Jerry Weller

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, Indiana 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 benefitted and strengthened America's communities.

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.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the well today to draw attention to an issue which affects over 100 million American taxpayers. This past year because of the leadership of President Bush and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the House Republican majorities, we were successful in enacting a tax cut which benefits and helps over 100 million taxpayers who now have lower taxes. And what we call the Bush tax cut when it was passed into law does a number of things. It lowered rates for everyone. In fact, 3.9 million families with children no longer pay Federal income tax. We have brought fairness to the Tax Code by phasing out the death tax, by eliminating and wiping out the marriage tax penalty, and also providing opportunities for taxpayers to save for retirement, a tremendous benefit for over 100 million Americans. And unfortunately, because of some of the arcane rules that we have in this Congress, that tax cut was made on a temporary basis. It is always interesting that in this Congress under the rules that the House and Senate operate under, that spending increases and tax increases are easily made permanent; but when you want to lower taxes, you can only do it on a temporary basis, meaning that down the road that those who benefit from elimination of the marriage tax penalties or elimination of the death tax or seeing their taxes lowered because of rate reductions will have a tax increase. In fact, when the Bush tax cut expires, it will be the biggest tax increase in our country. I want to draw attention to just one example of what the permanency of the Bush tax cut means. There are 43 million married working couples who benefit from the marriage tax relief. And I am one of those who, like many in this House, particularly on the Republican side, who feel it is wrong that under our Tax Code that 43 million married couples paid higher taxes just because they were married prior to the Bush tax cuts. We passed legislation several times out of this House of Representatives to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, to eliminate that unfair aspect; and unfortunately, President Clinton at the time vetoed it. But under President Bush we were successful in eliminating the marriage tax penalty, but unfortunately our efforts to wipe out the marriage tax penalty were temporary and means that if we do not make permanent the Bush tax cut, do not make permanent our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, 43 million married couples will have to pay higher taxes and will suffer once again the marriage tax penalty. I believe, like I know many of my colleagues do, that it is just wrong that under our Tax Code that anyone should have to pay higher taxes just because they are married, because I believe, and I know Republicans believe, that we have should not punish society's most basic institution. The marriage penalty occurred in the past because of the complications of our Tax Code. Married couples filed jointly, they combined their incomes, and it pushed them into a higher tax bracket. And they save about $1,700 in taxes because of our marriage tax penalty relief. The bottom line is let us prevent a new marriage tax. Let us prevent an increase in taxes on married couples. The House has passed legislation to make permanent the Bush tax cut, to make permanent our efforts to wipe out the marriage tax penalty. My hope is the entire Congress, Democrats and Republicans, will work together and pass this legislation as well. Let us make the Bush tax cut permanent. Let us benefit over 100 million taxpayers who, unless we act, will see higher taxes in just a few short years.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to draw attention to an issue that so many in this House have worked on over the last several years and that is an issue of fairness. Over the last several years we have asked a basic question. Is it right, is it fair, that under our tax code a married working couple, where both the husband and wife are in the workforce, pay higher taxes than if they chose not to get married? That is an issue I was so pleased and when this House under the gentleman from Illinois' (Mr. Hastert) leadership and with the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) of the Ways and Means Committee, that we succeeded as part of what is now known as the Bush tax cut, succeeded in passing legislation which eliminated the marriage tax penalty for almost 43 million married working couples who on average paid $1,700 more in higher taxes. Let me give my colleagues an example of a married couple from Joliet, Illinois. This is Jose and Magdalena Castillo. They are laborers in Joliet, Illinois. They have a combined income of about $85,000. Their marriage tax penalty prior to the Bush tax cut was about $1,125 that Jose and Magdalena paid in higher taxes just because they