriage? Do Americans feel that it is right that our tax code actually provides an incentive to get divorced? Of course not. The marriage tax penalty is unfair and it is wrong. The marriage tax penalty results when you have two individuals who choose to marry and their combined income, when they file jointly, pushes them into a higher tax bracket. Twenty-one million married working couples pay this tax penalty, on average $1,400 a year. And on the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs I represent, that is 1 year's tuition at a local community college; that is 3 months' worth of day care at a local child care center. The Marriage Tax Elimination Act now has 238 bipartisan sponsors and would immediately eliminate the marriage tax penalty. The marriage tax penalty is unfair, it is wrong. Let us eliminate it and let us eliminate it now.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, March 10, 1998, Vice President Al Gore will be meeting with Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin here in Washington. As a co-chairman of the House Republican Israel Caucus, I believe Russia's continued transfers of missile technology and expertise to Iran is a serious concern. At the current rate of transfer, Iran could have the ability to produce ballistic missiles capable of striking targets in Israel and parts of Europe and Asia within a year. I think the Prime Minister's visit is a great opportunity to force our Administration to confront the Government of Russia on this issue. I'd like to share for the Record a copy of a letter that will be sent to Vice President Gore. In addition to expressing our serious concerns about the issue, it also includes some very tough questions that we would like the Vice President to ask of Prime Minister Chernomyrdin. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, March 4, 1998. Hon. William Clinton, President of the United States, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: On the eve of Vice President Al Gore's very important meeting with Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, we write to you to express our continuing concerns about Russian transfers of missile technology and expertise to Iran. At this time, we feel the need to reemphasize to you our strong opposition to such activities and to express to you our concerns regarding your administration's policies in dealing with this critical situation. As we have expressed to you in the past, Congress believes that the activities of Russian entities which are engaged in such transfers threaten our national security interests. If the current flow of technology and expertise from Russia to Iran continues unabated, Iran could have an indigenous capability to produce a ballistic missile that could strike at American interests in the Middle East, including our close ally Israel, as well as parts of Europe and Asia. We believe that your administration needs to do more to address this issue. Under the ``Gore-McCain'' Iran/Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act of 1992, you are required to sanction foreign governments or entities which knowingly supply Iran with advanced conventional weaponry or technology that could contribute to their acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. In addition, since Russia is a signatory to the Missile Technology Control Regime, and since such technology transfers are in violation of this accord, further sanctions are called for under the Arms Export Control Act and the Export Administration Act. The Government of Russia needs to understand that the United States will not stand idly by as entities under Russian authority assist a rogue nation in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Despite the resolution issued by Prime Minister Chernomyrdin earlier this year, which did not legally restrict such transfers but rather stipulated that Russian firms ``should refrain'' from such transfers, U.S. intelligence reports indicate that Russian entities have signed contracts with Iran to help produce liquid-fueled ballistic missiles such as the SS-4. There is also evidence that the sale of high-technology laser equipment and other supplies needed for the manufacture and testing of missiles has been negotiated. Beyond the technology transfers, thousands of Russian scientists, engineers and technicians are reported to be operating in Iran as advisors. In light of the failure of the Government of Russia to stop these transfers, Congress felt compelled to introduce the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act last fall. This legislation, which has passed the House of Representatives and currently has 82 cosponsors in the Senate, would sanction those entities engaged in the transfer of technologies to Iran. Mr. President, we are gravely concerned about this situation. We would appreciate your administration's assessment regarding current Russian procedures to stop such transfers. The Administration has been reluctant until now to impose sanctions on Russian entities involved in providing Iran with missile technology even through existing law requires such sanctions. While we cannot expect the Russian government to be 100% effective in stopping the flow of missile technology and expertise to Iran, we can, and must, expect 100% effort. But, how are we to judge whether Russia is sincerely seeking an end to its cooperation with Iran or merely doing enough to prevent the imposition of American sanctions? Specifically, to allay our skepticism about Russian intentions, we would expect to see real evidence of Russian action. We are requesting that on our behalf you ask the following questions of Prime Minister Chernomyrdin and provide us with his answers as soon as possible. Why hasn't the Government of Russia passe a law to strengthen their decree which restricts the transfers of such technologies and expertise to Iran? Are there legal actions which could be sought against those entities that continue to engage in such activities? How soon can we expect a law to be enacted? What concrete evidence has the Government of Russia provided that contracts and intelligence cooperation between Russia and Iran are ceasing and programs being terminated? Has the Russian leadership spoken out forcefully in public against the transfer of Russian missile technology? Have any entities participating in the transfer of technology been arrested for their involvement? Have the Russians begun to put in place an effective export control regime? Is there any evidence that Russian efforts are having an impact on Iran's procurement efforts? Mr. President, we believe that the time for good will has ended. If Prime Minister Chernomyrdin does not provide the United States with concrete evidence proving that his country has taken a serious initiative to prevent the transfer of such technologies, then we must act. Thank you for your consideration on this very important matter. We anxiously anticipate your reply. Sincerely,

