Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this rule. I stand in strong support of the basic bill that will come before this House. I urge bipartisan opposition to the substitute and motion to recommit that will be offered today and ask bipartisan support for permanent elimination of the marriage tax penalty. We are already hearing in the debate that has begun basically the excuses. We have to remember as we look back over the previous times we debated eliminating the marriage tax penalty there were always those on the other side of the aisle who used every procedural trick they could come up with or argument to oppose eliminating the marriage tax penalty because that is what it is all about here in Washington. It is who controls those dollars and whether they are going be spent here in Washington or spent back home. That is part of the fundamental debate we have today in this issue of the marriage tax penalty. Unfortunately, because of an arcane rule in the Senate, marriage tax penalty relief, which was included in the Bush tax cut, was provided for on a temporary basis; and unfortunately when it expires, it will amount to a $42 billion tax increase on 36 million married working couples who suffer what we call the marriage tax penalty. Let me explain what the marriage tax penalty is. That is when there is a husband and wife who are both in the workforce, and because when they marry they jointly combine their income, and that is what their taxes are based on, that historically has pushed them into a higher tax bracket, forcing married working couples to pay higher taxes. And that is a pretty important question: Do we believe it is right, do we believe it is fair that married couples, married working couples, a man and woman, both in the workforce, should pay higher taxes just because they are married? Is it right that under our Tax Code, that our Tax Code punishes society's most basic institution? I think not. I have been proud that this House has led the fight in eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Every House Republican has voted to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, even 60-some Democrats joined with us because they recognize that it is wrong to impose taxes on marriage; and today, we are going to hear from those who fought every step of the way our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, and they are going to say just about anything, even saying Social Security is somehow in jeopardy, if we eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I would note that, by law, the assets in the Social Security trust fund cannot be spent on anything but Social Security, regardless of what the rest of the budget looks like for that given year. Let me give my colleagues an example of a couple back in my district that I represent who benefit from what we call the Bush tax cut, who benefit from our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I have here before us Jose and Magdalena Castillo and their children Eduardo and Carolina. Jose and Magdalena are a working couple from Joliet, Illinois. Jose has an income of about $57,000. Magdalena has an income of $25,000. Because they are married, they file jointly. Their marriage tax penalty was $1,125 before the Bush tax cut was signed into law a year ago, and if we fail to make permanent marriage tax relief once again, the Castillo family will suffer the marriage tax penalty, and in their case, that is $1,125. Think about it. Here in Washington, $1,125 is pocket change, when we are talking in millions and billions and trillions, the big numbers we talk about; but for a working couple, the 36 million married couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty, it is real money. That $1,125 is several months of day care for little Carolina and Eduardo. It is a couple of months' worth of car payments. It is a down payment on a home or a new car. It is money that can be set aside in education savings accounts for Eduardo and Carolina and for their future plans and their future years, but it is real money for real people. We worked to eliminate the marriage tax penalty in several ways, and President Bush signed into law our legislation last year which helped those who do not itemize their taxes, which are 20 million married couples suffering the marriage tax penalty, by doubling the standard deduction to twice that for single filers. That benefits 20 million couples who do not itemize their taxes. For those who do, middle-class couples suffering the marriage tax penalty who happen to be homeowners or give to their church, their charity or synagogue or institution or organizations of faith, homeowners that itemize, we widen the 15 percent tax bracket so they can earn twice as much income as a joint filer as a single person could make and still pay in the 15 percent tax bracket. That benefits 21 million married working couples in the middle class. Also, we help the working poor. There are 4 million working-poor married couples who now qualify for the earned income tax credit, the EIC, because of the marriage tax relief that we provide. As a result of that, we benefit 36 million married working couples. Think about that. What would happen to these 36 million working couples if we failed to make marriage tax penalty relief permanent? They are going to pay a $42 billion tax increase in the first 2 years. There are those in Washington who we are going to hear from today who are going to say we should let it expire; we need that money to spend here in Washington. Well, I believe a majority of this House will side with the Castillo family today. I believe that a majority of the House, in a bipartisan way, is going to side with hardworking, middle-class families, like the Castillos, and say, let us protect that marriage tax relief. Let us make it permanent to ensure that couples like Jose and Magdalena are able to use that money for their own needs back at home and take care of little Carolina and Eduardo, because that is what this is all about. We want to make our Tax Code more fair; and of course, we were successful last year in eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Unfortunately, because of an arcane rule in the Senate, it was temporary. And it is funny: here in Washington it is so easy to pass a permanent tax increase. It is so easy to pass a permanent spending increase, but there are people here in Washington that will fight tooth and nail every effort to help working families like the Castillos by providing permanent marriage tax relief. Let us work in a bipartisan way. Let us work to help good hardworking people like the Castillos keep their own hard-earned dollars. Why should they pay higher taxes just because they are married? Often, it is asked in this debate who most benefits from tax relief. Well, if we look at the statistics, those who earn between $20,000 and $75,000, middle-class families are those who are hardest hit by the marriage tax penalty. So if we all claim to be friends of the middle class, we should want to make permanent marriage tax relief, and I know we are going to hear from the excuses caucus who are going to come up with every excuse to oppose this legislation. Let us move in a bipartisan way. Let us have bipartisan support for this rule. Let us move for permanent marriage tax relief.