Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental question this House of Representatives has worked so hard to address, and that is, is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code 25 million married working couples on average pay $1,400 more in higher taxes. Let me give an example of a couple back in Joliette, Illinois, Shad and Michelle Hallihan. They have a combined income of about $65,000. They are public school teachers. They own a home. They have a little baby, Ben, a child. They suffer the marriage tax penalty. In fact, their marriage tax penalty making $65,000 a year is about $1,400. Every House Republican, 51 Democrats joined with us, we voted to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton and Al Gore vetoed our effort to wipe out the marriage tax penalty for people like Shad and Michelle Hallihan. Al Gore says that people like Shad and Michelle who make $65,000 a year, own a home, have a child, suffer a marriage tax penalty of $1,400 a year are rich and should not be helped. That is wrong. My hope is today, as we vote to attempt to override Bill Clinton's and Al Gore's veto, that our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and that more Democrats will join with us on this fundamental issue of fairness. We will work to help people like Shad and Michelle Hallihan, two public school teachers who pay higher taxes just because they are married.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing a lot of rhetoric, particularly on the other side today, but what is the issue today? There is one issue: that is, do we override the President's veto of our effort to wipe out the marriage tax penalty that affects 25 million married working couples who suffer higher taxes just because they are married? In fact, 25 million married working couples on average today pay higher taxes of almost $1,400 a year just because they are married under our Tax Code. I have an example here, Shad and Michelle Hallihan, two public school teachers from Joliet, Illinois, who suffer the marriage tax penalty. They have an average income each year of about $65,000. That is their combined income. They are homeowners. They have a child, little Ben. They suffer the marriage tax penalty, about $1,400. In the South suburbs of Chicago, $1,400 is real money. It is one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College; it is 3 months of day care; several months' worth of car payments; it is a home mortgage payment, a month or two for many, many families; but it is real money for real people. That is what this is all about, is do we allow folks like Shad and Michelle to keep their money, or do we send it to Washington, particularly on this issue of tax fairness? I was so proud. After several years of working, my chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), has been concerned about this issue since he first came to this Congress. Many have been working on this issue for a long time. This House and Senate voted to wipe out the tax penalty for people like Shad and Michelle Hallihan this year, and we did it the year before. Unfortunately, the President vetoed it. We want to help everyone who suffers the marriage tax penalty: those who itemize, those who do not. I was proud to say that every House Republican voted to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Fifty-one Democrats joined with us to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We doubled the standard deduction for joint filers, for married couples, so they earn twice as much in the same tax bracket. We also widen the 15 percent tax bracket. We help those who itemize, we help those who do not itemize. The bottom line is, we help 25 million married working couples. As I mentioned earlier, Shad and Michelle make about $65,000 a year, their combined income. They are middle class public school teachers. They suffer the average marriage tax penalty. When Al Gore called for the veto of this legislation, he said that people who own a home, who make about $65,000 a year, who pay the average marriage tax penalty of $1,400, are rich, and that if people itemize their taxes, like Shad and Michelle Hallihan, because they are homeowners they do not deserve any marriage tax relief because they are rich. So that definition of rich says if one pursues the American dream, gets married, has a family, buys a home, and then has to itemize their taxes, they are rich and they do not deserve marriage tax relief. They should still suffer the marriage tax penalty. That is wrong. I believe, and I think the majority of this House believes, that if one really wants to be fair, we should help everyone. Couples making $65,000 a year like Shad and Michelle Hallihan, who happen to be homeowners and happen to itemize their taxes, deserve tax relief just as much as anyone else when it comes to the marriage tax penalty. Let us override the President's veto. I invite more Democrats to join with us. Let us be fair to people like Shad and Michelle Hallihan. They are not rich, they are middle class.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enthusiastically support H.R. 4844, the Railroad Retirement and Survivors Improvement Act of 2000. The Railroad Retirement and Survivors Improvement Act of 2000 is historic legislation that will improve the lives of railroad workers and their spouses. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important bipartisan bill and am pleased to cast my vote in favor of this legislation today. This bill will guarantee a better standard of retirement for the nearly 3,500 retirees in my district and for all future retirees and their families. Under H.R. 4844, the quality of life for widows and widowers are significantly improved. Under current law, spouses are limited to one- half of the deceased employee's Tier 2 benefits. However, under this legislation, this bill increases Tier 2 benefits for widows and widowers to 100 percent of the deceased employee's benefits on the date of death. Thus, widowers and widows will continue to receive the same benefits as their spouse received prior to death. Widows should not have to face a loss of income in addition to the death of a spouse. This bill ensures that is no longer a reality--widows will receive full benefits under this legislation. Additionally, H.R. 4844 reduces the years of covered service to be vested in the railroad retirement system from the present 10 years to 5 years. Ten years is too long to wait to be vested in the railroad retirement system, and this legislation corrects this problem. Further, the retirement age is reduced from 62 to 60. By reducing this age, workers are given the opportunity to retire earlier without a corresponding loss of benefits. H.R. 4844 also fixes the cap on the ``maximum benefit.'' Present law limits the total amount of monthly railroad retirement benefits payable to an employee and an employee's spouse at the time the employee's annuity payout begins. The Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of 200 removes this cap so that there is not a maximum benefit limit. Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation that will give working families more retirement security. I commend Chairmen Shaw and Archer for their leadership on this bill and ask for all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, this is a great day. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for her leadership and my friend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for his leadership in crafting a bipartisan bill. I think back to 1994, when I had the privilege of being elected to this body, and at that time there were more children living in poverty than ever before. As a result of the welfare reform efforts led by this Congress, we have now seen a reduction by one-half of our Nation's welfare rolls. This legislation addressing fatherhood and families and strengthening families is a continued positive, successful step forward. That is why I want to commend the chairwoman and the ranking member for this effort. I also want to thank the committee for including an amendment that was offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) and myself which treats more fairly private organizations such as Catholic charities and Jewish Welfare League and others who serve in providing foster care and other child care services under the programs in this legislation. Under current law, the Federal Government provides a 75 percent matching rate for funds spent training public child welfare workers. But that match is not there for those private workers through Catholic charities and other organizations. Our amendment, which was included in this legislation, brings parity to the treatment of both public and private workers involved in child welfare. I would point out that in my home State of Illinois the majority of our programs the majority of the children are served by private organizations such as Catholic charities. In fact, 80 percent of foster care services are offered by private child welfare agencies. Florida is moving towards a 100 percent completely private system. New York and Kansas are also heavily dependent on this. And that is why this legislation is so important. Our legislation provides parity by providing that same equal 75 percent match for training programs. And it is the right thing to do. If we want to list the private sector, we need to treat the private sector fairly and equally with the public sector. Those who benefit the most, of course, are the children who are served. Because a trained workforce results not only in better care for children but strengthening of our families.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, let me remind some of my good friends on the other side of the aisle in listening to the rhetoric that one of their own appointees over at the Department of Health and Human Services, the official actuary that is respected by both, says, ``The proposal would have no financial impact on the HI trust fund. Program income would not be affected, and the estimated year of exhaustion for the HI trust fund would continue to be 2025, as under present law.'' So that is all rhetoric and not fact. My colleagues, we are talking about lowering taxes on senior citizens. When my friends on the other side of the aisle, and I point out that every Republican voted no on placing this tax on senior citizens in 1993, when they voted to impose this new tax of 85 percent on Social Security benefits, it only affected 5 million seniors. They figured it was not a big deal. But today it now punishes or soon will punish almost 17.5 million Social Security beneficiaries. When the tax took effect in 1994, one in 10 seniors was punished by this tax. Today one in five is punished. And by the year 2010, one in three will be punished by this tax. It is all about fairness. When Congress and the President so long ago created this, they said that if they pay in, they are going to get their benefits as part of the deal. Let us make sure they get their part of the deal.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing a bill with Mr. Moran, Mr. Cox, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Tom Davis, Mr. Drier, Mr. Adam Smith, Mr. Salmon and Mrs. Taucher to address the severe worker shortage in technology related industries. The Technology Education and Training Act provides a $1,500 tax credit for information technology training expenses. This tax credit is necessary to address the serious shortage in the United States of trained technology professionals. This shortage has a dramatic effect on the U.S. economy. According to the CompTIA Workforce Study, as a result of unfilled IT positions, the U.S. economy loses $105.5 billion in spending that would otherwise go to salaries and training. This reduces household income by $37.2 billion and prevents the creation of 1. 6 million jobs. Currently, an estimated 268,740 (10%) of IT service and support positions are unfilled. This results in $4.5 billion per year in lost worker productivity. An ITAA study released April 11, 2000 predicts a shortage of 843,328 for the 1.6 million new IT workers needed in 2000. The tax credit we establish in this bill would be available to both individuals and businesses for training and educational expenses for individuals being trained in technology related industries. The allowable credit would be $1,500. For small businesses, or businesses and individuals in enterprise zones, empowerment zones, and other qualified areas, the credit would equal $2,000. The training program must result in certification. This bill encourages a private-public sector partnership which allows the private sector to determine who, what, where and how to train workers. It also helps to fill the IT worker pipeline with thousands of new and retrained IT skilled workers which would otherwise leave thousands of jobs in cities across America unfilled. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of The Technology Education and Training Act.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, due to unavoidable circumstances, I was forced to take a medical leave of absence from the House of Representatives after 7:00 p.m. on July 20, 2000. I respectfully request that how I would have voted had I been able to be present for votes be submitted and accepted into the Congressional Record at an appropriate place as follows: On Rollcall Vote 421, an amendment offered by Representative Vitter, Adding $25 Million to the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program, had I been able to be present I would have voted aye. On Rollcall Vote 422, an amendment offered by Representative DeLauro to allow federal funds to pay for abortions under the Federal employee health benefit program by striking Section 509, had I been able to be present I would have voted no. On Rollcall Vote 423, an amendment offered by Representative Tom Davis of Virginia to add a new section prohibiting funds from being used to carry out the amendments to the Federal Acquisition Regulation relating to responsibility considerations of Federal contractors and the allowability of certain contractor costs, had I been able to be present I would have voted aye. On Rollcall Vote 424, an amendment offered by Representative Rangel to add provisions to the bill prohibiting funds from being used to implement Public Law 104-114 which codifies the economic embargo of Cuba, as in effect on March 1, 1996, had I been able to be present, I would have voted no. On Rollcall Vote 425, an amendment offered by Representative Sanford to add provisions to the bill which prohibit the use of funds from being used to enforce part 515 of the Code of Federal Regulations (the Cuban Assets Control Regulations) with respect to any travel or travel related transaction, had I been able to be present, I would have voted aye. On Rollcall Vote 426, an amendment offered by Representative Moran of Kansas to prohibit funds in the bill from being used to implement any sanction imposed by the United States on the private commercial sale of medicine, food, or agricultural product to Cuba, had I been able to be present, I would have voted aye. On Rollcall Vote 427, an amendment offered by Representative Hostettler to prohibit the use of funds to enforce, implement, or administer the provisions of the settlement document dated March 17, 2000, between Smith and Wesson and the Department of the Treasury, had I been able to be present I would have voted aye. On Rollcall Vote 428 for final Passage of the Fiscal Year 2001 Treasury Postal Appropriations, had I been able to be present I would have voted aye.