Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Marilyn A. Nguyen of Bourbonnais, Illinois. Marilyn was one of over 85,000 secondary school students who participated in a contest through the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary (VFW). Each year the VFW conducts a Voice of Democracy audio/essay competition designed to give high school students the opportunity to voice their opinion on their responsibility to our county. The contest theme was ``Reaching Out to America's Future''. Marilyn A. Nguyen was chosen as the 2002 Voice of Democracy broadcast scriptwriting winner this year. Following is Marilyn's winning script. The harmony of an industrious city is disrupted by a deafeningly explosive crash. There is confusion. There are wailing sirens. In another city, the same confusion spreads like wildfire. Lives are forever changed as events unfold and buildings collapse. The horror is almost too much to bear. On September 11th, 2001, the gruesome hand of terrorism attempted to reach out and grasp America's future. Fortunately, its grip was too slippery to conquer the heart and soul that is the United States of America. Over two centuries ago the founding fathers of this country left England envisioning better lives for themselves and their posterity. They reached out mentally and physically to find America's future full of promise and patriotism. As this country continues to blossom and mature we must accept the task of reaching out to America's future no matter the cost or hardship. America is a union for all nationalities. It reaches out to immigrants of all lands. My parents were among these immigrants. As their daughter I especially feel a unique bond to America. I feel that it is my duty to reach out to America's future with my own actions. But, what does it mean to reach out to America's future? Already, it may seem to some that our future is uncertain because of the terrorist attacks. But, these tragedies only remind us that the time to reach out to America's future is now. We need to rise to the challenge as we have never done before to stand firm as a nation and as human beings to reach forward into the future. The task at hand is not an easy one. Reaching out to America's future must begin with the individual who believes that America's future is not an abstract idea: it is comprised of neighbors, friends, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters and especially individuals. America's future depends on what happens today in the lives of ordinary Americans living ordinary lives. It calls for the erasure of color, race and religion. It begins when one person extends respect and acceptance to another person regardless of their background. Reaching out to America's future as a teenager is not much different from extending a hand as an adult. As a teen, perhaps it may be a difficult step but one which lays the foundations for adulthood. At a time when personal opinions are being formed, it can be easy to declare ``it's not my job'' to reach out but that is where we are wrong. I am the future of America. It starts with me. I am the voice of influence over my friends and the younger members of my community. Using that influence to promote understanding and cooperation among my peers, family, and community are what I, as a teen individual, can do to reach out to America's future. It is important to begin with our everyday routines because this is where the impact will be most felt. I must encourage others to talk with friends and family about what it means to be a contribution to America's future. Teach younger children in middle school, neighbors, or even peers in high school that it is wrong to hate and discriminate. I have a responsibility to open my mind to the differences that make us unique and vital components of the future instead of searching for ways to divide. The example I put forth into the world should be one of love and acceptance. The teenager's job in reaching out to America's future lies in the education of himself and his surroundings. His call to help build America's future is still strong. This nation has no future without the work of those who believe in its potential for goodness. Reaching out to America's future can seem like a far away goal. But, in reality, the future is at our fingertips. We as people of this majestic empire must adopt the task set before us over two hundred years ago. Reaching out to the future begins with the person who hears these words. It is he who must first take action. The perfect example of reaching out to America's future is the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor. She is the example for one and all. Her extended arm holding the torch as a guiding light beckons us to follow her into the future. With her unfailing devotion to the preservation of this land, she reminds us that the future's brightness depends solely on those willing to bear the torch. Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to identify and recognize others in their own districts whose actions have so greatly benefitted and strengthened America's communities.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5557) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special rule for members of the uniformed services and Foreign Service in determining the exclusion of gain from the sale of a principal residence and to restore the tax exempt status of death gratuity payments to members of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this is important legislation. Our Nation is making very tough decisions and this Congress is making very tough decisions, and we have military men and women who are currently in combat in Afghanistan. This is important legislation that protects their personal interest while we ask them to go overseas and put their lives at risk for our freedom as well as in our efforts to win the war on terrorism. And as we all know, the war on terrorism will neither begin or end in Afghanistan, nor will it end in a few short months, but it is expected to last years. This legislation deserves bipartisan support. And in quick reaction to my friend and colleague's comment, I would note that there are no funds at all, none, no funds taken from Social Security or Medicare to provide for this legislation to help our military men and women. And we are not touching Social Security or Medicare. But I do want to ask for strong bipartisan support for this legislation. It is important for our military men and women that we stand in strong bipartisan support of what they do when we ask them to take the risks that they do. As I noted earlier, this legislation has six provisions that benefit working men and women who serve in the military and I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, on July 9, 