Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to give my strong support to H.R. 3925, the Digital Tech Corps Act 2002. The legislation supports an important priority, establishing an exchange program between the Federal Government and the private sector in order to promote the development of expertise in information technology management. The Digital Tech Corps Act is a much needed bill. There is great need for high-skilled workers in the Federal Government. Unless action is taken soon, there will be a crisis in the government's ability to deliver essential services to the American people. An August 2000 poll found that 75% of the public expects the Internet to improve its ability to get information from federal agencies, and 60% expect e- government to have a strong positive effect on overall government operations. The Tech Corps gives government IT employees the opportunity for intensive, on-the-job training in how to manage complex IT projects. Too many of government's complex IT procurements continue to fail because of improper management. This exchange will give them insight and experience in how the best companies in the world are successfully managing IT so they can bring this knowledge back. The Tech Corps also gives private sector IT employees the opportunity to volunteer for rewarding public service. In tackling some of the world's toughest IT problems, they can return to their companies understanding the challenges facing the world's largest employer. Mr. Chairman, I commend the hard work of Chairman Davis and urge my colleagues to support this good legislation.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan legislation, the Digital Tech Corps Act of 2002. I commend Chairman Davis and Ranking Member Turner for their leadership in making this a bipartisan bill. That always produces good work. I also want to commend my friend and colleague who I was elected with and have served with the last 7 years for his leadership as a Member of the House of Representatives in working to bring the Federal Government's procurement and administration policies into the 21st century, of course, which we are now serving in. The Digital Tech Corps Act helps solve so many of the challenges that we face today in government, particularly the ability to apply the latest leading-edge solutions, the latest leading-edge information technology and technology solutions to the challenges that we face. One of the challenges we have had in government is keeping up, keeping up with the fact that we have a harder time competing with the pay scale of the private sector, we have a hard time retaining folks who have skills because they get hired away, and at the same time sometimes a little frustration with the Federal employees who are loyal and want public service and devote themselves to public service but they want the skills that only the private sector has to offer. The Digital Tech Corps helps solve that, by providing an exchange program between the private sector and the Federal Government modeled on, really, legislation which has been so successful, the 1970 Intergovernmental Personnel Act, legislation that has been in place over 30 years, laws allowing for this type of exchange which has proven very successful. I respect the opinion of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). Again I would note, his strongest point was regarding whether or not there is a risk of sensitive information. Again, there are protections in this legislation already which provide for elaborate procedures to protect proprietary commercial information and government information including a lifetime ban against disclosure with criminal penalties. Tougher legislation, tougher law is being proposed today than is currently the law regarding other exchange programs. Again, here is what this bill accomplishes. It improves the skills of Federal information technology managers by exposing them to cutting- edge management trends in the private sector. It helps Federal agencies recruit and retain talented IT managers by offering them a valuable career development tool, the opportunity to have that exchange, to work in the private sector as well as have private sector folks work alongside them. It also allows private sector IT managers to apply their skills to challenging IT problems at the Federal agencies. What is our goal today? Let us bring the Federal Government into the 21st century. The Digital Tech Corps works in that direction. It is good legislation; it has overwhelming bipartisan support. I urge opposition to the Waxman amendment because we already addressed the issues he raised. I urge a ``yes'' vote, and commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) for his leadership.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, I commend the chairman for bringing to the floor a bill which received bipartisan support in the Committee on Ways and Means, a bill which was supported by two-thirds of the members of the committee, both Democrat and Republican. It is taxpayer protection, it is IRS accountability, it is IRS reform. I would note the tax administration reforms that are included in this are good. We are all interested in improving electronic filing and our goal is 80 percent by the year 2007. Today, the IRS Commissioner noted that the reforms regarding electronic filing today will help them achieve that goal by allowing an extra 15 days for those who file electronically. But because so much of the discussion in this room has focused on the 527 provisions, I thought I would focus on them as well. Two years ago, this House passed 527 reforms, legislation