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume. Before I begin my remarks, I would just like to note that my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), has consistently voted ``no'' on efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, and of course his justification for voting ``no'' again today, even though 66,851 married couples benefit from elimination of the marriage tax penalty in his district in Maryland, is consistent. So I commend him on his consistency for opposition to eliminating the marriage tax penalty, and his excuse that we need to spend more money here in Washington is something we will hear from all the others in opposition to this bill. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity before this House today to bring H.R. 4019, the Permanent Marriage Tax Relief Act of 2002, before this House of Representatives. This is legislation which makes the marriage tax penalty relief provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001 permanent. We have often known that legislation as the Bush tax cut. There are 36 million working married couples who are impacted by the marriage tax penalty and who will benefit from the permanency that is before us today. During the last several years as we have debated eliminating the marriage tax penalty, we have often asked a very fundamental question, and that is, is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code if one is married that one pays higher taxes than one would if he were single? Is it right that under our Tax Code that our society's most basic institution should suffer higher taxes just because a couple is married? And I am proud to say this House has addressed this issue, and last year we passed legislation to provide temporary relief eliminating the marriage tax penalty for a temporary period of time. Let us remember that the marriage tax penalty is a middle-class issue. Almost every Member of this House often gets up and talks about how they are an advocate for the middle class because that is the majority of Americans, and I would note it is the middle class that suffers the marriage tax penalty disproportionately more than others; and those who suffer the most are in the income levels between $20,000 and $70,000. Again, the marriage tax penalty is a middle-class issue. Mr. Speaker, I would note that 2 years ago we passed legislation providing for permanent marriage tax penalty relief. It passed with 282 to 144 votes, and even 64 Democrats joined with every House Republican to provide marriage tax relief benefiting 36 million married working couples; and unfortunately because of an arcane Senate rule, it forced our efforts to provide temporary relief, and that is why we are here today, to make it permanent. Last year's tax law, which President Bush signed on June 6, 2001, eliminated the marriage tax penalty for 36 million couples in three different ways. There are different types of taxpayers out there. There are those who do not itemize, and those who do not itemize, they use something called the standard deduction; and what we did last year in legislation that became law under a temporary basis was double the standard deduction to twice that for joint filers to twice that for singles. That benefits 20 million American couples. Second, for those who do itemize, and those are middle-class couples who own a home or give money to their church or institution of faith, their synagogue, their temple, their mosque, charity as well as probably own a home, they itemize. And they benefit from the widening of the 15 percent tax bracket so they can earn twice as much income in the 15 percent bracket as a joint filer as a single filer; 20 million couples benefit from the widening of the 15 percent tax bracket. And, third, and we all care and are concerned about the working poor, we expanded the eligibility for the earned income credit for the working poor by eliminating the marriage penalty and the earned income credit, what some call the earned income tax credit. That benefits 4 million married working couples who we consider working poor. Mr. Speaker, 36 million married working couples benefit from the marriage tax relief that is before us today. It should be made permanent. Since 1969, our tax laws have punished married couples when both spouses work, and there is no other reason. It is right and it is fair to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We believe the Tax Code should be marriage-neutral, and a couple living together as two singles should pay no more than a married couple, and vice versa. Unfortunately, the marriage tax penalty has been proven to exact a disproportionate toll on working women and lower income couples with children. Many times before this House I have introduced citizens of mine, couples from back home who suffer the marriage tax penalty. Recently I have introduced a couple from my district, Jose and Magdelene Castillo of Joliet, Illinois. They have a combined income of $82,000 a year. Jose makes $57,000, Magdelene makes $25,000. They have 2 children, Eduardo and Carolina. As a result of the legislation we passed, their marriage tax penalty of $1125 is eliminated with the temporary measure that we passed and was signed into law last year. That represented a 12 percent reduction in taxes for the Castillo family. Now, $1125 is pennies, pocket change in Washington, D.C., but for real people, real Americans, real working married couples back home in Joliet, Illinois, $1125 is a lot of money. It is a sizeable amount of money to set aside each year in an education savings account for little Eduardo and Carolina. It is several months' worth of car payments; it is several months' worth of day care for Eduardo and Carolina while mom and dad are at work. The bottom line