are married. I also want to introduce their children, Eduardo and Carolina Castillo, and their benefit of the Bush tax cut from the doubling of the $500 per child tax credit as well. Of course, that was $500. We raised that to $1,000. Here is the issue. Unfortunately, there are some arcane rules over in the other body which may require that the Bush tax cut sunset in the year 2011. What that means is in a few years, elimination of the marriage tax penalty and the $1,000 per child tax credit that the Castillo family benefits from will be eliminated, which means that their taxes will go up. Taxes go up $1,000 per child, as well as at least $1,125 a year when the marriage tax penalty elimination expires. We had a very, very important vote, an important vote that was important for families like Jose and Magdalena Castillo on this House floor 2 weeks ago, and that vote was on making the Bush tax cut permanent. What that vote was all about was whether or not to impose a tax increase on over 100 million American taxpayers who benefit from the Bush tax cut, because if we fail to make the Bush tax cut permanent, which lowered rates for all taxpayers, which provided opportunities to set aside more in an IRA and a 401(k) and an education savings account, eliminated the marriage tax penalty for 43 million company couples like Jose and Magdalena Castillo, and also wiped out the death tax so we can keep the family farm and the family business in the family and in business when the founder passes on. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, it is going to expire, and unfortunately, our friends on the other side of the aisle overwhelmingly on the Democratic side voted to increase taxes by opposing efforts to make permanent the Bush tax cut. That is why I think it is very, very important that we put a human face on those who would suffer and be hurt by Democratic efforts to raise taxes once again, by either suspending, eliminating or preventing the permanency of what we now call as the Bush tax cut. As I said earlier, there are 43 million couples like Jose and Magdalena Castillo who benefit from the marriage tax penalty relief in the Bush tax cut, and in this case, Jose and Magdalena also benefit from $1,000 per child tax credit which helps families with children. They would also lose that if we fail to make the Bush tax cut permanent. It is often said, and those who argue against cutting taxes always say, that if someone pays taxes they are rich. We know that over 100 million Americans benefit from the Bush tax cut. Some of those who really truly benefited are 3.9 million Americans who no longer pay Federal income taxes because of the Bush tax cut that we moved through this House of Representatives, thanks to the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), and if the Democrats succeed in rescinding or repealing or preventing the permanency of the Bush tax cut, 3.9 million Americans, including 3 million Americans with children, will once again be placed back on the tax rolls. Voting against permanency of the Bush tax cut is a tax increase. Let me go back to the issue which I first raised at the beginning of my remarks, and that is the whole issue of fairness. The tax code is complicated, and prior to the Bush tax cut, the complications of our Federal income tax forced 43 million Americans like Jose and Magdalena Castillo to pay higher taxes just because they are married. What caused that is Jose and Magdalena are each in the workforce, they each work as laborers, and when someone gets married, they file their taxes jointly which pushes them into a higher tax bracket. We fixed that in the Bush tax cut. Let us make marriage tax elimination permanent. My hope is before the end of this year that our friends in the other body as well as our friends on the other side of the aisle will work with us to help couples like Jose and Magdalena Castillo.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government, a strong advocate for the Customs Service.

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I join my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, as well as my colleague from California for his statements in recognition of the leadership of Chairman Istook and Ranking Member Hoyer in support of the Customs Service. I also want to give recognition to Chairman Phil Crane of the Subcommittee on Trade of the House Committee on Ways and Means for his active leadership on behalf of the Customs Service which has jurisdiction under the Committee on Ways and Means. Madam Speaker, this resolution is important because it honors the men and women of the United States Customs Service, 6 World Trade Center, those offices, for their hard work, their commitment, their compassion and their volunteerism, their volunteerism during and immediately following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. I urge and ask my colleagues in this House to join together in recognition of these workers in the New York Customs Service office and that they give them the recognition they deserve as well as the expression of gratitude of our Nation.