2002, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5063, the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2002, by a unanimous bipartisan vote of 413 to 0. That legislation contained two important provisions that would restore equity to the Tax Code for Members of the Armed Forces. The Senate expanded the bill by adding other provisions and passed H.R. 5063 by unanimous consent on October 3. The bill before us today, H.R. 5557, combines the House- and Senate-passed bills to provide several important tax benefits to members of our Nation's military. First, H.R. 5557 fixes an inequity in the law relating to the capital gains exclusion on home sales. Under the present law, the first $250,000 of gain from the sale of a home is not subject to capital gains tax if the individual lived in the home for 2 of the past 5 years. The exclusion is $500,000 for married couples. Members of the military and Foreign Service often cannot meet this residency requirement if they are transferred on extended duty. As a result, military personnel, through no fault of their own, cannot take advantage of the tax relief when they sell their homes. The Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2002 fixes this inequity by suspending the 5-year ownership test when a member of the military or Foreign Service is transferred on extended duty more than 150 miles from home. The second provision of the bill provides tax-free treatment for gratuity death payments paid to survivors of military personnel. Under present law, survivors of the members of the Armed Forces receive a $6,000 death gratuity payment, but only half of this payment is tax- free. H.R. 5063 updates the tax codes by providing tax-free treatment for the entire and full $6,000 amount. Third, it provides that payments made under the Homeowners' Assistance Program are tax free. These payments are made to compensate members of the Armed Forces if they suffer a decline in home value because of a military base closure or realignment. Fourth, the bill clarifies that dependent care benefits provided under a military dependent care assistance program are excludable from income. As a result, the value of employer-provided dependent care is not taxed. Fifth, the definition of a qualified veterans organization is expanded so that more organizations qualify under the law. And, finally, the bill extends several tax filing extensions to individuals serving in a contingency operation. These benefits are already provided to individuals serving in a combat zone. Madam Speaker, these provisions are noncontroversial and they are fair. I hope the House will join me in supporting this legislation today; and I hope that the other body, the Senate, will quickly take up the bill and send it to the President's desk for his signature before we adjourn in this Congress. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5557.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to bring House Resolution 543, expressing the sense of the House that Congress should complete action on H.R. 4019, before the House today. H.R. 4019, which passed the House on June 13, 2002 by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 271 to 142, makes the marriage tax penalty relief provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001 permanent. There are 42 million American working families, 42 million American working couples, that are impacted by the unfair marriage tax penalty and who would benefit from this legislation. My colleagues and I have often asked ourselves, is it right, is it fair, that under the Tax Code, that 42 million married working couples pay on average higher taxes, almost $1,700 more, just because they are married. Is that right? Is it fair that we punish society's most basic institution? We need to permanently eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Last year's tax legislation, which we nicknamed the Bush tax cut, included efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It was signed into law by President Bush on June 6, 2001. Unfortunately, that legislation was temporary and expires in just a few short years. We helped married couples in a number of ways by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. First, we doubled the standard deduction to twice that of singles, helping families that do not itemize their income taxes. It is estimated that 21 million American families will be affected by provisions relating to the standard deduction each year. Second, we help those who itemize such as home owners and those who give to their church, charity or synagogue by widening the 15 percent tax bracket. And it is estimated that 20 million American couples benefit from the widening of the 15 percent tax bracket to twice that of singles. Third, we also help the working poor by eliminating the marriage tax penalty which existed in the earned income credit. This is currently helping 4 million low-income working couples annually, many who have children. Since 1969 our tax laws punished married couples when both the husband and wife were in the workforce. For no other reason than to be joined in holy matrimony 42 million married working couples who are both in the workforce pay higher taxes, what we call the marriage tax penalty, each year. They pay more in taxes than if they just lived together as two singles. Not only is the marriage tax penalty unfair, it is just plain wrong that our Tax Code has punished society's most basic institution. The marriage tax penalty exacts a disproportionate toll on working women and also on lower-income couples with children, all the more reason to make this legislation permanent. Many are familiar with a young couple from the district that I represent, Shad and Michelle Hallihan and how they suffered the unfair marriage tax penalty. And I have also recently introduced another couple from my district, Jose and Magdalena Castillo of Joliet, Illinois. And Jose and Magdalena Castillo have a combined salary of almost $82,000 a year. Jose earns $57,000 and Magdalena earns $25,000. They suffer on average a $1,125 marriage tax penalty. They have two children, Eduardo and Carolina. And as a result of the tax law passed last year, their marriage tax penalty will be reduced under the Bush tax cut under the marriage tax penalty provisions by $1,125; and that is real money in Joliet, Illinois. This represents a 12 percent overall tax cut for the Castillo family. Imagine the opportunities that this creates for the Castillo family and millions of other middle-income working families benefiting from our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. With that $1,125 the Castillos can start saving for their children's college education, save for their retirement, or put a small down payment on a new home. The bottom line is the marriage tax