is, it is real money for real people. In Illinois, 1,149,196 married working couples benefit from the $2.9 billion of marriage tax relief they will receive because of the Bush tax cut enacted into law last year. Congress needs to work together to ensure that this tax relief, this elimination of the marriage tax penalty, is permanent. It is a fairness issue. We must ensure that 36 million couples who benefit from the marriage tax penalty relief do not suffer a tax increase when this temporary provision expires. Again, $1125 in marriage tax penalty relief is real money for Jose and Magdelene Castillo, and I would note for the 36 million married working couples, the $42 billion tax increase that would occur when this provision expires is real money for those families as well. Let me make it very clear. A vote against making permanent the marriage tax penalty relief legislation, a vote ``no'' on the legislation before us today is a vote for a $42 billion tax increase on 36 million married working couples. Let us do the right thing. Let us be fair. Let us do the just thing for these married working couples. We are going to hear excuses from the same people who have voted consistently against providing marriage tax relief that they would rather find a way to spend this money here in Washington rather than allowing good couples like Jose and Magdelene Castillo to keep their hard-earned dollars to take care of their family's needs by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. I ask for bipartisan support today, and I look forward to participating in the debate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), I would like to comment that this legislation actually makes the Tax Code marriage-neutral so that single people, widows, single people pay no more in taxes than a joint filer does under their obligation, and vice versa. That was the goal of this legislation when it passed and still is the goal of the legislation. I would also note that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Doggett) is being consistent. He voted ``no'' on providing marriage tax relief, even though there are 58,612 working married couples who suffer from the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), one of the House's leading advocates for widows and working women in the Congress and who has been a proven leader in the effort to ensure that family businesses stay in the family and in business when the founder passes on with her efforts in eliminating the death tax.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as we return to the debate on the issue before us on whether or not to impose a $42 billion tax increase on 36 million married working couples, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as we return to the basic issue here of whether or not we have a $42 billion tax increase on 36 million married working couples, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentlewoman from Florida is correct. I am not going to draw attention to her past opposition to eliminating the marriage tax penalty, but I would note that there are almost 84,000 married individual taxpayers in her district that do suffer the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), the distinguished leader in the fight to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Or a Bulldog and go to the University of Georgia. But the bottom line is the marriage tax penalty is a real issue for ordinary people back in Illinois, Georgia and Nebraska and throughout this country. In the last few days I have heard some suggestions, particularly from some of my friends in the left wing of the Democratic Party, who have said we do not need to do this now. We have got things here in Washington that we need to spend that money on; that maybe we should take that $1,150 out of Jose and Magdalena's pocket and spend it on something here in Washington. Maybe in Washington $1,150 for the Castillo family is no big deal, in Washington, where you think in terms of millions and billions of dollars. But for regular people, like Jose and Magdalena Castillo, $1,150, elimination of the marriage tax penalty for the Castillo family represents a 12 percent reduction in their taxes. So if we fail to make permanent the marriage tax penalty relief in what we nicknamed the Bush tax cut, they will see a 12 percent increase in their taxes so that Washington can better spend it, as some on the left side of the aisle view. My hope is that we will see an overwhelming bipartisan vote tomorrow to eliminate the marriage tax penalty permanently. I was proud to say that almost 280 members of this body voted to move a stand-alone bill which would permanently eliminate the marriage tax penalty almost 2 years ago. Unfortunately, that bill was vetoed by President Clinton at that time, and we came back later with what was in the Bush tax cut, signed into law, a temporary measure to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. My hope is all 62 of those Democrats will once again vote with us, and that more Democrats will join with every House Republican in voting to permanently eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Because of that overwhelming vote, I hope that our friends in the Senate, many of whom have resisted permanent elimination of the marriage tax penalty, will follow suit, and we can put on the President's desk by this fall legislation which permanently eliminates the marriage tax penalty. Think what that will mean to 45 million married working couples; good people, good, hard-working people like Jose and Magdelene Castillo and little Eduardo and Carolina, who would have a little extra spending money to meet their needs rather than sending it to Washington. It is an issue of fairness. Our Tax Code should be neutral regarding marriage. We believe that the Tax Code should not punish society's most basic institution; and of course, marriage is our society's most basic institution. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty and let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty permanently so it is one of those things that we talk about that once used to exist, but it is history. Let us make the marriage tax penalty history by permanently eliminating the marriage tax penalty. I am happy to yield back to the gentleman from Nebraska, and I want to thank the gentleman from Nebraska for his leadership in organizing tonight's discussion of the importance of eliminating the marriage tax penalty and what it means to real people like the Castillo family of Joliet, Illinois.