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 385) honoring the men and women of the United States Customs Service, 6 World Trade Center offices, for their hard work, commitment and compassion during and immediately following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 385. I commend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for their leadership in bringing this special legislation before the House of Representatives, as well as their strong support for all Federal employees. This resolution honors the men and women of the United States Customs Service for their dedication and bravery, not only for their heroic actions on and following September 11, but for their daily work to protect our country from terrorism. In fact, I would note that Customs Service employees were responsible for capturing a terrorist now known as the ``Millennium Bomber'' carrying bomb material on December 14, 1999, at the Canadian border in Washington State. The suspect who had plans to set off a bomb in Seattle remains in custody in Los Angeles. The offices of the Customs Service were destroyed at 6 World Trade Center, but the Customs Service employees ensured that no one was left behind in the shaky building until every worker was accounted for, 760 employees in all. In the days following September 11, the Customs Service workers proved their dedication to their fellow coworkers and to our country by volunteering to sift through debris to find evidence of the crime, mementos of lost coworkers, and human remains so that loved ones might know the final resting place of their family members. Recovery workers have continued their dedicated efforts by work at the Fresh Kils dump on Staten Island, continuing the process of sorting tons of debris. In fact, over 1.5 million tons of debris has been sorted by Customs Service volunteers alone. Customs Service volunteers searched in coordination with the New York Police Department and the FBI, using only garden rakes and their own hands. Almost all of these volunteers have never done disaster or recovery work before, but feel that it is their duty and an honor to continue the process of searching for victims. Even the search dogs give up when they can find no survivors. However, Customs employees continue their dedicated search, and for this we honor them today. In the words of one dedicated volunteer, ``It isn't often that you have a chance to work at something that means so much.'' Madam Speaker, our hearts go out to the victims of terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and their families. Just as we have seen with these Customs Service employees in New York City, we have seen how the average American can support their country; and time and time again on the day of those terrorist attacks and after, we have seen how the average American can become a hero serving the American people. Let us join together today recognizing and honoring the men and women of the United States Customs Service, those workers located at World Trade Center 6. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for his leadership, and he and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for their leadership on this permanency legislation, and my chairman for making this a priority, as well. Often a question in debate on this floor is who is helped and who is hurt by the legislation that is on the floor. If Members vote no on making the Bush tax cut permanent, we will label it the Bush tax cut, 100 million Americans benefit from the Bush tax cut. So if Members vote no, they are voting to raise taxes on 100 million Americans. I would note that there are 3.9 million Americans who do not pay taxes because of the Bush tax cut, 3 million Americans with children do not pay taxes because of the Bush tax cut. If Members vote no and the Bush tax cut expires, those 3.9 million low-income taxpayers will once again have to pay taxes. They are the ones who are hurt. Let us take a moment to talk about the marriage tax penalty. Under the Bush tax cut, we eliminated the marriage tax penalty. There are 43 million Americans who paid on average about $1,700 more prior to the Bush tax cut just because they were married. They combined their incomes, filed jointly, and they were pushed into a higher tax bracket; 43 million couples, $1,700. We eliminated that with the Bush tax cut. It is always important, I think, to put a human face on who also benefits when we eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let me introduce a family from Joliet, Illinois, Jose and Magdalene Castillo, their son Eduardo, and their daughter, Carolina. They suffered the marriage tax penalty prior to the Bush tax cut, but because of the commitment of the Republican majority in the House, we eliminated the marriage tax penalty for two hardworking laborers from Joliet, Illinois, who paid on average about $1,125 more because of the marriage tax penalty. The Bush tax cut eliminated the marriage tax penalty. So the question is, today, are we going to vote to reimpose the marriage tax penalty on Jose and Magdalene Castillo, or are we going to protect them? That is what is always interesting. My Democratic friends will argue passionately for permanent spending increases, they will argue passionately for permanent tax increases, but they always oppose making a tax cut permanent. Let us vote yes. Let us do the right thing. Let us help people like Jose and Magdalene Castillo of Joliet, Illinois.