Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to Ms. Sally Schmitz on the occasion of her retirement after an exceptional career as the Administrative Assistant and Office Manager of the Ottawa Area Chamber of Commerce and Industry (OAC). For the past fifteen years, Ms. Schmitz has served the business community and citizens of the City of Ottawa in an outstanding fashion--oftentimes providing the behind-the-scenes coordination for many of the City of Ottawa's most attractive and successful events. Some of these key events made successful in large part because of Ms. Schmitz's organizational abilities include the Ottawa Area Chamber's sold-out annual meeting banquet at Starved Rock Lodge; the OAC's Business Expo and BIP Golf Outing; the huge Welcomeburger community event; many Riverfest activities and the expanding Farmers Market. In addition to coordinating these key events which have enhanced and enriched the quality of life in the City of Ottawa, Ms. Schmitz has played a vital role over the years in helping the Ottawa Area Chamber of Commerce and Industry develop into a vigorous and effective organization. For example, Ms. Schmitz's work to maintain an efficient office operation while supporting OAC membership recruitment and retention efforts have been absolutely critical to the success of the Ottawa Area Chamber of Commerce and Industry. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am proud and pleased to be able to offer to my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives the example of Ms. Sally Schmitz as an outstanding community servant whose work during the course of her career has helped build the Ottawa Area Chamber of Commerce and Industry into perhaps the leading public service organization in the City of Ottawa.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. James Clark for his years of service in the educational system. Dr. Clark, who retires this year, has served as the Superintendent of the Joliet Township High Schools since July 1, 1996. Dr. Clark started his career in Marion, IN, where he taught speech, drama, and English. He has since taught in Harvey and Lockport High Schools. In 1999 Dr. Clark was appointed Assistant Superintendent for Educational Services at the Joliet Township High Schools. In 1996, he received the appointment as Superintendent. Dr. Clark is also an Adjunct Instructor at Aurora University and Governors' State University. Being a generous person, Dr. Clark is also involved with the community. He is active in Rotary, serves as a member of the Joliet Area American Cancer Society Board of Directors, on the Joliet Area Chamber of Commerce and Industry Board of Directors, as vice-chair of the American Heart Association Heart Walk, and in various professional school administrator organizations. Dr. Clark and his wife Linda are the proud parents of two sons and one grandson. Dr. Clark is revered throughout the Joliet community. In fact, the city of Joliet declared Monday, May 13, 2002, as ``Dr. James H. Clark Day.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to identify and recognize others in their own districts whose actions have so greatly benefited and strengthened America's communities.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, often over the last several years, many of us have asked a very fundamental question, that is, is it right, is it fair, that under our Tax Code that millions of married working couples pay on average about $1,700 in higher taxes just because they are married. Over the last several years, we in the House Republican majority have been working to eliminate what we call the marriage tax penalty where under our Tax Code, married working couples who are husband and wife are both in the workforce, pay higher taxes, and the way the marriage tax penalty works is when someone is married, husband and wife are both in the workforce, they combine their income, they file jointly. That has always pushed married working couples into a higher tax bracket. Really, it is a financial disadvantage. A couple is punished if they get married and essentially rewarded if they break up the marriage and are living as two single people. We in the House Republican majority felt all along that was wrong. It is wrong under our Tax Code that we punish marriage. While President Clinton was in office, we passed legislation out of the House and Senate, sent a stand-alone bill to the President, President Clinton; and unfortunately, he vetoed our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Fortunately, this past year, we had a President come into office, George W. Bush, who agreed that it is time to stop punishing society's most basic institution, and this past year President Bush signed into law part of what we call the Bush tax cut legislation, which wipes out the marriage tax penalty; and it is estimated that 43 million married working couples will receive marriage tax relief as a result of the legislation that was signed into law last