Mr. WELLER. If the gentleman will yield, my hope is that everyone will join with my colleagues from Georgia and Arizona and Nebraska in voting to make permanent the marriage tax relief. I think as this discussion we have had here in this House Chamber shows, regarding the marriage tax penalty, what it means in real terms for real people, about how you have a husband and wife, both in the workforce, struggling to make ends meet, who, prior to a year ago, paid higher taxes just because they were married. In the case of Jose and Magdalena Castillo, they paid $1,150 more in higher taxes. As the gentleman from Nebraska pointed out, if they could save that, in a period of 20 years, when little Carolina may be in college, a sizeable portion of her college tuition could be paid for during the 4 years she may go to the University of Illinois, my alma mater, could be paid for by setting aside the $1,150.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield briefly, I would note in the legislation we passed out of the House of Representatives that was signed into law by President Bush, we helped an estimated 45 million married working couples in a number of ways. When you are a taxpayer, you are an itemizer, nonitemizer, if you are a low-income working family, part of the working poor, earned income tax credit, only out of that 20 million married couples received marriage tax relief through the Bush tax cut through the doubling of the standard deduction to twice that for single people. Those who do not itemize their taxes use the standard deduction. And for the middle class, those in the 15 percent bracket who itemize their taxes, homeowners, those who give to their church, temple, mosque, they are homeowners and itemize their taxes, we widened the 15 percent bracket so they can earn twice as much in income and stay within the 15 percent as a single person. There are 20 million when you take advantage of the 15 percent widening which are the itemizers. And 4 million poor families, low-income families, benefit from the marriage tax relief that we provided in adjusting the eligibility for the earned income credit. Four million working-poor families who struggle, and thanks to Ronald Reagan received the earned income credit. They would lose that marriage tax relief, that opportunity to have a little extra income to take care of their family's needs, if this is allowed to expire. That is just one more reason why I believe we need to make it permanent, because we do not want to see a $42 billion tax increase on 45 million married working couples who would be forced to pay higher taxes just because they are married. My hope is tomorrow when we debate making permanent the marriage tax relief that was part of the Bush tax cut, that an overwhelming majority of this House will vote in a bipartisan way to make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER. Or make improvements to the house. Families struggle. The gentleman from Arizona, the point he made about how when you figure out what the amount the marriage tax penalty comes out to, it is real money for real people. You take Jose and Magdalena Castillo of Joliet, Illinois. For the Castillo family, prior to a year ago when the Bush tax cut was signed into law, the Castillo family faced about a $1,150 marriage tax penalty. Thankfully, because of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, which was combined as part of the Bush tax cut, signed into law, they no longer pay this marriage tax penalty. If we fail to make permanent the marriage tax penalty relief signed into law last year, they once again will have their taxes higher, raised. They will lose that $1,150 back to Uncle Sam. For the Castillo family, in a town like Joliet, in the south suburbs of Chicago, for Jose and Magdalena, $1,150 is several months of car payments, that is 2 to 3 months of child care for little Carolina, that is a significant portion of tuition at Joliet Junior College. The marriage tax penalty is real money for real people like the Castillo family. That is what this is really all about. The marriage tax relief signed into law last year, which currently is temporary, and my hope is this House will vote to make permanent tomorrow, is meaningful to 45 million married working couples, just like Jose and Magdalena Castillo of Joliet, Illinois. When you think about it, for 45 million married working couples, if this marriage tax penalty relief is not made permanent, these couples, 45 million couples, will see a $42 billion tax increase just on marriage, if we fail to make permanent the marriage tax relief.

Mr. WELLER. If the gentleman would yield, I think the gentleman from Nebraska is bringing up a good point. That is what is frustrating, and one of the reasons I know I came to Congress in 1994 and one of the causes we in the House Republican majority have been working towards, is finding ways to help working families have some extra spending money to meet the needs of every American family, to be able to afford to go to college, or buy a new bicycle for the little girl when she is getting old enough to ride a bicycle.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska, who has been a real leader in bringing about tax relief. The gentleman and I share a common goal, and that is bringing about a recognition in government that taxes are too high, that working Americans work too long to pay their taxes, that we believe in the Republican majority that the American people can better spend their hard-earned income back home taking care of their families' needs than we can here in Washington. And while the government needs some revenue to fund the activities of the Federal Government, we also need to recognize that families struggle, and we need to find ways to ease the burden on working families. That is why I was so proud just a year ago when the President signed into law the first major tax cut since Ronald Reagan was President. Prior to Ronald Reagan, it was John F. Kennedy, so it seems like every generation has a major tax cut. And now George W. Bush. But it was the commitment of the House Republican majority that drove this debate, even though we had essentially a hostile President in the White House under President Clinton, who did not share the view that taxes were too high. We continued to be persistent, and with the election of President Bush, we found an ally in our goal in bringing about across- the-board tax relief that benefits American taxpayers and that addresses the issues of fairness in the Tax Code. I would note that what we nicknamed the Bush tax cut benefits over 100 million American tax-paying households who have seen their taxes lowered as a result of the House Republican majority, and signed into law by President Bush. Mr. Speaker, 3.9 million tax-paying households, low-income families, no longer pay Federal income taxes because the Bush tax cut was signed into law. Unfortunately, one thing we discovered, sometimes we find that Washington works in a strange way. It is interesting in Washington, we can raise taxes permanently like Bill Clinton and the Democrats did in 1993, we can increase spending permanently, but you will find rules