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Reclaiming my time, again I want to commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for their leadership on making permanent what we call the Bush tax cut and what the real impact is on families. When we think about it, voting against permanency is a tax increase. It is a tax increase on millions of Americans. The Bush tax cut actually provides help for 100 million Americans who benefited from the Bush tax cuts: across-the-board rate reductions, which helped everyone who pays taxes; elimination of the marriage tax penalty; elimination of the death tax; doubling the child tax credit; increased opportunity for retirement savings and saving for education. If you vote against making it permanent, you are really voting to put the marriage tax penalty back on Jose and Magdalene Castillo, or Shad and Michelle Hallihan and 28 million other married working couples across America who pay higher taxes, or the hundreds of thousands of small businesses and family farms that are in jeopardy of moving on to the next generation because of the death tax; and if we fail to make permanent the elimination of the death tax, we put it back in place, jeopardizing the future of the family farm and the family business. If you care about retirement savings, well, if you vote against making permanent the Bush tax cut, you better save every dime that you are capable of doing right now, because in 2011 you will go back to $500, versus the $2,000 for education savings accounts, or $2,000 versus $5,000 for your IRA. Those are tax increases. Some are going to argue that we should not make it permanent because they want to spend the money. They think it is better that we collect that money and reimpose those taxes and collect that money and spend it here in Washington, because Washington can better spend the folks back home's hard-earned dollars better than they can. I was so proud of the leadership of President Bush, and I was so proud of the leadership of Speaker Hastert and the Republican majority in this House and moving through the Bush tax cut, because, similar to the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts, this tax cut is meaningful. One hundred million Americans benefit. Again, let me share those statistics of who benefits from the Bush tax cut and our efforts to make it permanent. Again, 100 million individuals and families pay lower taxes because of the Bush tax cut. If we fail to make it permanent, their taxes go up. Forty-three million married couples see their taxes reduced on average by more than $1,700 a year. If you vote against making the Bush tax cut term permanent, you are reimposing a marriage tax penalties on Jose and Magdalene Castillo, who right now save about $1,125 a year because of marriage tax penalty relief. Thirty-eight million families a year with children, Jose and Magdalene are an example here with Eduardo and Carolina, they benefit from the child tax credit as well. If you fail to make the Bush tax cut permanent, you take that away from them and raise their taxes on their kids. That is wrong. I have a note that 13 million senior citizens have seen their taxes reduced under the Bush tax cut on average by $920, and 3.9 million taxpayers, including 3 million taxpayers with children, had their tax liability to the Federal Government completely, completely wiped out.

Mr. WELLER. Yes. The gentleman from Wisconsin is absolutely correct. If you think about it, who are those families? Who are those individuals? They are low-income Americans. The biggest beneficiaries of the Bush tax cut, what we passed this past year, were low-income families, because low-income families saw the biggest portion of their taxes wiped out. If you think about it, 3 million Americans with children who previously had paid taxes no longer pay Federal taxes. That is total simplification of their taxes. They no longer have to pay taxes. What happens to the money that would have come to Washington? They can spend it back home in Janesville, Wisconsin, and Morris, Illinois, and Columbia, Missouri, fine communities, where there are hard-working people who can better spend their hard-earned dollars better than we can for them and take care of their families' needs, and maybe buy some new clothes for the kids to go to school, or make an addition on to the family house, build an extra bedroom for the children. They have all been bunking together, and they are getting older and they want to put an addition on the house. So they can afford to do it with the Bush tax cut. But if you vote against permanency, you are reimposing that and hurting those 3.9 million families who no longer pay taxes because of the Bush tax cut. I would like to ask the gentleman from Missouri, and be happy to yield, you have also been one of the leaders on retirement savings. Of course, the Bush tax cut built upon a lot of the work done by our colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), and many others who have worked so hard to increase the opportunity for small businesses to offer additional retirement savings opportunities for their workers, and also for individuals to be able to set aside money in their IRAs. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman to explain that portion of the Bush tax cut.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield some additional time to the gentleman from Arizona, and I would like to ask the gentleman from Arizona a question. We have been noting in our conversation here about the 100 million Americans who benefit from what we call the Bush tax cut and that, of course, is the fact that there are 3 million Americans who, under the Bush tax cut, no longer pay Federal taxes, low-income families. Of course, if we fail to make it permanent, those low-income families are taxed once again, and that 79 percent of those who benefit from the top rate reduction are small business entrepreneurs. I am happy to yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. WELLER. Reclaiming my time, again, I salute the gentleman from Missouri for his leadership in helping expand education savings accounts. I think of thousands of families in the district that I represent, the South Side of Chicago and the south suburbs, who now have the opportunity, thanks to your leadership, to be able to set aside money for elementary and secondary education, schools of their choice, or else for other expenses affecting their child's education. In the past it was only for college and you could only set aside $500; but under the gentleman's