year. Unfortunately, because of an archaic rule over in the other body, that provision had to be temporary, which means it expires in a few years; and unless the House and Senate do something, the marriage tax penalty will come back. I am proud to say that this past week the House of Representatives passed overwhelmingly, with the vote of every House Republican plus 60 Democrats, we passed overwhelmingly with a strong bipartisan vote an effort which wipes out the marriage tax penalty permanently. My hope is the other body will take that up and that the House and Senate will quickly move that legislation through, get it on the President's desk, and permanently eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It has been noted to me, according to the Congressional Budget Office, that unless we permanently eliminate the marriage tax penalty that when this temporary provision expires, that 36 million married working couples on average will see a total tax increase of almost $42 billion. Think about that. Unless we make permanent our legislation to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, we will see a $42 billion increase of taxes on marriage, and that is wrong. I think a couple back in the district I represent in the south suburbs, Jose and Magdalena Castillo, a young couple, they work hard. They have two children, Eduardo and Carolina. They suffered, prior to the Bush tax cut being signed into law, $1,150 marriage tax penalty; and thanks to the efforts of this House, to the House Republican majority, to President Bush, we eliminated their marriage tax penalty. For Jose and Magdalena Castillo, $1,150 is several months of car payments, several months of day care for Eduardo and Carolina, a significant portion of tuition at Joliet Junior College. It is a down payment on a car. It is a big chunk of savings for their children's college education; $1,150 is real money. There are some here that say we should let that legislation expire. We should let the marriage tax penalty come back because we can spend that money here in Washington on something else. Well, $1,150 in Washington is a drop in the bucket; but for Jose and Magdelene Castillo, the marriage tax penalty, $1,150, is real money, just like it is for 36 million married working couples all over America. The House has passed legislation now to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. My hope is that Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate will come together and make this a priority to permanently eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We have done it here in the House. My hope is the entire Congress can do it together in a bipartisan way and we can get on President Bush's desk this fall legislation to permanently eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as we debate whether or not to impose a $42 billion tax increase on 36 million couples, I was wondering how much time remains on each side.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before recognizing the chairman for an additional minute, I will note that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) is right. He has consistently voted no on the House floor in opposition to eliminating the marriage tax penalty even though there are 133,000 constituents who suffer the marriage tax penalty in his district. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before recognizing our next distinguished speaker here, I would note that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) consistently voted no on eliminating the marriage tax penalty and what he considers a cost to Uncle Sam, to the Treasury, is actually higher taxes on working married couples. That is what this is all about, making permanent eliminating the marriage penalty.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, we have one, maybe two more.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELLER. Reclaiming my time from the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), I think he summarized it very well. That is what this vote is all about. A vote for the Democratic substitute is a vote for an automatic tax increase that Congress has hands off of. We spend too much. We trigger a tax increase without having to vote on it is what the Democrats are proposing. That would be a $42 billion tax increase on 36 million married working couples. Hard-working couples like Jose and Magdalene Castillo who it would cost at least $1,125 more in higher taxes if we allow the marriage tax penalty to come back. That is the debate today. Do we make permanent our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty or do we raise taxes on the married couples. What the Democrats are proposing is an automatic tax increase on 36 million married working couples. So I urge a no vote on the Democrat substitute. I also urge a no vote if the Democrats offer a motion to recommit, and I ask for a bipartisan aye vote in favor of permanently eliminating the marriage tax penalty on final passage.