penalty of $1,125 or the average marriage tax penalty of $1,700 is real money to real American working families. Overall, in my home State of Illinois 1,149,196 couples will receive a total of $2 billion in marriage tax relief because of tax law changes that we have passed into law this past year. What Congress must do now is to make sure that American families know that this much deserved tax relief will not be taken away. Think about that. Married couples are now threatened with higher taxes unless we make our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty permanent. We must make marriage tax penalty relief permanent for 42 million American working couples. That is 84 million taxpayers that benefited from our legislation. As unfair as the marriage tax penalty is, it seems even more unfair to consider telling couples like Shad and Michelle Hallihan or Jose and Magdalena Castillo that in a few years they must bear the burden of higher taxes, and in Jose and Magdalena's case it will be $1,125 in higher taxes if we fail to make our efforts permanent and permanently eliminate the marriage tax penalty. As my colleagues already know, the House has passed our legislation, overwhelmingly passed this legislation with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. Almost 60 Democrats joined with every House Republican in voting to eliminate the marriage tax penalty permanently. But the Senate has not yet acted. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 543 expresses the sense of the House that H.R. 4019 should become law. H.R. 4019 is a good bill that encourages and rewards the values that we most hold dear: marriage, family, and hard work. I encourage and ask my colleagues in this House to vote for H. Res. 543, making marriage tax penalty relief a permanent part of our Tax Code. Let us not raise taxes on working families. Let us keep this marriage tax penalty relief permanent and prevent that tax increase. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would note to my good friend from California (Mr. Matsui) that there are 48,251 married couples who will see higher taxes in the fifth district of California unless we make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains, if I might inquire, on each side?

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to yield to the gentleman from California, I have a note to my good friend of Michigan, that there are 61,086 married couples. So if we multiply that by two, that is 122,000 taxpayers in the 12th District of Michigan who will pay higher taxes, just because they are married, if we fail to make elimination of the marriage tax penalty permanent. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELLER. The only people who suffer the marriage tax penalty----

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 547, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 543) expressing the sense of the House that Congress should complete action on H.R. 4019, making marriage tax relief permanent, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note, in response to my colleague's claims that somehow single people would pay higher taxes under the legislation signed into law last year, that that is absolutely false. The marriage tax elimination legislation actually makes the Tax Code neutral. So that two single people living together or two married people living together, who are all in the workforce, do not pay higher taxes. So whether you are single or married, we make the Tax Code neutral so that married couples do not pay higher taxes just because they are married. And let us remember that 58,612 married couples suffer the marriage tax penalty. We want to eliminate it personally. We need bipartisan support in both bodies to achieve that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that besides the 548,859 married couples in Wisconsin that will suffer higher taxes if we fail to make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, the left wing policy gurus for the Democratic party, like Stanley Greenberg, James Carville, Robert Shrum of the Democracy Corps noted in their strategy memo to the Democrats earlier this year that they really need to get behind some of their own initiatives on tax cuts. And making permanent the abolition of the marriage penalty is something that the left wingers even recommend. And I would note that 60 Democrats did vote with us earlier this year to make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), a leader in helping working families.

Mr. WELLER. Who are working and suffer the marriage tax penalty benefit under this legislation.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WELLER. Are those who are working. And there are 54,601 married couples in your district, sir, since you asked----

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to remind my colleague from Indiana, who is a friend, that there are 606,024 married working couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty and will face higher taxes unless we make permanent our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), who has been a real leader in efforts to help working families.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of interesting arguments on the other side of the aisle. I would note that every one of them tries to distract from the issue that is before us today. The issue that is before us today is do we permanently eliminate the marriage tax penalty for 42 million married working couples who benefit from the Bush tax cut. Unfortunately because of a rule in the Senate, it had to be temporary. We have often asked in this House of Representatives whether or not it is right, it is fair, to punish a married working couple where the husband and wife are both in the workforce, that we should punish them with higher taxes just because they are married. In the House this year, we have passed legislation to permanently eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I would note that 271 Members of this House, a bipartisan majority, voted to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Even those who all spoke against this, I would note, all voted ``no'' on eliminating the marriage tax penalty, so it is understandable why they would continue to oppose eliminating the marriage tax penalty, that there were still 60 Democrats who joined with us. They saw the merit in making the Tax Code neutral when it comes to marriage, so that a married working couple does not pay $1,700 more on average just because they are married. My friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that eliminating the marriage tax penalty somehow just benefits rich people. The average or typical married couple suffering the marriage tax penalty makes 60, $70,000. They are middle class, they are both