leadership, you can set aside up to $2,000. Think about that. When a child turns 18, if you could only set aside $500, that is $9,000. Well, we all know what college costs today, and that would not go very far at a year's tuition at most universities across this country. But thanks to the gentleman's leadership, now they would be able to set aside $2,000 a year and potentially have up to $36,000 that they could save and set aside for college, if they do not spend any of that for elementary or secondary education. So I commend the gentleman for his leadership. That means a lot to the people of the south suburbs, towns in Joliet and elsewhere. We have been joined by my other seatmate on the Committee on Ways and Means, a classmate of mine. I remember when the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and I were elected to Congress. Of course, we were working on the Contract with America, and a key part of the Contract with America was lowering taxes for families. Of course, part of Contract with America was eliminating the marriage tax penalty, creating a new adoption tax credit, creating a new child tax credit. Thanks to the leadership of many, and particularly the gentleman from Arizona, we created that new adoption tax credit. Of course, we expand it in the Bush tax cut and make it bigger. And we created the child tax credit as part of the Contract with America, and we have doubled that under the Bush tax cut. If we fail to make it permanent, we lose it. It is taken away. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. WELLER. I represent the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs, of course, an area that is going from farmland to subdivision in many cases. We have a lot of family farmers in the Frankfurt and Mokena area, in the Manhattan area in Will County, and they would like to stay in the farming business. But many of them have told me the story of when grandpa died, because the value of that land for development purposes, even though they wanted to keep it in the family farm, continue farming it, keep it in open space, because they like farming and it is a family business, because of the estate tax and the value of that land if they sold it to somebody who would develop it and build houses or put a factory there, turn it into an industrial park, they were forced to sell off a piece of grandpa's farm in order to pay the estate tax. So if you care about open space, about urban conservation, farmland and urban sprawl and frankly the environment, you should work for the elimination of the death tax. I know that was one of the arguments I heard many times from the farmers in my suburban area, if you care about the environment, about open space and the preservation of farmland, you want to eliminate the death tax.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for his leadership and helping small businesses and agriculture. Seventy-nine percent of those who benefit from the rate reduction at the top bracket, as the gentleman pointed out, are self- employed entrepreneurs and small business people. They are not rich people. These are folks down on Main Street. They are real people that work hard, struggle to employ their neighbors and, of course, benefit when we lower the tax rate because, frankly, making permanent the Bush tax cut is also good for the economy. One thing I have heard time and time again from businesspeople and entrepreneurs and small businesspeople and farmers is that when they know there is a provision in the Tax Code that affects them and it is permanent, they are more inclined to make long-term investment decisions. When the consequences are short-term, they are hesitant. So if we really want to get this economy moving again, it is one more reason to make permanent the Bush tax cut. We have been joined by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a colleague of ours on the Committee on Ways and Means, someone who is one of the thinkers in the House when it comes to understanding policy and understanding also what it means for small business and for farmers and for working people in every community in America. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, in closing, again, we have a very important vote on Thursday. Thursday morning this House of Representatives is going to cast a vote on whether or not to make what we call the Bush tax cut permanent. A vote against permanency is a vote for the biggest tax increase in the history of our Nation, or do we continue to help those 100 million Americans who benefit from the Bush tax cut who see their rates reduced, 3 million Americans who no longer pay taxes, couples such as Jose and Magdalene Castillo who will no longer pay the marriage tax penalty, but if the tax cut expires, they will once again, because people like the Castillos from Joliette, Illinois will once again pay the marriage tax penalty. Let us make it permanent. Let us do the right thing. Let us prevent the world's largest tax increase.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Kerns), who as a freshman has been a real leader in his efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and working with President Bush and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and ensuring that a key part of the Bush tax cut included what we consider to be the most unfair tax of all, and that is the tax on the institution of marriage, one of society's most basic institutions. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

Mr. WELLER. Three million families with children no longer pay Federal income taxes because of the Bush tax cut.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, say that the Bush tax cut were to expire and the House and the Senate were to fail to pass legislation to make permanent the Bush tax cut, eliminating the marriage penalty, wiping out the death tax, across-the-board tax reductions, helping low-income families, creating a much lower tax bracket for low-income families, would you consider that a tax increase?