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, let me explain why enactment of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act is so important with a series of questions. Do Americans feel that it is fair that our Tax Code imposes a higher tax penalty on marriage? Do Americans feel that it is fair that 21 million married working couples pay $1,400 more in taxes than identical couples with identical incomes living together outside of marriage? Do Americans feel that it is right that our Tax Code actually provides an incentive to get divorced? Clearly it is unfair and it is wrong. Twenty-one million Americans paying $1,400 more just because they are married. On the south side of Chicago in the south suburbs, $1,400 is one year's tuition at a local community college, 3 months of child care at a local day care center, several months' worth of car payments. The Marriage Tax Elimination Act now has 238 bipartisan cosponsors. It would immediately eliminate the marriage tax penalty. The marriage tax penalty is not only unfair, it is wrong. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty and do it 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 question: 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. WELLER. Madam Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I rise in support of H.R. 3130, the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act.'' Under current law, 16 states, including my state of Illinois, are facing very severe penalties for failing to complete a statewide child support computer system by October 1, 1997. These states stand to lose their entire TANF Block Grant and their federal child support funding. If these penalties were to stand, the states' welfare programs would be completely jeopardized, and many people could be left without their benefits. This bill restructures the penalty system in a way that will encourage states to get their systems up and running as soon as possible. The bill will increase the penalty for each year that states fail to comply, thereby giving them more incentive to get their programs on-line quickly. Everybody agrees that it is important to have an efficient statewide system to enforce child support payments. The bill also restructures the Child Support Incentive system. This program awards almost a half billion dollars per year to the States. This bill would make the incentive program based on performance measures such as: paternity establishment, collections on current payments and cost effectiveness. In order to qualify for this funding states would have to show that their child support program is successful--and that's what this is all about. Payment of child support is everyone's goal, and I believe this bill will help states in their efforts to do so. I appreciate the hard work of Chairmen Shaw and Archer on this bi-partisan bill, and urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to ask the question of why should we pass the Marriage Tax Elimination Act. I think it is best explained with a series of questions. Do Americans feel that it is fair that a working married couple pays higher taxes just because they are married? Do Americans feel that it is fair that 21 million married working couples pay an average of $1,400 more than an identical working couple living together outside of marriage? Do Americans feel that it is right that our Tax Code actually provides them an incentive to get divorced? Twenty-one million married working couples pay on the average of $1,400 more in taxes just because they are married. In the south suburbs of Chicago, that is 1 year's tuition at a community college. That is 3 months worth of day care. The Marriage Tax Elimination Act now has 238 bipartisan cosponsors. It would immediately eliminate the marriage tax penalty. The marriage tax penalty is unfair and it is wrong. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty and do it now.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to explain why enactment of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act is so important with a series of questions: Do Americans feel that it is fair that our Tax Code imposes a higher tax penalty on marriage? Do Americans feel that it is fair that 21 million married working couples suffer a tax penalty of $1,400 more in taxes just because they are married? Do Americans feel that it is right that our Tax Code actually provides an incentive to get divorced? The answer is pretty clear. Not only is the marriage tax penalty unfair, but it is wrong that our Tax Code punishes a married working couple with two incomes with higher taxes than an identical couple that chooses to live together outside of marriage. Twenty-one million married working couples suffer an average marriage tax penalty of $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married. Some would say, why does that happen? Under our current Tax Code, a married working couple with two incomes usually files jointly. When they do, their combined income pushes them into a higher tax bracket. Let me give an example here of a south suburban couple. I represent the south side of Chicago, the south suburbs in Illinois, as well as a lot of bedroom communities and rural areas. Let me give an example of a couple that lives in Joliet. Say you have a machinist who is working at the Joliet Caterpillar Manufacturing