in the workforce, on average they have kids, they have a mortgage, and they pay higher taxes just because they are married. I have an example of a couple here from the district that I represent in the south suburbs of Chicago, Jose and Magdalena Castillo, a typical couple in Joliet, Illinois, who work hard and are raising a family, little Eduardo and Carolina, have hopes and dreams, have a home, want to send their kids on to college. Thanks to the Bush tax cut, they are seeing their marriage tax penalty eliminated. For Jose and Magdalena Castillo, their marriage tax penalty was about $1,125. My colleagues who have argued against permanently eliminating the marriage tax penalty for Jose and Magdalena Castillo of Joliet, Illinois, are the same ones who have called for repeal of the Bush tax cut, essentially saying, let us pull it out from under the Castillos, let them pay that marriage tax penalty because we need the money here in Washington because we could spend it better here than Jose and Magdalena Castillo can spend it back in Joliet, Illinois. The marriage tax penalty, $1,125 for the Castillos, is real money. It is money they can set aside for college for little Eduardo and Carolina. It is money they can use to make several months' worth of car payments or several months' worth of day care. It is real money. We worked when we passed into law the Bush tax cut, which was signed into law in June of last year to help every married couple who suffers the marriage tax penalty. We helped them in a number of ways. We doubled the standard deduction for those who do not itemize so that a married couple has a standard deduction twice that when they file jointly compared to a single. That benefits 21 million married working couples. They would see their taxes increased if this fails to be made permanent. For those who do itemize, homeowners, those who give to their church or institutions of faith and charity, their synagogue, to help the itemizers, we widen the 15 percent tax bracket so that those filing jointly, married couples, can earn twice as much in the 15 percent bracket as a single and not pay higher taxes just because they are married. Also, we help poor people, the working poor. Those who utilize the earned income tax credit, 4 million married working couples, low-income working couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty saw their marriage tax penalty eliminated because of the Bush tax cut. Of course, those low-income working couples will pay higher taxes if we fail to make marriage tax penalty elimination permanent. I noted earlier that we had overwhelming bipartisan support of the effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty when this bill passed the House. As you know, the Senate has not yet acted. Our hope is that we can work in a bipartisan way and do the right thing and, that is, to permanently eliminate the marriage tax penalty so that no married couple has to look forward to the threat of higher taxes just because some people in Washington would rather spend their money in Washington rather than allowing them to take care of their family's needs. Mr. Speaker, this really is a vote on do we impose higher taxes on married couples. We have worked to make the marriage tax penalty eliminated. We have worked to make the Tax Code neutral so that a married couple, both in the workforce, pay no more in taxes than an identical couple who happen to be not married who are all in the workforce. That is the right thing to do. We can eliminate the marriage tax penalty. As I noted earlier in debate, even the left-wing policy guru James Carville has suggested that Democrats probably really ought to get on board and support permanently eliminating the marriage tax penalty because the true beneficiaries of eliminating the marriage tax penalty are the middle-class and low-income families. As I noted here with Jose and Magdalena Castillo, their combined income, they are construction workers, is about $85,000. There are some on the other side who probably think that Jose and Magdalena are rich because they make $85,000 a year. In the south suburbs of Chicago, that is a middle-class family. Before the Bush tax cut, they suffered $1,125 in higher taxes just because they were married. We want to permanently eliminate and prevent that tax burden from being restored and reimposed on Jose and Magdalena Castillo and the other 42 million married working couples who benefit from the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. That is what this debate is all about. We have heard so much from the other side of the aisle who want to confuse the debate, who want to change the subject when the issue before us is a basic one, and, that is, it is an issue of fairness. Should a middle-class couple who are both in the workforce pay higher taxes just because they are married? We answered that question last year when we passed as part of the Bush tax cut our legislation to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Unfortunately because of a rule in the other body, it had to be temporary. It should be an overall bipartisan goal to treat working families fairly. My hope is that more than 60 Democrats will vote with every Republican today to permanently eliminate the marriage tax penalty because that is the vote that is before us. If Members vote ``no,'' they are really voting to raise taxes on 42 million married working couples. They are voting to raise taxes on married working couples such as Jose and Magdalena Castillo. As I have noted, the House has passed this overwhelmingly. The Senate has not yet acted. Let us vote to ensure that Congress gets it done this year. I ask for a bipartisan ``aye'' vote.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would note to the gentleman who spoke in opposition to eliminating the marriage tax penalty that there are 2,752,159 married working couples in California, and 44,685 married working couples in the 30th Congressional District of California who will face higher taxes unless we make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. WELLER. The only people who suffer the marriage tax penalty----

Mr. WELLER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, and, of course, I am on the gentleman's time, I would note that the only people who suffer----

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, before I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) to respond to his colleague's comments, I do want to point out that in the 3rd District of Maryland that there are 66,851 married couples who will suffer higher taxes if we fail to make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. That is why we are here today, to talk about elimination of the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of House Resolution 543.