that was well intentioned. We gave some surprises for some folks back home, our local officials and our State legislators, and some local organizations who discovered all of a sudden that the heavy hand of the IRS was targeted at them. They were told that even though they are already reporting to the county clerk in Grundy County, my home county, and they are already reporting to the Illinois State Board of Elections, that they also have to fill out a form to the IRS, and if they fail, even if they were unaware of this law, that they faced IRS penalty. I would note that this legislation eliminates double reporting by State and local organizations and also allows the IRS to waive penalties for unintentional violations. The opponents of this legislation feel that is still okay. But here are the facts. If you are run by a Member of Congress or you play a role in Federal campaigns, you still have to file with the IRS. If you are solely a State or local organization and only get involved in State or local issues, you file as you currently do with the State board of elections or the local county clerk. Why should someone who only has activity in Illinois file with the IRS in Washington? Why should they not be allowed to do what they have already done and file with the folks in Springfield?

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today, we are a Nation at war, we are working to build our homeland security, and we are suffering an economic recession. I am proud to say that our commander-in-Chief, President Bush, has shown strong, resolute leadership in the war against terrorism and has been working to build our homeland security as well as giving Americans the opportunity to go back to work. One thing we must not forget in this war against terrorism is that it is not going to begin or end in Afghanistan. The war against terrorism could last years, not just months. But also, if we are going to win the war against terrorism, we have to recognize that we must get our economy moving again. As we look back, over 1 year ago when President Bush became President, he inherited a weakening economy, an economy that was getting weaker by the day; and the President said that we need to give Americans more spending money, we need to cut taxes, we need to take 20 cents out of every dollar of our budget surplus and give that back to the American workers to help the economy. Well, that tax cut was signed into law in June of this past year, eliminating the marriage tax penalty, eliminating the death tax, and lowering taxes for every American. Economists were telling us by Labor Day that it was working, the economy was beginning to be on the rebound. Then, of course, the tragedy of September 11 occurred. That terrorist attack on American soil cost thousands of Americans their lives; and since September 11, the psychological blow on the economy of that terrorist attack has cost almost a million Americans their jobs. So we need to get the economy moving again. We need to give Americans the opportunity to go back to work. Now, I am proud to say that House Republicans have fought hard and led the way to give Americans the opportunity to go back to work. Four times this House of Representatives passed an economic stimulus package and economic security legislation, helping those laid off with extended unemployment benefits and providing incentives for investment and the creation of jobs. We want American workers to be able to go back to work. That is our goal. We recognize that in the past decade it was investment in jobs that created economic growth. I am proud to say that the fourth time was a charm. After this House fought month after month, October, November, December, January, and just a few weeks ago we passed for the fourth time legislation to give Americans help, as well as the opportunity to go back to work. Our Democratic friends relented and worked with us in a bipartisan way, and we were able to put on the President's desk legislation to help American workers, and the President signed it into law. With the economic stimulus and security package we have helped American workers who have been laid off with extended unemployment benefits, and we have also provided incentives for investment and the creation of jobs. This legislation will provide an opportunity to give businesses who purchase assets an opportunity to write that off quicker with something we call 30 percent expensing, or some call bonus depreciation. It essentially provides a way to recover the cost of that pickup truck or that computer or that piece of telecommunications equipment much more quickly. The benefit of that is felt when a business buys a pickup truck. There is, of course, an auto worker who makes that pickup truck, as well as the parts that go in it, and there is a worker who services and installs equipment in that pickup truck. There is also a worker who is going to operate that pickup truck for that business. That creates jobs and rewards investment. And I am proud to say that the 30 percent expensing was the centerpiece of our economic stimulus plan in rewarding investment. The legislation will also help homeland security. Many businesses in America felt it was important after September 11 that they make their businesses, their plants, their stores, their offices, their places of business safer and more secure for their workers, their customers, and their visitors; and so their purchase of extra security equipment, safety equipment, software and cybersecurity equipment costs money. The 30 percent expensing will help them recover the cost of investing in cybersecurity and surveillance