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the record a letter written by the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) regarding a provision included in H.R. 4843, the Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act. This letter should help to clarify the provision which applies to the Section 415 limits for multiemployer pension plans. The JCT letter helps to clarify that, if the IRS follows the precedents it has established in the past, the individual multiemployer pension plans will be able to provide benefit increases for individuals who are already retired from their plan related employment if all of their benefits have not been previously distributed. This means that an employee who is currently retired from union employment can benefit from the Section 415 modifications included in H.R. 4843. I am particularly interested in this issue because of a family in my district who loses more than one-half of their annual pension because of the Section 415 limits. Larry Kohr is a retired union worker who lives with his family in my district in Illinois. Larry loses more than one-half of his annual benefits because of the 415 limits. The letter I am including into the record today clarifies that the IRS and the individual multiemployer pension plans will have the right and the ability, once the 415 changes are signed into law, to ensure that current retirees, such as the Kohr's, will be able to benefit from the changes in the Section 415 limits. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to clarify this important issue. Congress of the United States, Joint Committee on Taxation, Washington, DC, July 19, 2000. Hon. Jerry Weller, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Weller: This is response to your request dated July 18, 2000, regarding the provision in H.R. 4843, the ``Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act,'' as reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, modifying the section 415 limits on benefits under multiemployer pension plans. Specifically, you requested information concerning the impact that the enactment of H.R. 4843 would have on the authority and ability of multiemployer pension plans to correct future benefits for retirees whose pension benefits are reduced under present law by operation of the section 415 limits. H.R. 4843 would not require multiemployer pension plans to increase pension benefits for retired participants or participants who are currently employed. Section 415 provides limits on the maximum benefits that may be paid from a pension plan, not minimum benefit requirements. Therefore, a modification of an applicable section 415 limit would not automatically increase a participant's benefit. Rather, whether an increase occurs would depend on the plan provisions and any modification made to the plan to reflect the increased limit. In order to determine the effect that H.R. 4843 would have on the authority and ability of a multiemployer plan to increase benefits for retirees, a useful analogy is the repeal of the combined limitation on defined benefit and defined contribution plans under former section 415(e) as a result of the enactment of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996. Prior to the effective date of the repeal of section 415(e), the Internal Revenue Service (the ``IRS'') issued Notice 99-44, in which the IRS provided guidance concerning benefit increases that would be permitted upon the repeal of the combined limitation on defined benefit and defined contribution plans. In Notice 99-44, the IRS stated that if a plan is not amended to take into account the repeal of section 415(e), the effect on the benefits of plan participants will depend on the plan's existing provisions for applying the limitations of section 415(e) and any other relevant plan provisions. According to the IRS, a plan's existing provisions could result in automatic benefit increases for participants as of the effective date of the repeal of section 415(e). For example, the IRS stated, the repeal of section 415(e) could result in automatic benefit increases for participants in defined benefit plans that incorporate by reference the limitations under section 415. In addition, the IRS stated in Notice 99-44 that a defined benefit pension plan may provide for benefit increases to reflect the repeal of section 415(e) for a current or former employee who has commenced benefits under the plan prior to the effective date of the repeal of section 415(e) for the plan, but only if the employee or former employee has an accrued benefit on that date. In other words, the IRS determined that a plan may provide for benefit increases to reflect the repeal of section 415(e) for a former employee who has begun receiving benefit distributions prior to the effective date of the repeal but whose benefits under the plan have not been completely distributed prior to the effective date of the repeal. If H.R. 4843 is enacted, the modifications to the section 415 limits affecting multiemployer pension plans would be effective for years beginning after December 31, 2000. If, in the implementation of these modifications, the IRS follows the precedent that it has established with respect to the repeal of section 415(e), a multiemployer plan would be permitted to provide for benefit increases to reflect the modifications of the section 415 limits for a former employee who has commenced distributions prior to 2001 but whose benefits have not been completely distributed prior to 2001. In addition, the modification of the section 415 limits could result in automatic benefit increases for participants in defined benefit plans that incorporate by reference the section 415 limits. I hope this information is helpful to you. If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please let me know. Sincerely, Lindy L. Paull.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, have you heard Bill Clinton and Al Gore's latest definition of rich? Bill Clinton and Al Gore say that, if one is married and one is a homeowner or if one is married and one gives money to church and charity and one suffers the marriage tax penalty, one is rich. Bill Clinton and Al Gore say now that they want to veto the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, legislation which wipes out the marriage tax penalty for 25 million married working couples who, on average, pay $1,400 more in higher taxes. They say that there are people that are homeowners, there are people that give money to church and charity, and there are people that itemize their taxes, and because of that, they are rich, and they do not deserve marriage tax relief, and they should be discriminated against and should continue to receive and suffer from the marriage tax penalty. I was so proud when this House passed just this past week legislation wiping out the marriage tax penalty for 25 million married working couples, on average, $1,400. We made sure, if one suffers the marriage tax penalty, whether one is a homeowner or not, one receives relief. It deserves bipartisan support. I hope the President will change his mind.