somewhere in the Congress that make it hard to permanently cut taxes. Unfortunately, there was a rule in the other body which prevented permanency to the Bush tax cut, permanency to the across-the-board rate reductions, permanency to the elimination of the death tax, permanency to our efforts to increase opportunities to put more into your IRA and 401(k) for retirement savings, for education savings accounts for your children's education, and also our efforts to eliminate the subject of tonight's Special Order, the marriage tax penalty. I commend the gentleman from Nebraska and the majority of this House for sharing a view that many of us have argued over the last several years that the marriage tax penalty is essentially a fundamental issue of fairness. The most basic institution in our society is marriage. Around marriage we build our families. Unfortunately, under our Tax Code for almost two generations, we taxed marriage. I felt, as I know many of my colleagues did, that it was a legitimate argument to come to this floor and say is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code, that we actually taxed married couples more in taxes, higher taxes, just because they were married. In fact, on average, 23 million married working couples on average were paying about $1,400 in higher taxes last year than identical couples living together outside of marriage. Essentially our Tax Code was saying the only way to avoid the marriage tax penalty was to get divorced or not get married in the first place. That is wrong. We believe the Tax Code should be marriage- neutral. I am proud to say that several times this House Republican majority brought legislation to the floor and we passed out of the House of Representatives legislation supported by every House Republican, and I also want to note that up to 62 Democrats joined with us. We had bipartisan support for legislation which would permanently wipe out the marriage tax penalty. Unfortunately, when we passed into law the Bush tax cut, it was a 10- year program which meant in the year 2010, the marriage tax penalty relief would expire; and for a projected 45 million married working couples, they would see almost a $42 billion tax increase because their taxes were going to be higher because the marriage tax penalty was going to be reimposed. Is that right? Is that fair? I think not. Let me explain how the marriage tax penalty occurs. The marriage tax penalty occurs when a husband and wife get married. They are both in the workforce and file their taxes jointly. When they do that, their combined income usually pushes these married couples into a higher tax bracket. That produces the marriage tax penalty. I have a couple here I would like to introduce to my colleagues in the House. Jose and Magdalene Castillo of Joliet, Illinois. They have two children, Eduardo and Carolina. They have a combined income of about $82,000. They are a middle-class working couple in Joliet, Illinois. In their case, prior to the successful passage into law of the Marriage Tax Elimination Act this past year, the Castillo family suffered about $1,125 in higher taxes just because they are married. Now, the question before this House tomorrow, we are going to propose legislation to be voted on in the House tomorrow which will make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. Really, the question is for 45 million married working couples like Jose and Magdalene Castillo, do we want to reimpose the marriage tax penalty? I think not. My hope is that over tomorrow's debate we will see an overwhelming bipartisan majority who will vote to make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, so the marriage tax penalty will be one of those things that we used to talk about that used to exist in the Tax Code because the Tax Code is complicated and we are working in this House to make the Tax Code simpler, and that means making the Tax Code more fair. By eliminating the marriage tax penalty for Jose and Magdalene Castillo, we are not only making the Tax Code more fair, we are simplifying the Tax Code. My hope is tomorrow an overwhelming majority in the House will join with us, and the Senate will follow suit, and we will send to the President legislation which will make permanent elimination of the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I just want to kind of just make a comment. I find it is always interesting that my Democratic friends advocate permanent increases in spending and they are always first in line to advocate permanent increases in taxes, but they will fight tooth and nail any permanent tax cut. That is what I would like to talk about today, and that is, the fact that just a little over a year ago today President Bush signed into law a tax cut, a tax cut unfortunately because of congressional rules that had to be a temporary measure; but this was a tax cut which provided across-the- board tax relief for every American. When President Bush became President, he inherited a weak economy; and he said if we could put a little bit of money back into the pocketbooks of working families, they will have some extra money to meet their needs back home; and, frankly, that money in the private sector will get our economy moving again, and of course, economists told us that since that bill was signed into law in June that by Labor Day of last year the economy was on the rebound. Unfortunately, the consequence of a terrorist attack just a new days later, as we know, shocked the confidence of consumers and investors; and of course, we are working to get our economy moving again. As we work on getting our economy moving again, we also recognize that permanency in the Tax Code affects decision-making; and that is why last week we passed legislation to make permanent the elimination of the death tax, which will benefit family farmers and small businesses who are making long-term investment decisions knowing the tax consequences. That is good for the economy. Today, I want to talk about legislation that we are going to be bringing before the House later this week, and this is legislation to make permanent the marriage tax relief that was in the Bush tax cut that we enacted 1 year ago. Like many of my colleagues, I have come to the floor over the last several years asking a very fundamental question, that is, Is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code married working couples paid higher taxes than two single people who chose to live together? Is it right, is it fair that 43 million married working couples paid on average about $1,700 more in higher taxes just because they are married? Is it right, is it fair that our Tax Code, prior to this past year, punished society's most basic institution with higher taxes? I am proud to say that thanks to the leadership of House Republicans, under the leadership of Speaker Hastert, we fought time and time again to eliminate the marriage tax penalty; and while we suffered vetoes under President Clinton, we are proud to say that under President Bush the marriage tax penalty was eliminated. We helped married couples in a number of ways, three ways as a matter of fact. First, we doubled the standard