equipment and software and other measures to ensure their workplace and business is more safe and secure for those who visit or work there. We also recognize that many companies this year, because of the recession, are losing money. We gave an opportunity for those companies that are currently losing money to be able to come up with some investment capital to reinvest in jobs within their company, even though they are losing money this year, by allowing them to go back 5 years, to a year they may have made some money, and apply this year's loss to that profitable year. They will essentially get a tax refund and can then use those dollars to invest in job creation. That is what it is all about. We want to get this economy moving again, and so that is why we wanted to provide investment incentives with 30 percent accelerated depreciation as well as giving those companies losing money this year the opportunity to carry back this year's loss and come up with investment capital. I am proud to say this House has acted. We are giving American workers the opportunity go back to work, we are helping those unemployed; and I am proud to say House Republicans lead the way.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, let me first begin by complimenting the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for his perseverance in working to get this economy going again. Today, the fourth time, will be the charm. I hope that the bipartisan support we are hearing for this legislation to help unemployed workers, as well increase investment and the creation of jobs, will go through the Senate and be signed into law. There is an interesting headline in the paper today, ``Congressional Budget Office Predicts 2 Years of Surpluses, Credits Tax Rebate for Rebound in Budget.'' The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office gives credit to the President's tax cut for the improved situation with our budget, as well as the rebound we are beginning to see in this economy. This legislation before us is important today. We have laid-off workers. They are running out of unemployment benefits. We extend them. The program that we have before us is better than what the other body has suggested. We also answer a very important question, and that is, what drove job creation in the last decade? It was investment, investment in the creation of jobs. For example, particularly in the technology and telecommunications sector, a tremendous amount of investment in the 1990s drove the creation of two-thirds of the jobs, the new jobs in our economy. That area has been hard hit by the recession we are currently under. Madam Speaker, there are two provisions in this legislation that are tremendous incentives for investment and the creation of jobs: the accelerated depreciation, a 30 percent expensing, what some call the bonus depreciation. It is a tremendous incentive in the creation of jobs. Some of us have auto manufacturers or pickup truck manufacturers. Others have those that produce computers or telecommunications equipment. When someone has an incentive to buy those type of assets, there is a worker who manufactures that product, installs that product, services that product, and there is a worker who operates that product. The 30 percent expensing is a tremendous incentive for investment in creation of jobs. NOL carry-back will allow companies to go back 5 years if they are losing money. The NOL carry-back is a tremendous incentive to invest in jobs. Companies are losing money. They need an opportunity to create capital that they can invest and keep their companies moving forward. The NOL carry-back will allow them to go back 5 years, essentially get a tax refund, use that money to invest in job creation, putting workers and their companies back to work, and giving more workers the opportunity to go back to work. Madam Speaker, this legislation deserves bipartisan support. Let us invest in new jobs and give those who are unemployed today the opportunity to go back to work.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill. It is interesting to listen to my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle make up excuse after excuse why we should do nothing about getting this economy moving again. We have to remember why we are here. Our Nation is at war against terrorism. We are building our homeland security, and we are in an economic recession, and winning the war against terrorism requires getting our economy moving again. Almost a million Americans have lost their jobs since the terror attack on September 11, tens of thousands in the area that I represent around Chicago, and we know that terrorists directly attacked our economy. We have to work in this Congress to help those who are unemployed. The plan that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has brought before us is more generous than what we passed before. It is more generous than what the Senate sent over last week, and I would note that no one falls through the cracks under this plan, and this plan also provides the opportunity to give confidence back to investors and consumers who lost it after the terror attacks. Twice this House has acted to get this economy moving again. We must give workers the opportunity to go back to work, and that is why we need to pass this legislation again today. Investment drove this economy in the past decade, creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs. The stimulus and economic security package that is before us today rewards investment and the creation of jobs. This plan includes the 30 percent expensing, accelerated depreciation as well as giving small business the opportunity to expense more, up to $40,000, and when my colleagues think about it, what this means to workers is that when a business or employer buys a computer or buys a pickup truck, there is a manufacturing worker somewhere who made that product. There is also someone who is going to install it. There is someone who is going to service it, and, of course, someone who is going to operate that piece of equipment, and accelerated expensing and accelerated depreciation will help. It also helps homeland security, making it easier to afford safety and security equipment. The bottom line is we need to get the economy moving again. Let us give American workers the opportunity to go back to work. Let us pass this bipartisan economic stimulus and economic security plan.