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan effort to help blighted communities across America. I stand in strong support particularly of the expansion of the low-income housing tax credit provisions, something that benefits every community in America. I thought I would take my time just to draw attention to an issue I feel that we could do more for in this legislation as it moves through the legislative process, and that is the issue of brownfields. People often wonder, what is a brownfield? As you drive through your rural or your suburban or middle-class community or inner-city community, you see that old abandoned gas station that no one ever buys and fixes up or you see that old industrial park on the side of town that no one ever buys and recycles or reuses or revitalizes, and you find out the chief reason is because it needs some environmental cleanup; and because of that financial liability, investors are hesitant to buy it. In 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act, a group of us worked successfully to provide a tax incentive, a tax incentive which attracted private investors to buy these old brownfields, to clean them up; and because of fiscal concerns at the time, we left it targeted to low-income areas. Since then, as that provision has been working to clean up and revitalize low-income areas, the folks that live in the rural and suburban and middle-class communities have often said, Hey, wait a second here. There are 425,000 brownfields across America. Only about one-fifth of those qualify for the current tax incentive. Why not help those blighted areas in those communities as well. A group of us, in fact 22 of us on the Committee on Ways and Means, cosponsored legislation to eliminate that targeting so every community, rural and suburban and middle class could benefit from it as well. Almost every member of the Committee on Ways and Means signed the letter asking that it be included as part of this bipartisan package. Mr. Speaker, my hope is that as we move through this process that we can work together, the chairman, the ranking member, the Speaker as well as the White House, to include expanded efforts to clean up so- called brownfields. It is all about jobs. The average cleanup of a brownfield is only about $500,000; but if you think of those communities, and every community has one, has those blighted areas in communities that we can recycle, reuse and revitalize, it will help every American community. I ask that it be included as we move through the process. Thank you for this opportunity to speak regarding H.R. 4923, the Community Renewal and New Markets Act. While I stand in support of this bill, I would like to offer my concerns regarding a provision which was not included in this bill. For the past several months, I have been working with several of my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee to expand the eligible sites allowed to deduct the cost of environmental remediation expenditures under Section 198 of the Code to include all brownfield sites. This provision has broad bipartisan support with 22 cosponsors from the Ways and Means Committee. A similar provision was included in the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 and the Senate's version of last year's extenders bill S. 1792. We had hoped to have this provision included in H.R. 4923, but were not afforded the opportunity because the bill was never brought before the Ways and Means Committee. Brownfields sites exist throughout all of our districts--abandoned eyesores that blight our urban, rural and suburban communities drag down local economies. Many brownfields properties are located in prime business locations near critical infrastructure, including transportation, and close to a productive workforce. As Members of Congress, we should be striving to enact policies that put as many of these sites as possible back into productive use, contributing to the economic and producing good paying jobs where they are needed most. The first step towards doing this is to remediate these sites environmentally. The U.S. Conference of Mayors estimates that there are over 400,000 brownfields sites across the country. We clearly cannot limit the treatment of Section 198 to merely targeted areas. Development of these sites will help restore many blighted areas, create jobs where unemployment is high and ease pressure to develop beyond the fringes of communities. Small, urban centered businesses often benefit most directly by this redevelopment. Some estimates suggest that there may be as many as 150,000 brownfield sites in urban areas and up to as many as 425,000 nationwide. In a recent survey, the U.S. Conference of Mayors study estimates that approximately. 21,000 brownfield sites exist in 210 cities surveyed (large and small). This represents almost 81,000 acres of land. Two-thirds of the 210 cities surveyed estimated that if their local brownfields sites were redeveloped, it would bring in additional tax revenues between $878 million and $2.4 billion annually. More than 550,000 jobs could be created on former brownfields sites. It is estimated that the average cost of brownfields cleanup is $500,000. In Chicago, Illinois, there are an estimated 2,000 brownfield sites. According to the Conference of Mayors study, if these sites in Chicago were cleaned up it would mean a $78 million increase in tax revenue and an increase in 34,000 jobs. This would be very important to the local economy. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and Chairman Archer continue to work with myself and other members of the Ways and Means Committee who are interested in removing the targeting requirement on the existing brownfields expensing provision to allow brownfield sites to be cleaned up in all of our districts. I ask that this provision be included in the Conference Report on H.R. 4923. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, June 9, 2000. Hon. Bill Archer, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Archer: This letter is to urge you to include in your chairman's mark for the pending Community Revitalization tax package a provision included in H.R. 4003, which expands the eligible sites allowed to deduct the cost of environmental remediation expenditures under Section 198 of the Code to include all brownfield sites. As you know, this provision has broad bipartisan support with 22 cosponsors from the Ways and Means Committee. A similar provision was included in the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 and the Senate's version of last year's extenders bill, S. 1792. The community revitalization tax package agreed to by President Clinton and Speaker Hastert, acknowledges the importance of cleaning up so called ``brownfields'' by allowing the expensing of clean up costs for such sites located within the newly added empowerment zones and renewal communities. This validates the appropriateness of the expensing policy enacted in 1997 when Section 198 was added to the Code. However, brownfields are not limited to empowerment zones and renewal communities. Brownfields sites exist throughout our districts--abandoned eyesores that blight our urban, rural and suburban communities and drag down local economies. Many brownfields properties are located in prime business locations near critical infrastructure, including transportation, and close to a productive workforce. As Members of Congress, we should be striving to enact policies that put as many of these sites as possible back into productive use, contributing to the economy and producing good paying jobs where they are needed most. The first step towards doing this is to remediate these sties environmentally. The U.S. Conference of Mayors estimates that there are over 400,000 brownfields sites across the country. We clearly cannot limit the treatment of Section 198 to merely targeted areas. Development of these sites will help restore many blighted areas, create jobs where unemployment is high and ease pressure to develop beyond the fringes of communities. Small, urban centered businesses often benefit most directly by this redevelopment. Again, we urge you to include in your mark for the community revitalization package the provision in H.R. 4003 which expands the eligible sites allowed to deduct the cost of environmental remediation expenditures under Section 198 of the Code to include all brownfield sites. Simply lifting this targeting requirement would lower the cost of the measure to only $43 million. Thank you for your consideration of this important issue. Sincerely, Phil Crane, Clay Shaw, Nancy Johnson, Amo Houghton, Wally Herger, Jim McCrery, Dave Camp, Jim Ramstad, Jim Nussle, Jennifer Dunn, Mac Collins, Rob Portman, Phil English, Wes Watkins, JD Hayworth, Jerry Weller, Kenny Hulshof, Scott McInnis, Ron Lewis, Mark Foley. Charlie Rangel, Pete Stark, Bob Matsui, Bill Coyne, Sandy Levin, Ben Cardin, Jim McDermott, Gerald Kleczka, John Lewis, Richard Neal, Michael McNulty, William Jefferson, John Tanner, Xavier Becerra, Karen Thurman, Lloyd Doggett.