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, this week we have an important vote in the House of Representatives, and my good friend from Virginia, the leader of the freshman class, our new Members, spoke so eloquently on this issue that is before us, and a group of us plan to kind of expound on this issue that is going to be before us this week. As President Bush noted this past weekend, the tax cut that the President led, initiated and our Congress passed and was signed into law in June expires in less than 10 years, and tonight we felt it was important to talk about the impact of a temporary tax cut because this week, on Thursday morning, the House of Representatives will begin debate on legislation which will make permanent what has become known as the Bush tax cut. Let us review a little bit of history here. Over the last 7 years that we have had a Republican majority in the Congress, we have been working to balance the budget and also to lower taxes for working families. Unfortunately the previous administration, the Clinton-Gore administration, vetoed time and time again our effort to lower taxes for working Americans. Fortunately, the voters of our Nation this past year and a half ago in November of the year 2000 elected a President who feels the same way the majority of this House does, that is, the taxes are too high, families are struggling, and of course, we need to find ways to bring fairness to the Tax Code. I was very proud of the President's leadership because he noted in January of last year, and January 2000 when he became President, that the economy was in a downturn. The President inherited a weakening economy and he says we have got this huge surplus, all this extra tax revenue that the Federal Government is collecting because taxes are too high and we are not spending it all, thanks to the fiscal responsibility of this House. So why do we not take a portion of that surplus, that extra tax revenue, and give it back to working families? Provide an across-the-board tax cut that helps every working family, bring about tax fairness by eliminating the marriage tax penalty, wiping out the death tax, increasing opportunities for retirement savings and saving for a college education? The President was successful. President Bush's leadership, with the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and Committee on Ways and Means chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), this House led the effort to lower taxes, and in June of this past year, the President signed into law what has become known as the Bush tax cut. Unfortunately, because of the arcane rules of the Congress, the tax cut was temporary, which meant it had to expire in the year 2011. When we think about that, when it expires, it is going to mean a big tax increase on millions of working families across this country. That is really what this vote is about on Thursday is whether or not we continue to keep taxes lower for working families, whether or not we continue to have tax fairness or do we bring back an unfair Tax Code that punishes married couples and takes away the family farm and family businesses and makes it harder to save for retirement or a college education, essentially imposing a tax increase on working Americans. That is what this vote is going to be this week. I would note that one of the arguments the President made when he talked about the need to cut taxes is that the President stated that we need to get the economy moving again, and if workers have a little extra spending money in their pockets, they are going to be able to meet the family needs, go to the grocery store, make some improvements to their home, fix the car, maybe have a family vacation the first time ever. The President said that if his tax cut was signed into law, the economy would get better, and frankly, it was working. Economists tell us that by Labor Day of this past year, Labor Day 2001, the economy was on the rebound and the Bush tax cut was the primary reason that the economy was on the upswing. Of course, every one of us knows what occurred on September 11 and the terrible tragedy of that attack on our Nation and its economic impact with almost 1 million Americans having lost their jobs. Well, the Bush tax cut is continuing to work and the economy is beginning, according to economists, to get on the rebound again, and tonight we want to talk about what was in the Bush tax cut. I would note, as I stated earlier, that the Bush tax cut did a number of good things to help working families. Provided for marginal rate reductions, reducing the tax rate for every American who pays taxes, creating a whole new tax rate structure. In fact, we created a new lower tax rate for the lowest income Americans, lowering their taxes from 15 percent to 10 percent, helping low income taxpayers. We also, of course, repealed the death tax, a tax which has historically taken a majority of the family business away from families who inherit the family business from the founder and that has caused so many businesses to go out of business, and some of my colleagues are going to talk about that. We doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, helping families with children better afford their children's needs. We increased retirement savings, increasing the amount one can contribute to their IRA from $2,000 to $5,000, what one can contribute to their 401(k) from $10,500 to $15,000, and for working moms and empty nesters, we allowed those over 50 to make up