Plant, where they make heavy industrial equipment like bulldozers and cranes and earth movers. This machinist is making $30,500 a year in average income. If he is single, after standard deductions and exemptions, he is in the 15 percent tax bracket, being taxed at the 15 percent rate. Say he meets a gal and she is a public school teacher in the Joliet public schools. She has an identical income. This machinist who works the caterpillar and this Joliet public school teacher decide to get married. She has an income of $30,500 as well. When you combine their income when they file jointly, it produces a $1,400 average marriage tax penalty. Is that fair, just because this machinist at Caterpillar and this Joliet public school teacher decide to get married, that they should pay higher taxes just because they are married? I think it is wrong that our Tax Code punishes this machinist and this school teacher. I believe we should make it a priority to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. If we think about it, in Joliet Illinois, in the district I am proud to represent, for this machinist and public schoolteacher, $1,400 is a lot of money. That is one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College, it is 3 months of day care at a local day care center, it is several months' worth of car payments and a significant portion of a down payment on a new home. The Marriage Tax Elimination Act, which now has 235 cosponsors, would eliminate the marriage tax penalty and eliminate it now, because we would give married working couples with two incomes the power of choice to choose to file as two singles or jointly, whichever is to their financial advantage. The bottom line is, each individual, this machinist and this schoolteacher, under the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, would be able to enjoy the lower tax rate and would be at the 15 percent rate, allowing them to keep that $1,400. There are a number of ideas out there for tax relief this year. President Clinton talks about the need for child care. In fact, he talks about expanding the current child care tax credit. Let us compare what that means. Under the President's child care tax credit, which only families with children with incomes less than $50,000 would qualify for, the President's plan would provide $358 in extra take-home pay at the end of the year for the average couple that would qualify. The Marriage Tax Elimination Act, as an alternative to the President's plan, would actually provide $1,400. If we think about that, at a Joliet day care center for this machinist and schoolteacher living in Joliet, that is 3 weeks worth of day care under the President's proposal or 3 months' worth of day care under the Marriage Tax Elimination Act. The question is, which is better, 3 weeks under the President's plan, or 3 months under elimination of the Marriage Tax Penalty Act? The bottom line is we should be working to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It is wrong that our Tax Code punishes marriage with higher taxes. We should make it the centerpiece of our budget discussions. I am pretty proud that this Congress, our new majority, which has been in place for 3 years, has provided more tax relief for middle-class families than any Congress in recent history. In 1996 we, of course, provided for the adoption tax credit to help families provide a loving home for children. In 1997 we provided a $500-per-child tax credit, which for Illinois families, for 3 million Illinois kids, would allow $1.5 billion in higher take-home pay for Illinois families. This year let us stop punishing marriage. Let us make elimination of the marriage tax penalty the number one must-do. Let us make it the centerpiece. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty, and do it 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 the almost identical income living together outside of marriage? Is it right that our tax code provides an incentive to get divorced? In fact, today the only form one can file to avoid the marriage tax penalty is paperwork for divorce. And that is just wrong. Since 1969, our tax laws have punished married couples when both spouses work. For no other reason than the decision to be joined in holy matrimony, more than 21 million couples a year are penalized. They pay more in taxes than they would if they were single. Not only is the marriage penalty unfair, it's wrong that our tax code punishes society's most basic institution. The marriage tax penalty exacts a disproportionate toll on working women and lower income couples with children. In many cases it is a working women's issue. Let me give you an example of how the marriage tax penalty unfairly affects middle class married working couples. For example, a machinist, at a Caterpillar manufacturing plant in my home district of Joliet, makes $30,500 a year in salary. His wife is a tenured elementary school teacher, also bringing home $30,500 a year in salary. If they would both file their taxes as singles, as individuals, they would pay 15%.

Mr. WELLER

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

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who I believe is a cosponsor of our legislation. It is so important we look for ways to allow middle-class working families to keep more of what they earn. As we look at the Tax Code we want to make the Tax Code fairer; and, clearly, eliminating the marriage tax penalty should be a number-one, must-do priority. I am proud that 235 Members of this House are cosponsoring the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, which many have also said should be called the Working Women's Tax Relief Act, because in so many cases it is the woman's income which is taxed away with the marriage tax penalty. The Marriage Tax Elimination Act is fairly simple legislation. It allows a married working couple with two incomes to have the choice, the power of choice to choose whether to file as two singles or to file jointly, as many married couples do today; and, of course, we give them that choice. The benefit of having that choice is not only as a married couple they get the benefit from the lower rates but, in this case, this machinist from Joliet and this tenured schoolteacher from Joliet would have the opportunity to avoid the marriage tax penalty. My colleagues, this should be a bipartisan priority. Let us all work together.