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, over the last several years, we have asked a pretty fundamental question and that is, is it right, is it fair under our Tax Code a married working couple, where both the husband and wife are both in the workforce, a married working couple with a two-income household pay higher taxes under our Tax Code than an identical couple with identical income who choose to live together outside of marriage? Is it right? Is it fair? Is it fair that under our Tax Code that 25 million married working couples pay on average 1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married? Of course not. The goal of this legislation, I am proud to say, is to wipe out the marriage tax penalty almost entirely for 25 million married working couples. I think it is pretty fiscally responsible to take one-half of 1 percent of a $2.2 trillion surplus to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. To listen to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you think we would be breaking their piggy bank to take one-half of 1 percent of a $2.2 trillion surplus to help 25 million married working couples who pay higher taxes jut because they are married. I, for one, and I am pleased to say that 222 Republicans and we were joined by 48 Democrats who broke with their leadership, who believe it is time to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, that this House has voted to send to the Senate today, we are voting on the agreement between the House and the Senate. We hope the President will join with us to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let me introduce a couple of constituents from the south suburbs of Chicago which I represent, Shad and Michelle Hallihan. They are public school teachers. Shad is at Joliet High School and Michelle is at Manhattan Junior High School. Their combined incomes are about $62,000. They pay just around $1,000 in marriage tax penalty just because they are married under our Tax Code. Now this photo was taken when they were married. It was about the time we introduced our legislation about 2 years ago. Since then Shad and Michelle have had a little boy, little Ben; and little Ben, of course, is this little guy. We hope some day he does not have to pay the marriage tax penalty. Our hope is for his parents we can eliminate it this year. I would point out under this legislation we provide middle-class tax relief for middle-class couples like Shad and Michelle Hallihan this year because our legislation is effective January 1 of 2000. So if the President would join with us to eliminate the marriage tax penalty for 25 million married working couples, Shad and Michelle Hallihan would see their marriage tax penalty eliminated this year. Now under our legislation, we do several things. We double the standard deduction for those who do not itemize to $8,800, twice that for single filers. We also widen the 15 percent bracket to help those who do itemize. Shad and Michelle Hallihan are also homeowners and because they are homeowners they itemize their taxes; and the only way to help people, middle-class families who own a home or give to church or charity or their synagogue, is to widen the 15 percent bracket so that they too can receive marriage tax relief. Under our proposal, we eliminate the marriage tax penalty suffered by Shad and Michelle Hallihan. Think about it. In Joliet, Illinois, the marriage tax penalty of $1,400, the average marriage tax penalty, is one year's tuition at our local community college. It is 3 months of day care for little Ben at a local child care center in Joliet. It is 3,000 diapers for little Ben. But it is also, if we also think about it, if Shad and Michelle had that money that they currently pay in the marriage tax penalty, were able to set it aside in an education savings account for little Ben, by the time Ben is 18 they would have been able to set aside almost $20,000 that they currently send to Uncle Sam, they could put in little Ben's college fund. That is what marriage tax relief means for the Hallihans. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of excuses from our good friends on the other side: let us do just a little bit so we can say we have done something; we have other priorities we want to spend it on, but think about this. One half of 1 percent of a $2.2 trillion surplus is being given back to middle-class working married couples like Shad and Michelle Hallihan so they can take that marriage tax penalty that currently goes to Washington, gets spent on other things, and use it to take care of their families' needs, little Ben in particular. So, Mr. Speaker, let us do the fiscally responsible thing. Let us help middle-class working married couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty. There are 25 million of them. That is almost 50 million taxpayers who pay higher taxes just because they made the choice of getting married. My hope is the President will join with us and sign this legislation. The President joined with us when he changed his mind on IRS reform. He was opposed to it, decided to support it. He was opposed to balancing the budget. Now he takes credit for it. He was opposed to welfare reform. Now he takes credit for it. My hope is the President will join with us and sign the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, the legislation we are going to hopefully pass today. We will certainly share the credit with him because it is the right thing to do. So again, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote. I invite every Democrat to join with Republicans. Let us vote to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and in strong support of our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Many of us over the last several years have asked a very basic, fundamental question, that is, is it right, is it fair that, under our Tax Code, a married working couple, where both a husband and wife are in the workforce, that they pay higher taxes just because they are married? Is it right that 25 million married working couples, 50 million taxpayers pay on average $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married? We call that $1,400 the marriage tax penalty. It affects married couples who, because they have two incomes, they are forced to file jointly, they are pushed into a higher tax bracket, and they pay higher taxes. It is a marriage tax penalty, and it is wrong. Let me introduce to the House some constituents of mine, Michelle and Shad Hallihan, two public school teachers from a community of Manhattan, just south of Joliet, Illinois. Shad is a teacher at Joliet High School, Michelle at Manhattan Junior High. Their combined income is about $62,000. They are middle-class teachers. They are homeowners. Of course, since they were married, they have since had a child, little Ben. Remember their family. Someone new in their lives, and they are so proud of little Ben here who is growing very quickly. Their marriage tax penalty is about $1,000 a year that they pay just because they are married. I think it is a fair question, is it right, is it fair that Shad and Michelle Hallihan, two public school teachers who work very hard every day, have a new little boy in their lives, have to pay higher taxes, send money to Washington just because they are married? I am proud to say this conference report before it eliminates the marriage tax penalty that good people, hard-working middle-class people like Shad and Michelle Hallihan, pay every year because they are married. Under our conference report, we help those who itemize their taxes as well as those who do not. Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle say that, if one is middle class and one itemizes one's taxes usually because one is a homeowner or one gives money to one's institutions of faith or church or synagogue or charity, one is rich and one does not deserve marriage tax relief. Well, Republicans and, fortunately, 48 Democrats believe we should help the middle-class homeowners who give money to charity. They are not rich; they work hard. Shad and Michelle Hallihan make $62,000 a year. They itemize their taxes. Now, we help those who do not itemize their taxes in this conference by doubling the standard deduction. That is used by those who do not itemize their taxes. We double that for joint filers to twice that as singles. For those who are itemizers, like Michelle and Shad Hallihan and little Ben who are homeowners, so they are forced to itemize, we widen the 15 percent bracket. That is the basic tax bracket that affects everybody. We widen that so joint filers, married couples like Shad and Michelle with two incomes can earn twice as much as a single filer and be in the same tax bracket, the same 15 percent tax bracket. What I think is most exciting about this bill, not only do we help middle-class families who are homeowners and give money to church and charity who itemize those taxes as well as those who do not is that it is effective this year. When we pass this legislation and put it on the President's desk today, the President will have an opportunity if he signs it into law to help married couples, 25 million married working couples this year. Because I would point out that doubling the standard deduction, which helps those who do not itemize, and widening the 15 percent tax bracket, which helps those who do itemize, such as homeowners and those that give money to church and charity, that they will receive marriage tax relief this year, because this legislation is effective January 1 of 2000. Think about that when my friends on the other side of the aisle and Bill Clinton and Al Gore raised taxes in 1993. They made their tax increase retroactive, which meant they went back in the tax year and took one's money. Well, this year we have an opportunity to give marriage tax relief this year, which means we go back to January 1 of this year. If one is married, one of 25 million married working couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty, one is going to see marriage tax relief this year in tax year 2000. That is a great opportunity. If one believes in fairness in the Tax Code as we do, it is time to make the Tax Code more fair and more simple. We want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle have been making lots of excuses. They really do not want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, because they would much rather spend Shad and Michelle's money. They believe it is better spent here in Washington than Shad and Michelle Hallihan can spend it back in Joliet, Illinois. Think about it. The average marriage tax penalty for good, hard- working middle-class married couples like Shad and Michelle Hallihan, $1,400. $1,400 is 1 year's tuition at Joliet Community College, our local community college. It is 3 months of day care for little Ben at a local child care center in Joliet, Illinois. It is a washer and dryer for their home. It is 3,000 diapers for little Ben. The marriage tax penalty of $1,400 is really money for real people. Let us do the right thing. Let us pass this rule. Let us pass this legislation. Let us wipe out the marriage tax penalty for 25 million married working couples.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to represent a very diverse district, representing the south side of Chicago, the south suburbs and rural areas. And when I listen, whether in the city, the suburbs or the country, my neighbors tell me how frustrated they are with their Tax Code. Not only are taxes too high, but they are frustrated with the complexity and the unfairness of the Tax Code; and they greatly point time and time again about how unfair our Tax Code is where it treats retirement savings, where it treats those who want to set aside more for their retirement. They also tell me that women in particular have a harder time saving for their retirement. In fact, in 1999 only 23 percent of those who were out of the workforce, usually for raising a family, were able to contribute to an IRA in 1999. That is less than one-fourth contributed to their IRA. When I think of that example, I think of my sister Pat. She and her husband, Rich, are in their 50s. They live near Sheldon, Illinois, on their farm. One is a farmer. One is a school teacher. But a few years back, my sister and her husband, Rich, decided to have a family. Pat took 7 years out of the workforce in order to be home with the kids. And when the kids were old enough to go into school, she went back into the workforce. But during that period of time the family income was a lot less, it was cut in half, and expenses were up because they had little children. During that time, Pat and Rich really could not really set aside much more retirement savings. That is why I think it is so important to point out in this legislation that we help people like my sister, Pat, working moms, empty-nesters who now have a little extra money after the kids are out of the household, those who may have missed a little work because of health reasons, but give them an opportunity to catchup on their contributions to their IRA as well as their 401(k). That is why I am so proud that provisions from H.R. 4546 were included in this legislation allowing an individual when they turn 50 to put a full $5,000 into their IRA immediately in 2001. As my colleagues know, the increased $5,000 is phased in over three years. Those over age 50 will get the immediate benefit allowing them to catch up. And also, if they have a 401(k), they will be able to put in an additional $5,000 in every year beginning in 2001. That will be a big help, particularly to working moms and empty-nesters, important legislation to help those save for retirement, particularly women making up missed contributions. I also want to point out another key provision in this legislation. I think of folks back home in the district, working people, building tradesmen, carpenters, cement finishers, iron workers, operating engineers, those who get up early, work hard all day, get their hands dirty, and of course put in many, many hours. Unfortunately, and I will give an example, Larry Kohr, a retired laborer from La Salle, Illinois. Larry pointed out to me that because of section 415 limitations in our Tax Code that he does not get what he was promised on his pension. According to his pension plan, he should be getting about $39,000 a year. But because of the pension limitations under section 415, he and other building tradespeople only get about half of what they deserve, in Larry's case about $15,000 to $16,000. Now, think about that, 30 years you get up at 6 a.m. and go out and work hard all day, you only get half of what you were promised. I am so proud our legislation today that helps 10 million building tradespeople, people like Larry Kohr by giving them 100 percent of what they deserve on their pension.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), my good friend, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), for the opportunity to address this House. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of eliminating the marriage tax penalty. I rise in strong support of the House and Senate going to conference and sending to the President this week legislation that wipes out what I consider to be the most unfair tax of all. We have often asked from the well of the House a pretty simple, basic question. That is, is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code 25 million married working couples pay higher taxes just because they are married? Is it right, is it fair, that 25 million married working couples pay on average $1,400 in higher taxes just because they are married? And today, the only way to avoid that marriage tax penalty when both the man and the women that are in the workforce is either not get married or get divorced. It is wrong that under our Tax Code one pays higher taxes just because they are married. I was so proud of this House just this past week when we passed and sent to the Senate legislation which wiped out the American tax penalty for 25 million couples. This afternoon, the Senate by a vote of 61 to 38, an overwhelming vote, including Democrats joining with Republicans, voted to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Of course, the bills are a little bit different. We have to work out the differences. The bottom line is we want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let me give an example of a couple from the district that I represent in the south side of Chicago in the south suburbs who suffer the marriage tax penalty. This is Michelle and Shad Hallihan. They are two public school teachers. They live just outside Joliet, Illinois. Shad teaches at Joliet High School. Michelle teaches at Manhattan Junior High. They suffer about $1,000 in marriage tax penalty. Their combined income is about $62,000. They are homeowners, and I would point out that since we introduced the bill to eliminate the marriage tax penalty a year and a half ago Shad and Michelle have since had a little baby. If the Democrats have their way, this child will probably be out of college before we eliminate the marriage tax penalty because there is always an excuse not to do it today. The bottom line is, for Michelle and Shad Hallihan and for their new little baby Ben, $1,400, the average marriage tax penalty, is real money. In the Joliet area, $1,400 is 3 months of day care at a local child care center for little Ben. $1,400 is 3,000 diapers for little Ben. $1,400 is one year's tuition at a community college called Joliet Junior College in Joliet, Illinois. It is a washer and dryer for their home. Our legislation that passed the House of Representatives will help people like Michelle and Shad Hallihan. The Democrats talk about their alternative. It would leave Michelle and Shad Hallihan out. They would still be stuck with the marriage tax penalty. Under our legislation, which passed the House of Representatives with the vote of every Republican and also 48 Democrats who broke with their leadership to support the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, we helped couples, two public school teachers like Shad and Michelle Hallihan. As I pointed out earlier, Shad and Michelle are homeowners. They also have a baby and, of course, they give money to church and charity. So that means they itemize their taxes. Under our proposal, we double the standard deduction to twice that for single people, under our proposal. That helps those who do not itemize, but if we are going to help people like Michelle and Shad Hallihan, we have to help itemizers. That means we need to widen the tax bracket so in the 15 percent bracket two joint filers, a couple with two incomes, have to be able to earn twice as much as what a single person can earn in that tax bracket. Under our proposal, in the 15 percent tax bracket, we widen it so that two- earner households can earn twice as much. That will help Shad and Michelle Hallihan. I would point out that the proposal that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) talked about would not help those who itemize. And think about it. Most middle-class families who itemize their taxes itemize because they own a home or they give money to church and charity. We as Members of Congress can all think of our neighbors back home, middle-class working families who pursue the American dream; they buy a home and because of their mortgage interest costs and because of their property taxes, they itemize their taxes. The Democrats say if one itemizes their taxes, they are rich so they should continue to suffer the marriage tax penalty. Now, Michelle and Shad make $62,000 a year. Back in the south suburbs of Chicago, that is kind of a middle-class working family. Under the Democrat definition of rich, they are rich making $62,000 a year. Mr. Speaker, our goal is to make the Tax Code more fair. When I am in the south side of Chicago at a steel workers hall in the Tenth Ward or a legion post in Joliet or at a local iron workers hall in La Salle or a Chamber of Commerce function or coffee shop, people tell me theirs taxes are too high but they also point out that the Tax Code is unfair. That is why we should help people like Michelle and Shad Hallihan. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us go to conference.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, let me just briefly address my friend from Maryland's motion to instruct. He talks about our legislation as to whether or not it should be fiscally responsible. It is fiscally responsible. We use that surplus tax revenue and use that to bring fairness to the Tax Code. He says that we should delay implementation of the marriage tax relief, and I believe that would hurt those low-income and moderate- income and middle-income families that we want to help, so we do not want to delay that. So I am concerned about that idea. Then he also talks about those who do not suffer the marriage tax penalty, whether or not they should receive any relief. The chairman pointed out the stay-at-home moms, people like my sister, Pat, who took a few years out of the workforce to be home with her children, so she could be home with the kids before they were old enough to go to school. I admire people who do that, and we do not mind helping them. I would also point out in the Democrat alternative that the House voted down just this past week, they provided a similar proportion of relief to those who do not suffer the marriage tax penalty. So I would point out their proposal did the same thing. Last, they talk about low- and moderate-income families. The bottom line is, their proposal would not help low- and moderate-income families who happen to be homeowners. We believe if you are a homeowner and itemize your taxes, you should receive relief as well. Mr. Speaker, I have often come to the floor of this House, along with many of my colleagues, and asked a very basic and fundamental question, and that is, is it right, is it fair, that under our Tax Code a married working couple, a husband and wife with two incomes, pay higher taxes under our Tax Code just because they are married; higher taxes than an identical working couple who choose not to marry, who choose to live together outside of marriage, who actually save money by not participating in marriage. I think it is wrong that 25 million married working couples, on average, pay $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married. I have with me a photo of Shad and Michelle Hallihan. They are two public school teachers from Joliet, Illinois. They suffer the marriage tax penalty. Their income is about $62,000 a year, their salary as teachers. Shad is at Joliet High School, and Michelle is at Manhattan Junior High. They are at similar incomes, but if they chose to stay single and just live together, they would save about $1,000 in taxes; but they chose to get married. Under our Tax Code, they