missed contributions to their IRA and 401(k), essentially what we call catch-up contributions. We helped families save for education, increasing education savings accounts from $500 to $2,000 a year, and allowing families to use that for expenses for elementary and secondary education, as well as for college. Those are good things. Also, because many families were stepping forward and volunteering to adopt children and give children a loving home, we increased the adoption tax credit to $10,000 for children with special needs, and of course, for those with nonspecial needs, we have it at $5,000, and we also increased the income level of families that can qualify from $75,000 to $150,000, and we also prevented the alternative minimum tax from interfering or taking away this tax relief for working families. Of course, part of the debate of who benefits from tax relief is who gets it, and there is always some who say, oh, we cannot cut taxes because those who pay taxes will get it. We should not help those who pay taxes because apparently they are rich. Well, let me note who it is that benefited from the Bush tax cut. Under the President's tax plan that was signed into law and this Congress supported on and that we are going to make permanent or vote to make permanent this week, over 100 million individuals and families pay lower taxes. Forty-three million married couples see their taxes reduced on average by more than $1,700 a year. Thirty-eight million families with children will receive an average tax cut of almost $1,500. Eleven million single moms with children will be able to keep on average $77 more to care for their children. Thirteen million seniors will see their taxes reduced on average by $920, and 3.9 million taxpayers, including 3 million taxpayers with children, will have their taxpayer liability for the Federal tax burden completely eliminated. Think about that. Almost 4 million taxpayers under the Bush tax cut, those at the lower end of the economic area, pay no more taxes, thanks to the Bush tax cut. Small business owners and entrepreneurs will receive a big chunk of this tax relief. Whenever my colleagues argue about who is going to get the rate reduction and what that means, they have to recognize that the vast majority of small businesses, almost 80 percent, pay in the top rate, and we lowered their rate to 35 percent. Mr. Speaker, I have worked with many of my colleagues over the last several years to address something we call the marriage tax penalty. Often in debate I have asked that question, is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code 28 million married working couples pay higher taxes just because they are married. Prior to the Bush tax cut, Americans saved money on taxes if they stayed single. Our Tax Code encouraged couples not to marry. We made a decision, and it was certainly a priority of House Republicans, to remove the penalty on marriage. I often introduced a couple from Joliet, Illinois, Shad and Michelle Hallihan, who in combined income make about $65,000. Their marriage tax penalty was $1,400 that they paid in higher taxes just because they got married. Under the Bush tax cut, their marriage tax penalty was eliminated. Now if the Bush tax cut is allowed to expire, Shad and Michelle Hallihan will once again pay higher taxes just because they are married. Their child, Ben, who is 2, they got married about the time we introduced the legislation, the child was about a year old by the time the Bush tax cut was signed into law. When the Bush tax cut expires, when Ben is 11 or 12, that is $1,400 less that Shad and Michelle Hallihan are going to have to be able to set into their education savings account. Let me give an example of another couple from Joliet, Illinois, Jose and Magdalene Castillo. They are both laborers in Joliet, Illinois. They have two children, Eduardo and Carolina. They suffer the marriage tax penalty as well. They make about $85,000 a year. Jose makes about $57,000 in his building trade construction-related job, and Magdalene makes about $25,000. With their combined income and the way the marriage tax penalty works for the Castillos is by being married, they file jointly. When you are single, you file as two singles. But when you marry, you file jointly, which means you combine your income. That usually pushes one into a higher tax bracket. For the Castillos, for Jose and Magdalene, they paid $1,100 in higher taxes just because they were married. Now, if our colleagues in this House of Representatives vote this week against making the Bush tax cut permanent, Jose and Magdalene Castillo are going to end up paying higher taxes once again when the Bush tax cut expires. I believe that is wrong, and I believe the majority of this House thinks it is wrong and unfair that if the Bush tax cut were to expire that couples like Jose and Magdalene Castillo and Shad and Michelle Hallihan would pay higher taxes just because they are married. We have two leaders that are here in the House that have been leaders on issues so important when it comes to helping working Americans. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Kerns), who has been one of the leaders and one of my partners in eliminating the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER. Let me ask the gentleman this question. Are you telling me that prior to the Bush tax cut, that self-employed people, entrepreneurs, small businesspeople actually paid at a higher tax rate than IBM or any other major corporations?