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

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would note that the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) has been a consistent ``no'' vote on eliminating the marriage tax penalty. I respect his arguments in respect to opposition to the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).

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. 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. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Matsui

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me state that to begin with, I rise in opposition to the Democratic substitute and I would note, as the previous speaker noted, that the right to raise taxes is being handed off to an unelected bureaucrat by the Democratic substitute. And under our Constitution, under the Constitution, all revenue and spending initiatives must originate right here in this House of Representatives. And previously when the line-item veto was passed by this Congress and proposed and then passed into law by the Congress, the Supreme Court ruled that at that time the Congress was handing off legislative power to the executive branch and overturned that initiative by the Congress. That is very similar to what our Democratic friends are doing. Today they are actually giving an unelected public servant or bureaucrat the right to raise taxes. What that would entail would be a 442 billion tax increase. And what could trigger that tax increase on 36 million married working couples is an uncontrollable urge by Congress to spend. There are some in this House who like to spend. They are usually the ones who argue against eliminating the marriage tax penalty. And if they could force a spending increase without even having to vote on it under this measure, they would also cause an automatic tax increase on 36 million married working couples. That alone is primary reason to vote no on the Democrat substitute. Let me give you an example of a couple here who really illustrate why we need to make permanent our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. When we worked to eliminate the marriage tax penalty over the last several years, we asked a very basic question, that is, is it right, is it fair, that under our Tax Code that a married working couple, husband and wife, both in the workforce, who are married, pay higher taxes than an identical couple who live together outside of a marriage? We have decided that is wrong, and I think we agree it is wrong for our Tax Code to punish our society's most basic institution, which is marriage. The example I have is a young couple from Joliet, Illinois, Jose and Magdalene Castillo. They have a young son, Eduardo, a young daughter, Carolina. He makes about $57,000. She makes about $25,000. They have a combined income of $82,000. And prior to the Bush tax cut being signed into law last year, which included our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, the Castillo family paid $1,125 more in higher taxes just because they are married. In Joliet, Illinois, in the area I represent, $1,125 is a lot of money. To some here in Congress it is chump change. We are talking millions and billions and trillions most of the time here. But for couples and families like the Castillos, $1,125 is several months' worth of car payments. It is several months' worth of daycare for Eduardo and Carolina when mom and dad are at work. It is money that can be set aside for their college education. That is the choice we have to make today. Because if we fail to make the marriage tax penalty elimination permanent, Jose and Magdalene Castillo will once again have to pay $1,125 more in higher taxes. And for them, that was 12 percent of their tax bill. So just the marriage tax penalty elimination in the Bush tax cut alone lowers the Castillo family's tax burden by 12 percent. That is money they can spend to take care of their own family's needs, rather than spending here in Washington. Every time we brought this effort to eliminate this marriage tax penalty on the floor, there have been those on the other side of the aisle who come up with excuse after excuse of why we should wait, why we should delay, and why we should eliminate the marriage tax penalty right now. They are always for it but let us do it later. Well, today we will have the opportunity to make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. That is the question. Do we impose a $42 billion tax increase on 36 million married working couples.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as we continue our debate on whether or not to raise taxes by $42 million on 36 million working couples, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

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, as we return to the basic debate we have before us of whether or not to impose a $42 billion tax increase on 36 million married working couples, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin). (Mr. AKIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELLER. On your time.

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

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Ladies and gentlemen, let us get back to why we are here. We have heard a lot of rhetoric from the other side, basically all the excuses that have been previously used on why we should not eliminate the marriage tax penalty previously. It has always been let us do it another time. There is something in Washington that we need to spend it on. Let us get back to why we need to make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. Let me give an example of a couple in Joliet, Illinois, who suffered the marriage tax penalty. A working couple from Joliet, Jose and Magdalene Castillo. They are both in the workforce, a son Eduardo, a daughter, Carolina. They have a combined income of $82,000; and prior to the Bush tax cut being signed into law last year, which included our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, the Castillo family in Joliet, Illinois suffered an $1,125 marriage tax penalty. As we can see from the rhetoric today, there are those on the other side of the aisle who would much rather spend the Castillos' hard- earned income, their $1,125 marriage penalty, here in Washington. What we are asking the House to do today is to make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty because if we fail to make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, couples such as Jose and Magdalene Castillo will see an $1,125 increase in taxes because their marriage tax penalty will be restored. If we add that together with the other 36 million married working couples who have suffered the marriage tax penalty, it is a $42 billion tax increase. That is the question today. Do we increase taxes by $42 billion on 36 million married working couples, or do we make permanent our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us vote in a bipartisan way, and make elimination of the marriage tax penalty permanent.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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.