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Ney substitute based on the principles that were articulated by the sponsors of this legislation in the last Congress who claimed at the time that the original version of Shays-Meehan was based on principle. If my colleagues take time to read the latest version of Shays-Meehan, they see that it has abandoned principle. What is the basic premises for Shays-Meehan? Banning that evil thing called soft money. Shays-Meehan is so full of loopholes today that it allows for $60 million in soft money to continue to be part of the process. It is so full of loopholes that independent advocacy attack ads are prohibited on electronic media, they are prohibited from spending money to advocate a position up until the election on TV or radio; but they can still buy full page ads in the New York Times, The Washington Post, U.S.A Today, and all the other print media. The question is why does the print media get that loophole and not electronic, television, or radio? It is a good question. Something we want to ask. I also wonder why they changed the effective date. We were urged in this House to move quickly, we have got to act quickly, got to do it now, we need to have a discharge petition, we got to do it now so it affects the next election. The bill comes to the floor and last night they changed the bill so it is not effective until after the election. So what is the hurry, huh? Maybe it could matter. The other thing that really to me is what is something that really shows the lack of principle in the current Shays-Meehan is if we read the bill on page 78 and 79 which points out that under the current version of Shays-Meehan, which goes into effect the day after the election, that they can borrow hard money which according to the advocates of Shays-Meehan is good money, borrow hard money from a local bank or some form of financial institution, but after the election they can use soft money to pay it back. Hmm. Think about that principle. Take the Democratic Congressional Committee, $40 million in their building account. They can use that $40 million as collateral to borrow millions in hard money and continue to solicit soft money up until the election. When the election is over with, pay off that hard money loan with soft money. Hmm, so much about principle. I realize there is a lot of good intentions by those who may want to vote for Shays-Meehan. It is not the same bill. It is no longer based on principle. It has become a sham, and I urge a no vote on Shays- Meehan.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Armey amendment, which frankly is an amendment that really points out what a sham the Shays-Meehan legislation is. The Shays-Meehan legislation says it bans soft money. No, it does not. It has got a $60 million soft money loophole, and the sponsors know it. The Armey legislation actually is a true soft money ban. So if you want to get rid of soft money, vote for the Armey amendment. But also I want to urge my colleagues to read the bill, because not only is Shays-Meehan a sham, but also there is a betrayal in this legislation. Many Members were urged to sign the discharge petition saying we needed to rush it to the floor. Of course the effective date now is postponed until after the election, negating that argument. But also last night at midnight, there was a change made to the bill which will allow committees such as the Democratic Congressional Committee to borrow money against their building fund, which has up to $40 million, to borrow hard money and pay it back with soft money; pay a hard money loan with soft money, a total betrayal of the basic principles of Shays-Meehan.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for yielding me the time. Let me read the language of the bill, and I urge everyone to take time to read the language of the bill. Page 79, line 12: ``Prior to January 1, 2003, the committee may spend such funds to retire outstanding debts or obligations incurred prior to such effective date so long as such debts or obligations were incurred solely in connection with an election held on or before November 5, 2002, or any run-off election or recount resulting in such an election.'' If my colleagues read the bill, they can borrow hard money and pay it back with soft money. Lack of principle.