Mr. WELLER. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Wisconsin is absolutely right. Three million families with children would be placed back on the tax rolls, and 3.9 million taxpayers would be placed back on the tax rolls.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, legislation which has so much bipartisan work invested in this legislation, the Pension Security Act of 2002. I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who have led this effort to bring this legislation to the floor. We have all learned over the last several months of some terrible things that occurred in Enron and Global Crossing and how they have impacted the retirement savings of the workers of those companies, and certainly we want to find a solution. We are going to hear the rhetoric of some who are going to choose to seize this as an opportunity for name calling and partisanship and class warfare. We are also going to see Members of this House who are going to rise up and do the right thing, and that is offer a solution, a solution that does what we want to achieve, and that is to protect workers and to strengthen retirement savings. That is what this is all about, pension security. That is why I stand in strong support of this legislation. Let us look at what this bill does for America's workers. It empowers employees. Employee rights and protections are enhanced without further burdensome regulations. The bill also gives employees more control over the investment of their accounts once they own or become fully vested with that money. It also requires employers to notify workers in advance of a blackout so that employees have the same opportunity to make changes before the restrictions come into effect. I would also note that employees are given the opportunity for investment education, something that many employees have told me they are looking for, because we give them in this legislation the opportunity for investor education and access to professional investment advice, and that is all improved with this bill. We also help employers, because we want to encourage employers to provide pension benefits, because we want to encourage, particularly smaller employers, to provide retirement savings opportunities for their employees because they are the ones, frankly, that have a harder time doing it because of the regulatory and administrative costs. And this House has worked so hard with the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) to make it easier for small employers to offer pensions. This bill also reduces costs and regulatory burdens for employers who voluntarily sponsor pension plans. I would note that thanks to the leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), this legislation prevents the IRS and the Federal Government from imposing further taxes on employee stock options. If we do not pass this legislation, workers who have employee stock options may suffer payroll taxes. We do not want that to happen. This legislation deserves bipartisan support. It would make it easier for small employers to provide retirement savings opportunities for their workers. We empower employees. It is a bipartisan bill and deserves bipartisan support. Let us do the right thing. We have a solution. I urge support.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the substitute, and, of course, I support the bill that is being managed and offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) today. We have had a situation in our country that we are all concerned about. The situation has been illustrated by Global Crossing and by Enron, and we have heard those names in the debate today. Because of that, it reinforces a goal we have been working on in this House, and that is to work to provide safe and secure retirement opportunities for the men and women who work in America. We have made a lot of progress in the legislation we have passed out of here. This legislation before us today, the base bill, the Pension Security Act of 2002, is a real solution towards concerns that have been raised by the so-called Enron and Global Crossing problem. In fact, the base bill provides worker security and pension security. Let me express some concerns about the substitute that has been offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). While I have great respect, I know they are well-intentioned, I do not believe they are trying to be partisan and political, but I believe what they are offering is pretty radical. It is an attempt to offer a so-called solution which is way overboard, and in the end would actually reduce retirement savings opportunities for workers, particularly because, while maybe not intended, this legislation would actually discourage small business from providing retirement savings. The increased liability and damages that would result would push employers out of providing retirement benefits. Again, that is anti-small business. Also, I just do not understand why, in the substitute that has been offered, something that both Democrats and Republicans have both agreed upon, that workers and employers have agreed upon in the past, that the substitute actually bans and prohibits alternative dispute resolution when there is an argument over pension benefits or how they are being operated. Why would anyone want to do that? The only ones who benefit by banning alternative dispute resolutions are lawyers. Why do we want to create more litigation, when I think everyone in our society agrees there is too much litigation today? The bottom line is, the Pension Security Act of 2002 is good legislation. It is bipartisan. It is put together very thoughtfully over a period of time, recognizing there are challenges and we need to offer solutions. Let us do the right thing, Mr. Speaker, and let us reject the substitute and support the Pension Security Act of 2002 with a bipartisan vote.