deduction that is used by families who do not itemize their taxes. Almost 9 million married working couples do not itemize their taxes. So they use the standard deduction, and we doubled the standard deduction to be twice that for singles, eliminating their marriage penalty. For those who itemize, such as those who give to their institution of faith, their church, their charity, synagogue or temple or mosque, we recognize that most married couples itemize their taxes if they own a home, for example, and we helped those by widening the 15 percent tax break so they could earn twice as much as a married couple as a single person and stay in the 15 percent tax bracket. We eliminate their marriage tax penalty. Third, for low-income families who utilize and are helped by the earned income credit, we eliminate their marriage tax penalty as well. So we help low-income working middle-class married couples who have suffered the marriage tax penalty. Let me give my colleagues an example of a married couple from Joliet, Illinois, in the district I represent in the south suburbs of Chicago. Jose and Magdalena Castillo, they are laborers. They have a combined income of $82,000. That is their combined income. Their children are Eduardo and Carolina. They are happy people. They work hard, great American citizens, enjoying life in the south suburbs of Chicago; but they suffered the marriage tax penalty because they chose to get married, and we believe the Tax Code should be marriage neutral. Prior to the Bush tax cut being signed into law, Jose and Magdalena Castillo paid about $1,150 more in higher taxes just because they were married. If they chose to get divorced and live together, they would have saved $1,150 a year. Jose and Magdalena Castillo were helped by the Bush tax cut, which originated right here in the House of Representatives; and I am proud to say that that was signed into law last year, and for the next few years, the marriage tax penalty for the Castillo family will be eliminated. If this Congress does nothing, it will be made permanent, and I believe we need to help married working couples; and this week, on Thursday, we are going to be voting to make permanent the marriage tax penalty relief in the Bush tax cut, and my hope is that we will have bipartisan support, that even our Democratic friends will join with us, in making marriage tax penalty relief permanent to help couples like Jose and Magdalena Castillo of Joliet, Illinois.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to offer my support for H.R. 4823, a bill which repeals the sunset of a provision in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 which provides a Federal income tax exclusion for restitution payments received by victims of the Nazi Regime. During the 106th Congress, Congressman Robert Matsui and I introduced a bill, H.R. 1292, which would have excluded from gross income any amount received by an individual, or any heir of the individual from any person as a result of any moral or legal injustice experienced by such individual as a Holocaust victim persecuted for racial or religious reasons by Nazi Germany. Many of the provisions included in H.R. 1292 were included in the tax bill signed by President Bush last year, we are working to make these provisions permanent today. In August 1998, after many years of effort, Holocaust survivors who had assets withheld by Swiss banks or others finally received justice through a $1.25 billion settlement. These settlements continue to be distributed to Holocaust survivors and their heirs world-wide. the settlements return assets to their rightful owners and their heirs more than 50 years after they were first entrusted to their care. Funds have been established by banks and corporations in France, Austria, Italy and Germany to return assets such as bank accounts and insurance policies to Holocaust survivors. With the enactment of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act last year, and with H.R. 4823, which we are considering today, we can ensure that any payment, from Swiss banks or other similar sources, will not be taxed. This is clearly the right thing to do because they are receiving back what was always theirs to begin with. With the average age of Holocaust survivors at 80, the time left to debate these payments is slipping away. Certainly, these payments will make life more comfortable for these survivors in their remaining years. To tax them on these long overdue payments would simply be wrong. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation and I thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of H.R. 4823. H.R. 4823--Holocaust Restitution Tax Fairness Act of 2002 H.R. 4823 will make permanent provisions in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA) that exclude from gross income any restitution payments received by victims of the Nazi Regime or their heirs or estates. This bill is supported by Conference of Jewish Material Claims Against Germany (Claims Conference), Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Miami (JCRC), American Jewish Committee (AJC), American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), United Jewish Communities (UJC), the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC) and International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance. These tax relief provisions expire or ``sunset'' on December 31, 2010. After that any restitution payments could be subject to federal taxation. The sunset (i.e. expiration) of the tax provisions in EGTRRA creates significant risk and uncertainty for tax planning and other important personal decisions for victims of the Holocaust and their families. holocaust restitution settlements In recent years, settlement agreements worth billions of dollars have been reached to compensate Holocaust survivors. It is unknown what future agreements will occur but U.S. tax law should ensure that any and all future payments be excluded from federal taxation. In addition, millions of dollars of restitution payments are made every year to thousands of survivors of the Holocaust in the form of monthly payments. If this tax provision is not made permanent, thousands of Holocaust survivors could lose over one-third of their restitution to the IRS when EGTRRA expires. Holocaust survivors are an aging population but current estimates are that there will be 88,000 Jewish Holocaust survivors in 2010 and 37,000 in 2020. A large fraction of these survivors are receiving reparation payments. If this provision is not made permanent, those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis will be forced to share their modest payments with the government. Not exempting this income from taxation is tantamount to the federal government ``profiting'' from restitution payments that are compensation for the pain and suffering of Holocaust survivors and their families. International Consideration The U.S. provision has served as a model for similar legislation in other countries. Specifically, the Russian government has studied and been influenced by the U.S. legislation when crafting a similar provision exempting Holocaust payments to Russian citizens.