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today our Nation is at war. We are in a war against terrorism. We are working to build our homeland security, and we are suffering an economic recession. Our Commander in Chief, President Bush, is demonstrating strong, resolute leadership in the war against terrorism. We must not forget that the war against terrorism will last a long time, not just months, but likely years. The war against terrorism will not end in Afghanistan. The al Qaeda terrorism network has a presence in 65 nations, and tens of thousands of terrorists have gone through their death training camps. Part of winning the war on terrorism is also getting our economy moving again. Clearly, the terrorist attack was directed at our economy. If we look back and remember 1 year ago this month, when President Bush was sworn into office on the east front in inaugural ceremonies, he inherited a weakening economy, an economy which was getting weaker and Americans were beginning to lose their jobs. He proposed a tax cut, a tax cut he said that would put extra money in the pocketbooks of America's consumers, giving them more money to spend at home for their families' needs. That was enacted into law in June. By Labor Day, economists were telling us the tax cut was working on getting our economy moving again. Unfortunately, the tragedy of the terrorist attacks on September 11 occurred and that tragedy cost thousands of Americans their lives. It was a terrible tragedy, but also it also gave a psychological blow to our economy, causing investors and consumers to step back from decisions they had made prior to September 11. Unfortunately, by stepping back from those decisions, it cost hundreds of thousands, and almost a million, Americans their jobs. Today, over a million Americans have lost their jobs since the terrorist attacks on September 11, tens of thousands in the area that I represent in the Chicago area. To win the war against terrorism, we must get this economy moving again. We must give Americans the opportunity to go back to work. I would note that this House, the House of Representatives, has twice, in October and in December, acted to get the economy moving again, passing a bipartisan economic stimulus plan and sending it over to the Senate. Unfortunately, partisan politics prevented our efforts from succeeding in getting to the President's desk and signature into law. I believe we must not give up on our efforts to revitalize this economy and give Americans the opportunity to go back to work. During these times, some Democratic leaders have called for a tax increase. I am proud to say that this past week the House spoke loud and clear stating opposition overwhelmingly to a Democratic proposal to repeal the Bush tax cut. No economist says that we should raise taxes in a recession, but that we should bring spending under control. I want to take this opportunity to urge our leadership, as they consider what to do next, to once again move legislation to stimulate our economy and to bring economic security for American workers. I want to rise to suggest one provision that I believe must be included in that package that we send to the President, a provision that is a strong stimulation for our economy. Many of us know it as accelerated depreciation, or depreciation reform, or expensing, or bonus depreciation. The provision, which has strong bipartisan support in this House, provides for 30 percent expensing, giving faster or quicker cost recovery for a business that buys an asset. Think about it. When someone buys a pickup truck or a computer or security equipment, there is a worker somewhere in America who manufactures that product. There is a worker that is going to install it and service it. And of course there is going to be a worker who is going to operate that piece of equipment. Accelerated depreciation, the 30 percent expensing provision rewards investment in those kinds of jobs. I would note the only way to take advantage of that tax incentive is to invest and buy and create jobs. Many businesses back home that I know of, since September 11, are also upgrading their security and their safety measures in their plants. Accelerated depreciation will help them better afford to make their plants and places of work safer and more secure for their employees and visitors. Over the next few days, decisions are going to be made on how we can better help by extending unemployment benefits. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and President Bush have urged a tax credit to help the uninsured with health care insurance. That is a good idea, and I believe that should be part of that final package. But I also believe that we mean to combine the unemployment benefits and the health care benefits with incentives to invest in the creation of jobs. Accelerated depreciation of a 30 percent expensing component will help put Americans back to work. Mr. Speaker, I have a letter signed by almost three dozen Members of this House, a letter circulated by myself and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), urging our leadership to include accelerated depreciation in any package that goes to the President, and I include that for the Record. Washington, DC, February 6, 2002. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House, The Capitol, Washington DC. Dear Speaker Hastert: We are disappointed by the recent breakdown in negotiations in the Senate on a meaningful economic stimulus package. We firmly believe that Congress can help balance the desire to promote economic growth with efforts to help those workers who have lost their jobs due to the recession. If the Senate sends the House a bill extending unemployment benefits by 13 weeks, we would encourage you to add the one major economic growth component that is bipartisan and agreed upon by almost everyone, the 30% accelerated depreciation bonus for new investments. Not only is this provision bipartisan, but it is widely supported by most businesses and business groups. The combination of a temporary unemployment compensation and the 30% bonus depreciation proposal would provided an excellent balance between providing a helping hand to workers out of work and struggling because of the recession and the desire to foster economic growth. The most important feature of the accelerated depreciation proposal is that in order for businesses to take advantage of the bonus, a decision must be made to purchase and invest in new equipment. When businesses make these investments, employees are put back to work engineering, building, installing and operating the new products, thereby stimulating and growing the economy. This type of stimulus is exactly what the economy needs to pull out of the current recession. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to working with you on this proposal. Sincerely, Jerry Weller. Fred Upton. Cal Dooley.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor and first want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) for their bipartisan efforts to address an issue that is so very important to our Nation's economy and Nation's infrastructure. We are at war today. We are at war against terrorism, and one of the lessons of September 11 is no more complacency. Clearly our Nation's IT infrastructure is one area where we historically have been very, very complacent; and as we work to win this war on terrorism, we also must work to strengthen our homeland security, and clearly this legislation, the Cyber Security Research and Development Act, is part of our efforts to strengthen our Nation's homeland security. Our IT infrastructure is important. We use it in our everyday lives, whether it is our banking, insurance, our schools, our businesses, how we operate our utilities, and serve our Nation's infrastructure; and all of it is in jeopardy of a cyberattack. All of us have learned, I believe, over the last several years the creativity of those who hack into our computer systems, those who create computer viruses for malicious destruction, in many cases causing billions of dollars of damage and costs to our Nation as well as our global economy. Unfortunately, very little research and development has been conducted in this important area of homeland security, finding better ways to protect our Nation's information technology systems. The private sector historically has little incentive to invest because the market emphasizes speed and convenience. Yet the Federal Government historically has not filled the gap. This legislation is important legislation and deserves bipartisan support and enlists our Nation's universities as well as research institutions to find solutions to protect and secure our Nation's IT infrastructure. There is also more we need to do. I think we are all disappointed after the House passed an economic stimulus package that the accelerated depreciation component that this House passed was not included in action in the other body. My hope is that the accelerated depreciation which would help our businesses and private sector also acquire the hardware and software to protect their IT systems will eventually be included in a stimulus package that we send to the President and get this economy moving again.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, we have additional speakers.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, before I yield some time here, I yield myself such time as I may consume to remind my good friends on the other side of the aisle that we are at war against terrorism, that we are in an economic recession, and that a ``no'' vote on this resolution is a vote for a tax increase during an economic recession. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a leader in the effort to help working families in her home State of New Mexico.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today our House of Representatives has the opportunity to speak very clearly on whether or not we should continue to lower taxes for American workers or to raise taxes on American workers. The war on terrorism, homeland security, and economic recession has caused a fiscal deficit in our budget. Some are now calling for repeal of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, something commonly know as the Bush tax cut, and they argue that higher taxes will give Washington more money to spend here in Washington. So today before us we have a choice: higher taxes or getting the economy moving again. Let us remember at the beginning of last year: when President Bush became President, he inherited a weakening economy. The President proposed taking 20 percent of the budget surplus resulting from our Congress' fiscal responsibility and giving it back to the American worker so they could spend it at home for their own families. We passed the President's tax cut in June, it was signed into law, and the President succeeded in lowering rates for small business and entrepreneurs, the engines of economic growth. We wiped out the marriage tax penalty, we wiped out the death tax, we increased opportunities for retirement savings, and we doubled the child tax credit. And our tax cut was working. Economists were telling us in late August and by Labor Day that the economy was beginning to recover. Then the tragedy of September 11 occurred, a terrorist attack that cost thousands of Americans their lives and caused a psychological blow to the confidence of business investors as well as consumers. Today we have seen as a result of that terrorist attack on our economy that over 1 million Americans have lost their jobs. Mr. Speaker, today we are at war against terrorism, we are building our homeland security, and we are in an economic recession. We must get this economy moving again. We must create jobs for those who lack work. Today, no real-world economists have called for a tax increase in time of recession. They point out that tax increases hurt our economy and that tax increases take money out of the pockets of America's workers and consumers, making it harder for them to meet the needs of their families. We must keep spending under control, and true fiscal responsibility is keeping spending under control. Fiscal responsibility is not increasing taxes. This House has the opportunity to go on the record for higher taxes, or to maintain the Bush plan to lower taxes, which will be implemented over the rest of this decade. Repealing the Bush tax cut is a tax increase. Vote ``aye'' to not impose higher taxes and to keep the Bush tax cut in place. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I seem to recall a few years ago, my friends on the other side of the aisle, when we talked.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself some time.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In conclusion, I would say to my colleagues that it is clear to me that we have an ideological divide. Our friends on the other side of the aisle are proposing a tax increase as their solution to our current situation. And if we look at the facts today, we are at war, a war against terrorism, we are rebuilding our homeland security, we are in an economic recession, and all those who are students of history know that whenever we are in a war, we have a deficit, and whenever we have an economic recession, we have a deficit. Of course, my hope is we can bring spending under control and eliminate that this year. Our friends on the other side of the aisle propose a tax increase. They say we should repeal the tax cut that President Bush proposed last year, and that by doing so, raise tax revenue that they could spend here in Washington. Well, let us look at what it is they propose repealing. First, I will mention the marriage tax penalty. Twenty-eight million married couples pay an average of $1,400 more in higher taxes. We, of course, passed legislation to wipe out the marriage tax penalty. A married couple making $60,000, a middle-class married couple in the district I represent, the south suburbs, pays on average $1,400 taxes under the marriage tax penalty. They are middle class. They would see higher taxes under the Democrat tax increase. They also propose wiping out the elimination of the death tax, and they propose wiping out the doubling of the child's tax credit. Working moms and working families who have children will be able to get up to a $1,000 tax credit. It is $500 under the current law that is in place. They want to raise taxes on those parents with children. We also provide an opportunity for families to put more tax-free contributions into their retirement accounts. If we go along with the Democrat proposal, we wipe out that opportunity and increase taxes on those who want to save for education and retirement. If we care about economic growth, we have to remember that it is the small-business person, the entrepreneur who is in the top two tax brackets, the people they call rich. And 80 percent of those who pay taxes under the top two tax brackets are the small-business people, the entrepreneurs, the people who have shops and businesses on Liberty Street in my hometown, our main street, and main streets all across America. We know small businesses and the entrepreneurs are going to create jobs and get our economy moving again. So, again, a world war, we are rebuilding our homeland security, and we are in a recession. And there is not one real world economist who has said that now is the time to increase taxes. In fact, economists tell us it is best to lower taxes in a recession so people have more money to invest and spend in the creation of jobs. Yesterday, Secretary O'Neill, someone who is known for his frankness and independent thought, was asked the question: ``Is a repeal of the Bush tax cut a tax increase?'' And the Secretary said yes. And he noted that raising taxes would stifle the process of getting Americans back to work. This is a bad idea as our recovery is struggling to take hold. My colleagues, this is a simple vote. We are in a recession, we are at war. Do we want to increase taxes? Those who want to increase taxes vote ``no.'' Those who want to make sure the Bush tax cut is fully implemented and we get this economy moving again vote ``aye.'' I urge an ``aye'' vote and ask for bipartisan support for this sense of House resolution and preserve the President's tax cut.

Mr. WELLER. The time of the gentleman from New York has fully expired, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. WELLER. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today our House has an opportunity, an opportunity to go on the Record and speak clearly of whether or not we should continue lowering taxes for American workers. Today we are at war. The war on terrorism, our efforts to strengthen our homeland security, and the current recession have caused a fiscal deficit in our budget. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, they point out that the recession, combined with the war on terrorism and our efforts to protect our homeland security, account for 72 percent of our current deficit. So almost three-quarters of our deficit has been caused by the economy as well as the war. Some on the other side are saying we need to raise taxes in order to eliminate that deficit. And the way they want to raise taxes is they are calling for the repeal of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, something we commonly know as the Bush tax cut which will give them more money to spend here in Washington. Well, today we have a choice, a choice of higher taxes or getting this economy growing again. Let us remember that when President Bush became President he inherited a weakening economy. At that time the President proposed taking one-fifth, 20 percent of the budget surplus that resulted from the fiscal responsibilities of this good Congress, and giving it back to the American worker so the American worker can spend it at home for their families and get the economy moving again. And we succeeded with bipartisan support in passing the Bush tax cut, helping our economy. We lowered rates for small business and entrepreneurs. And we have to remember it is small business and entrepreneurs that are the engines of economic growths. In fact, 80 percent of those who filed taxes under the top two tax brackets are small business people and entrepreneurs who have shops and businesses on Liberty Street, the downtown in my home town of Morris, Illinois, as well as on Main Street all over America. We also passed efforts to wipe out the marriage tax penalty, to wipe out the death tax which helps small business and family farmers, to increase contributions and incentives for retirement savings and to double the child tax credit. If we repeal the Bush tax cut, that is all gone. It is a tax increase on the American worker. And there is no real-world economist today who says that in a time of war and recession that you should increase taxes. But if you repeal or stall the Bush tax cut, we know it is a tax increase. Well, the Bush tax cut was working. Economists were telling us that late August around Labor Day that the economy was beginning to grow again. Then the terrible tragedy of September 11 occurred, costing thousands of Americans their lives, terrible tragedy, put us into a war; and unfortunately the psychological blow of that terrorist attack also impacted the confidence of American consumers as well as American investors. And over a million Americans have since lost their jobs since the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, Pennsylvania, and here in Washington at the Pentagon. Today we are at work. We are strengthening our homeland security. And unfortunately we are also in an economic recession. Again, no real- world economists says that we should increase taxes during a recession. Tax increases hurt our economy, they hurt the confidence of our investors, and they take money out of the pocketbooks of American workers who can better spend that at home taking care of their families' needs. We must keep spending under control. True fiscal responsibility is keeping spending under control. Fiscal responsibility is not increasing taxes, as my friends on the other side of the aisle today will be advocating. Repealing the Bush tax cut is a tax increase. Simple. Today we will have the opportunity for the House to go on the record for every Member of this House, Republican and Democrat, to say they want to increase taxes or we protect the tax cut for the American worker and get this economy moving again. Let us remember, repealing the Bush tax cut is a tax increase. I ask this House to vote aye on this rule, and I urge Members of both parties to vote against a tax increase and vote aye in favor of maintaining the full implementation of the Bush tax cut, helping the American worker and let us get this economy moving again.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, we are having the traditional debate today, and that is, when spending is a little tight, do we raise taxes, or do we bring spending under control? Our friends on the other side of the aisle are using their traditional argument to raise taxes, and we are saying that we should keep spending under control. We are in a recession; world war. Clearly, we do have a deficit. We all admit to that. And every time we have been in a recession, we have had a deficit. Every time we have been at war, we have had a deficit. As the Congressional Budget Office has stated, 72 percent of the deficit is a result of the economy and the war against terrorism. Clearly, if we want to get this economy moving again, we need to bring spending under control and continue to lower taxes for American workers. And not one real-world economist has said that we should increase taxes during a recession. They all say, including Alan Greenspan, that we should lower taxes. I would note that if our friends are successful in stalling or repealing the Bush tax cut, this is what they will do: They will increase taxes on married couples. Our friends would increase taxes on the death tax for small-business people and family farmers. They would increase taxes on small-business people and entrepreneurs. They would also increase taxes on parents who have children, because they would stop the implementation of doubling the child tax credit. As Secretary O'Neill has said, ``Any delay or repeal of the Bush tax cut is clearly a tax increase.'' And he also said, and I can quote him from his testimony before the House Committee on Ways and Means, ``Raising taxes would stifle the process of getting Americans back to work. This is a bad idea as our recovery is struggling to take hold.'' My colleagues, over a million Americans are out of work. We do not need a tax increase. We need to get this economy moving again. Vote aye on the previous question, aye on the rule, and aye for the resolution to maintain the tax cut.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of H. Con. Res. 312, the concurrent resolution just considered.