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to be here before the House to discuss an issue that is so important to the people of the district that I represent. I have the privilege of representing one of America's most diverse districts, representing the south side of Chicago, the south suburbs in Cook and Will counties, bedroom communities like Morris, or the small town I live in, as well as a lot of cornfields and farm towns. Whether I am at the union hall, or the local VFW or the business and professional women's club or the local grain elevator, there is a common series of questions that my constituents ask time and time again: Do Americans feel that it is fair that our tax code imposes a higher tax penalty on marriage? Do Americans feel that it is fair that 21 million married working couples with two incomes pay on average $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married than an identical couple with two incomes that lives together outside of marriage? Do Americans feel that it is right, that it is fair, that our Tax Code actually punishes marriage and provides an incentive for divorce? In fact, really, for many married couples, the only way they can avoid paying the marriage tax penalty is to file the paperwork for divorce. My colleagues, the marriage tax penalty not only is unfair; it is wrong that our Tax Code punishes society's most basic institution: the institution of marriage. It punishes 21 million married working couples, on average, of $1,400. Let me give Members an example of a south suburban couple, a couple I have the privilege of representing in the south suburbs of Chicago. This particular couple, we have a machinist. He works at the local Caterpillar manufacturing plant where they make heavy equipment like bulldozers and cranes and earth movers. This particular machinist makes $30,500 a year. Now if he is single, after the standard deduction and personal exemptions, this particular machinist is in the 15 percent tax bracket. Now say he and his girlfriend decide to get married, and his girlfriend is a tenured schoolteacher in the Joliet public schools. Say she is making an identical income of $30,500. Now, if she stays single, she would also be in the 15 percent tax bracket. But because this machinist at the local Joliet Caterpillar plant and this tenured schoolteacher at the local Joliet public schools decide to get married, just because they get married, they, of course, file jointly on their income taxes; and in that case, with this couple, this machinist from Joliet and the schoolteacher from Joliet, since they are married and file jointly, their combined income of $61,000 produces the average marriage tax penalty of almost $1,400. Is that right that this south suburb couple, this working couple with two incomes, should pay higher taxes just because they are married? When we think about it, $1,400 may be a drop in the bucket here in Washington, D.C. We do have a 1.7 trillion dollar budget. But for this working couple in Joliet, $1,400 is one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College, it is 3 months' worth of day care at a local child care center and several months' worth of car payments, and it is also a significant portion of a downpayment on a home.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Empress Casino Joliet, a tremendous corporate citizen in Joliet, Illinois as it has been named the 1998 Salute to Industry Award recipient by the Joliet Region Chamber of Commerce and Industry. From its opening day in June of 1992, the Empress Casino has made a dramatic impact on the economic landscapes of Joliet, Will County and the State of Illinois. In a region where many hard working people have struggled to find consistent and reliable employment, the Empress Casino has risen to become Will County's sixth largest employer, keeping 1600 local employees on its $45 million annual payroll. During its first 14 days of operation, the Empress Casino welcomed over 50,000 people and has currently hosted over 21 million guests, an incredible achievement for less than six years of operations. Understanding how local support is a major factor to the Empress Casino's success, the owners have made a substantial commitment to support the community through charitable contributions. In just one year, the Empress Casino has donated nearly $300,000 to organizations able to assist people in need. Further emphasizing its commitment to boosting the local economy, the Empress reinvests well over $9 million each year purchasing supplies, products, and services from local businesses. The City of Joliet and the State of Illinois have received substantial benefits from the Empress Casino's success, including $77 million and $191 million of tax revenue, respectively. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join the Joliet Region Chamber of Commerce as we recognize the Empress Casino Joliet as an outstanding corporate citizen in Joliet and Will County, Illinois. I applaud the owners and employees of the Empress Casino for their dedication made to our community and wish them the best in the future.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, two years ago this week the President signed into law the Telecommunications Act of 1996 aimed at removing monopoly protections and creating fair, full and open competition in the communications marketplace. One of the primary goals in passing this law was to give consumers the benefits of more choices, lower prices and greater quality in their telephone and cable services. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it hasn't happened. In lieu of competition, consumers in many areas of the country are seeing mergers of massive proportions, higher cable rates and lawsuits filed by frustrated competitors seeking to enter the long distance market. Having said that, I would point out that Ameritech, the regional communications company that serves my home state and four other Midwestern states, has done a commendable job of fostering competition in our part of the country. Today there are more than 130 companies certified to compete in the Ameritech region, and the Company has interconnection agreements with 60 of them. Additionally, the Company's competitors are serving more than 500,000 local lines by reselling service under their brand names. Ameritech is also bringing true cable competition to the Midwest. Its cable subsidiary, Ameritech New Media, has 65 franchises with communities in Ohio, Illinois and Michigan, and is now actively competing against incumbent providers in 40 of those communities offering enhanced cable TV service to more than 100,000 homes. In those communities where Ameritech New Media competes, incumbent providers have slashed their prices, offered customers free premium and pay per view channels, added more channels to existing service and guaranteed customers better service. This is precisely what we intended when we passed the Telecommunications Act. However, Mr. Speaker, in spite of their efforts, neither Ameritech nor any of the former Bell companies has managed to cross the regulatory threshold to enter the long distance market. I think I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that I am extremely disappointed that consumers across the country have yet to enjoy the full benefits of the Telecommunications Act. I continue to believe this is a good law, and I would urge the Federal Communications Commission to make it work. We now have a new chairman and three new commissioners at the FCC and I am impressed by their recent comments stressing the need to implement the Act. I encourage them in the strongest possible terms to implement the law and give consumers the choices they deserve.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Gardner Grade School Chorus of Gardner, IL. on their recent performance at Walt Disney World in Orlando, FL. At the direction of Patti Johnson, the Gardner Grade School Chorus had a dream back in 1996, that it would someday have a chance to perform at Walt Disney's Magic Kingdom. After a year of research, planning, rehearsals, and raising the funds that were needed to make the trip to Orlando, the Gardner Grade School Chorus realized their dream on June 9, 1997. The journey to Orlando by the 40 member chorus and 10 chaperones began on June 7, 1997. After saying their goodbyes to family and friends, the chorus was escorted through Gardner by the local police and fire departments as they began their 23-hour bus ride to the Magic Kingdom. In short Mr. Speaker, this was not a dream come true just for the chorus, it was a dream come true for an entire town. On June 9, 1997 the long-awaited dream was finally fulfilled. Outlasting the Florida rain, the chorus dazzled the audience as they performed on the Tomorrowland Stage in the Magic Kingdom. The chorus performed several selections in their 25-minute performance including, ``Dance, Dance, Dance'', ``Sea of the Cowboy'', and ``Footloose''. On June 10 the Chorus participated in a 3-hour music education workshop at the Epcot Center, where chorus members received first hand knowledge on how Disney prepares its shows from the Disney cast. Now as you might suspect Mr. Speaker, this trip was not all work and no play. On the final 2 days of their trip, chorus members explored the theme parks and took part in many of the activities in the Orlando area, taking advantage of a much deserved rest before returning home to Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the Gardner Grade School Chorus had a dream that they would perform at Walt Disney World someday, and they did. Thanks to the hard work of its members, directors and chaperones, the Gardner Grade School Chorus not only realized their dream, but, they shared their dream with their parents, schoolmates, town, and the people in the audience at the Magic Kingdom. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting the Gardner Grade School Chorus and their very special performance at Disney World, and I ask that a list of those who participated on this trip be included in the Record following my statement. Director Patti Johnson. Fifth Grade Carissa Crater, Jaime Wade. Sixth Grade Laura Bivens, Rhonda Brookman, Nicole DeToye, Misti Domagala, Rachel Hanson, Lynsi Lardi, Nicci Mack, Krystle Phillips, Nikki Rowland, Jonathan Scheel, Sarah Sibley, Lauren Zagar. Seventh Grade Brandon Carwell, Milly Chase, Tiffany Hullet, Cassie Kirkpatrick, Krystal Lamping, Renee Moore, Jacob Olson, Carly Scheuber, Samantha Serena, Brigid Sweeney, Ashley Wade, Vicki Wayne, Mary Wollgast. Eighth Grade Becky Christensen, Candi Forsythe, Beth Hanson, Cindy Harrop, Mindy Harvey, Meghan Holohan, David Wayne. Ninth Grade Jeanette Bivens, Kathy Bolton, Elizabeth Esparza, Amber Forsythe, Mary Landers, Anne Wollgast. Chaperones Sandy Harrop, Pam Holohan, Janine Lardi, Sharon Zagar, Becci Forsythe, Mary Hanson, Jody Harop, Denise Sibley, Wendy Rowland, Greg Bingheim, Dick Johnson.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today I wanted to stand up and rise and speak towards an issue which deserves bipartisan support. That is the issue of eliminating the marriage tax penalty. I believe that the best way to frame the issue of the marriage tax penalty is to ask some very simple questions: Do Americans feel that it is fair that a married couple with two incomes who both work pay higher taxes under our Tax Code? Do Americans feel that it is fair that a married working couple, two incomes, pays higher taxes than an identical couple who choose to live together outside of marriage? That is just not unfair, Mr. Speaker, that is wrong. On average, 21 million married working couples pay an average of $1,400 more in taxes under our Tax Code today just because they are married. Here in Washington that is a drop in the bucket. Back in the south suburbs of Chicago, $1,400 is a lot of money for the average of those 21 million married working couples: down payment on a car and a home, a year's tuition in a local community college. Let us work together in a bipartisan way and eliminate the marriage tax penalty.