Mr. WELLER

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

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To briefly respond to my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, again today's debate is about do we more quickly eliminate the marriage tax penalty, and do we give thousands, if not millions, more of those who are on welfare the opportunity to go to work? I would note that the issue that has been raised, of course, has been an issue that has been led on by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), and as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) have both requested, the committee will be addressing this on June 13. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would briefly like to remind the gentleman from Connecticut that the Committee on Ways and Means will be conducting a hearing on this subject which he raises. I also note that the gentlewoman from his home State Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) has been a leader on this issue with the legislation that she has offered, H.R. 4756. That legislation, as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts' legislation, will be the subject of the Committee on Ways and Means hearing on June 13. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, briefly responding to the dialogue of my colleague and member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I would note again that he is absolutely right. Today's debate is about eliminating the marriage tax penalty, simplifying the Tax Code for low- and moderate-income working married couplings. This debate is also about whether or not we give hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of welfare recipients the opportunity to have a job, to have a chance. That is what this debate is about. I realize there are some who came here to practice campaign rhetoric; it is a campaign season. And the Committee on Ways and Means is conducting a hearing on the issue that the gentlemen and women on the other side have raised this morning. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Responding briefly to my colleague from Washington State, a friend of mine on my committee, being a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, I would note that today's debate is whether or not we more quickly phase out the marriage tax penalty, and do we make it easier for those on welfare to go to work. I realize that with a hearing coming up on June 13 that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) requested and agreed to and, of course, on an issue that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) has been a leader on, that we are planning to have plenty of debate and discussion of the issue that they are raising. The bottom line is today we want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, and today we want to help those who are on welfare go to work. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Encouraging Work and Supporting Marriage Act of 2002, legislation that accomplishes two goals, that is, a quicker phase-out of the marriage tax penalty for low- and moderate- income workers, and increasing the opportunity for those who are on welfare to have a chance to have a job. That is what this debate is all about. I know there are other issues that have been raised by some that are in the ``excuse caucus'' of the Democratic Party, who believe there is always an excuse not to do these things. But today we wanted to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Today we want to increase the opportunity to help those who are on welfare go to work. Let me give you an example of a couple from the district that I represent who suffer the marriage tax penalty, a result of the complicated Tax Code that we have had and, until President Bush became President, was in place, and thanks to President Bush and the Republican leadership as well as Republican majority in this House of Representatives, we eliminated the marriage tax penalty. Unfortunately, it had to be phased out, we could not do it all at once; but we passed legislation to accomplish that. Jose and Magdalena Castillo are two laborers from Joliet, Illinois. They are both in the workforce. Because they are married, they file their taxes jointly, it pushes them into a higher tax bracket, they pay the marriage tax penalty, about $1,150 in higher taxes just because they are married. But thanks to the Bush tax cut, which resulted from a Republican majority in this House, Jose and Magdalena Castillo no longer pay the marriage tax penalty. Today we want to help millions of couples such as Jose and Magdalena Castillo by phasing out the marriage tax penalty more quickly. For those who are low- and moderate-income taxpayers, those who do not itemize, in the phase-in they were not going to receive the full impact of the elimination of the marriage tax penalty to them until 2005. What we have before us today is legislation that eliminates the marriage tax penalty for low- and moderate-income taxpayers in 2003, next year. As a result of that, 9 million married couples will receive immediate relief, and I will note that 300,000 low- and moderate-income married working couples will no longer have to itemize their taxes as a result of this legislation. That is progress, and I am proud to say this is good legislation. I would also note that this legislation helps hundreds of thousands of other hard-working, low-income families. This legislation simplifies the Work Opportunity and Welfare-to-Work tax credits. President Bush was in my home area of Chicago just this past week. President Bush went to a facility, it was a UPS, United Parcel Service, facility. They are one of the leading companies in helping those on welfare with an opportunity to go to work. The President highlighted the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, how it has been a successful tool in our effort to give those on welfare a chance, a chance for a job. Well, the President drew attention to a very successful program that we need to continue to improve. Today's legislation simplifies the Work Opportunity and Welfare-to-Work tax credits. In fact, it combines the two so there is only one, to make it much more simple for those that use, the private business that hires and gives opportunities for welfare recipients. But also I would note that this legislation gives more low-income welfare recipients the opportunity to participate. If they have a criminal past and they are trying to make right, if they have been an ex-felon, we give greater opportunity because they want to do the right thing and go to work. If they are on food stamps, we raise the eligibility age limit for those on food stamps to participate in the Work Opportunity Tax Credit. We also expand incentives for vocational rehabilitation referrals, again giving more opportunity for low-income individuals to have a chance to go to work and get off of welfare. This is good legislation, and regardless of some of the rhetoric we have heard today, it is about two things: eliminating the marriage tax penalty and giving those on welfare an opportunity to go to work. Those are two very noble goals, and I am proud to say that this legislation passed the Committee on Ways and Means unanimously. Regardless of the rhetoric we have heard from the other side from the ``excuses caucus,'' it passed unanimously. They voted for it. My hope is they will vote for it again, because this legislation to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, to give those on welfare a chance, an opportunity to go to work, deserves bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, I ask for bipartisan support for this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Briefly, in response to my friend from Massachusetts, I would note today's legislation before us is about giving welfare recipients the opportunity to go to work and providing greater marriage tax relief. The issue of inversions that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) has brought up is an issue of bipartisan concern. I particularly want to commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), for her leadership on this issue and sponsorship of H.R. 4756. I would note the flaws in the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Neal) proposal, some suggest may even promote foreign takeover of U.S. companies under the proposal that he has offered, and that is why out of fairness a hearing has been scheduled by the House Committee on Ways and Means on June 13. Also, as part of that hearing, we will be looking at a Treasury review and study which was released this past Friday. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), one of the leaders of the welfare-to-work initiative.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would remind my colleagues that today we are focusing on eliminating the marriage tax penalty and giving welfare recipients the opportunity to go back to work. I would also note this legislation is paid for through the budget which the House has adopted which allows for an additional $28 billion in tax provisions. It is estimated this provision will cost $1 billion or less. So it fits well within those parameters and does not need to be paid for under the House-adopted budget. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), one of our leaders on the Committee on Ways and Means, a distinguished gentleman who has been a real leader on bringing tax fairness to those married working couples, as well as giving opportunity to those who need to work.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4626) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to accelerate the marriage penalty relief in the standard deduction and to modify the work opportunity credit and the welfare-to-work credit, as amended.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I bring H.R. 4626, legislation sponsored by my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and myself, legislation called the Encouraging Work and Supporting Marriage Act of 2002 to the floor today. This is important legislation because it helps American families in two ways. First, it makes marriage penalty relief more quickly available to 21 million low and moderate income married working couples. Second, it facilitates the transition from welfare to work by simplifying the work opportunity and welfare-to-work tax credits and making them easier for employers as well as employees to use. This past year, in what we know as the Bush tax cut, last year's tax law, which President Bush signed into law June of 2001, it phased out the marriage tax penalty for 43 million married working couples. It included a phaseout of marriage penalty relief particularly targeted to low and moderate income married couples which we include in today's legislation which resulted from the doubling of the standard deduction which was to begin in the year 2005. This legislation before us today accelerates this relief for low and moderate income married working couples by increasing the standard deduction for joint filers to twice that for singles and reducing the marriage penalty by many low and middle income Americans beginning next year in 2003. It is estimated that 9 million American married couples currently use the standard deduction. With this legislation they will begin to see marriage tax relief next year instead of in 2005 as originally planned. H.R. 4626 will also help simplify the tax code. With an earlier phaseout of the marriage tax penalty, 300,000 married working couples who now use the standard deduction instead of itemizing their taxes next year will be able to use the standard deduction and no longer need to itemize. Again, 300,000 married working couples will see their taxes simplified as a result of this marriage tax penalty relief in this legislation. Besides affecting the marriage taxes penalty, H.R. 4626 will also help simplify the work opportunity and welfare-to-work tax credits, two very successful programs which have given hundreds of thousands of low income Americans the opportunity to go back to work. As we have often said in this House Chamber, the best solution to welfare is a job. And I would also note that President Bush recently traveled to Chicago, to my home State, and visited a United Parcel Services facility to highlight the success of this program which has given tens of thousands of Chicago area residents the opportunity to have a job, to have a chance to go to work and get off welfare. Current law provides a work opportunity tax credit to employers who hire individuals from 8 target groups that are considered hard to hire. Employers who hire long term TANF recipients can claim a separate welfare-to-work tax credit. The proposal would simplify the tax code to combine the 2 tax credits and conform most of their rules, making the credits easier for employers to use. Additionally, this bill eliminates the family income tax for ex- felons under work opportunity tax credit. Under current law, employers can claim the work opportunity tax credit for hiring ex-felons only if he or she meets a complicated family income test which requires a State to document the income of all members in the ex-felon's household. H.R. 4626 eliminates the family income tax for this group, thus simplifying the work opportunity tax credit and helping ex-felons transition into the workplace. Finally, H.R. 4626 increases eligibility age limit for food stamp recipients. Under current law, employers can claim the work opportunity tax credit for hiring certain food stamp recipients between the ages of 18 to 25. This proposal would increase the age to 3 and give more low-income individuals the opportunity to go to work. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4626 is a good bill. It has bipartisan support, and I would note that this legislation passed the House Committee on Ways and Means on a unanimous voice vote. This legislation encourages the values we hold most dear: marriage, family, and hard work. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill to eliminate the marriage tax penalty more quickly for low-income and moderate-income married working couples and also help facilitate an easier transition from welfare to work. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 392, expressing solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism. The United States Congress must stand in solidarity with Israel, a front-line state in the war against terrorism, as it takes necessary steps to provide security to its people. The United States and Israel are engaged in a common battle against terrorist groups who threaten our countries. Israel must fight against terror just as the United States must fight and destroy al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. At a time when much of the world turns its back on Palestinian terrorism and condemns Israel for exercising its right of self defense, the U.S. Congress must stand in solidarity with Israel. The ongoing wave of terror threatens the survival of Israel as a free, democratic and civilized society, and risks engulfing the entire Middle East in chaos and war. Israel also needs additional resources to meet these new threats, it must be able to protect its people from the threat of weapons of mass destruction. H. Res. 392 reaffirms our support for Israel's right to defend itself; supports additional U.S. assistance to help Israel defend itself; acknowledges Israel's role as a front-line state in the war against terrorism; condemns the campaign of suicide bombings and terror coordinated by Arafat and other Palestinian leaders, and demands that they fulfill their commitments by once and for all dismantling the terrorist infrastructure. I urge all parties in the region to pursue vigorous efforts to establish a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace in the Middle East.