pay higher taxes. I would point out that under our legislation, the only way we can eliminate that $1,000 marriage tax penalty for Shad and Michelle Hallihan of the Joliet area is if we help those who itemize their taxes, because Michelle and Shad Hallihan, of course they have a little baby, Ben, who is in his first year, but they also happen to be homeowners. Like most middle-class families who itemize their taxes, they are homeowners. Because their combined property taxes and mortgage interest are more than the standard deduction, they itemize. Mr. Speaker, the only way we can help those who happen to be homeowners, those who give to their institutions of faith and charity, marriage tax relief, is if we widen the tax bracket. Under our legislation, we double the standard deduction for those who do not itemize, wiping out the marriage tax penalty for, I think, about 9 million couples. But in order to help all 25 million married working couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty, we have to help those who itemize as well. Under our legislation, we widen the 15 percent tax bracket so people like Michelle and Shad Hallihan can earn twice as much and stay in the 15 percent tax bracket, the lowest bracket. Under our legislation, we wipe out the marriage tax penalty for people like Michelle and Shad Hallihan who make about $62,000 a year. Think about it: $1,400, the average marriage tax penalty, that is a washer and a dryer. In Joliet, Illinois, for people like them, that is 3 months of day care for little Ben at a local day care center; it is a year's tuition at Joliet Junior College if Shad and Michelle would like to go back to school. The bottom line is, in this Congress, we want to help our schools, we want to strengthen Medicare and Social Security, we want to pay down the national debt, and we are making tremendous progress on that agenda; but we also want to make the Tax Code more fair, so that if a husband and wife choose to get married and choose to both be in the workforce, they do not pay higher taxes. Our legislation accomplishes that goal, and we have come so far in this campaign to eliminate the marriage tax penalty over the last several years. We have an opportunity, with a strong bipartisan vote, and I would point out that the legislation we passed out of the House this past week was supported by every House Republican, and I was pleased to say that 48 Democrats broke with their leadership and joined to make it a strong bipartisan vote to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. That was a great accomplishment for this House, that Democrats and Republicans came together. My hope is that by the end of this week when we send to the President legislation that wipes out the marriage tax penalty for 25 million married working couples, that the President will join with us. I hope we can make it a bipartisan effort. I urge a bipartisan ``yes'' vote.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 894, the No Second Chances for Murderers, Rapists, or Child Molesters Act (Aimee's Law). Each year more than 14,000 murders, rapes, and sexual assaults are committed by previously convicted murderers and sex offenders. While the United States has been moving towards lengthy mandatory sentences for a number of crimes, sentences for murder, child molestation and rape often fall short. Aimee's Law would add accountability to the existing formula for distributing federal crime funds to states that convict a murderer, rapist, or child molester, if that criminal had previously been convicted of the same crime in a different state. The cost of prosecuting and incarcerating the criminal would be deducted from the federal crime funds intended to go to the state where a criminal previously committed one of these horrible crimes, and instead be sent to the state that is forced to prosecute the same criminal, for the same crime, against another innocent victim. Tragedies like this are happening all across America, including in my home state. This type of tragedy struck close to home when a child in my District was molested and murdered by a repeat offender. Every day that we wait to pass this bill we put another innocent person at risk of being harmed. I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense legislation.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has used his entire allotment?

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say to my good friend from Texas that if he chooses to vote against our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, he will vote to deny 114,000 married taxpayers in the 17th district of Texas, many of whom are ranchers and farmers, relief from the marriage tax penalty, and that is just not fair. I would extend an invitation to my good friend from Texas.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I extend an invitation to the gentleman from Texas to join us in a bipartisan effort and to join the 48 Democrats who already voted for this legislation.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill), my good friend, and a leader in the effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to my good friend from New Jersey that if he chooses to vote against our bipartisan effort to wipe out the marriage tax penalty, that he will be voting to deny 128,000 married taxpayers in the Sixth District of New Jersey relief from the marriage tax penalty, and that is just not fair. And I want to invite my good friend to join those 48 House Democrats who broke with their leadership and vote in a bipartisan way to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would say to the previous speaker that if he votes against this legislation, he will deny about 30,000 married couples in the 15th district in New York relief from the marriage tax penalty, and that is just not fair. We believe it is time to eliminate the marriage tax penalty once and for all. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud of the accomplishments of this Congress. I am proud that we are now in the process of balancing the budget for the 4th year in a row. We locked away 100 percent of Social Security and stopped the raid on Social Security. We are on track to pay off the national debt by 2013, having already paid down the national debt by $350 billion. Just this past week we passed and sent to the Senate legislation providing prescription drug coverage available for all seniors under Medicare. I am proud of those accomplishments. And of course part of our agenda is not only to accomplish those accomplishments, but also to bring fairness to the Tax Code. We have often asked in the House Chambers, many of us, is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code 25 million married working couples, on average, pay almost $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married. Now, is that right, is that fair, that if a couple chooses to participate in the most basic institution in our society, marriage, that they are going to pay higher taxes if they work? Unfortunately, under our Tax Code, that is true. If a husband and wife are both in the workforce, both the man and the woman are in the workforce, a two-income household, under our Tax Code they will file jointly and, because of that, they will pay a marriage tax penalty. That is just wrong. We have made this a priority, to eliminate the marriage tax penalty suffered by 25 million married working couples. I was proud a year and a half ago, when we introduced a bipartisan bill, legislation sponsored by myself and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner), Republicans and Democrats, that 233 Members joined as cosponsors of our legislation to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. And I was so proud in February when this House passed our legislation with a bipartisan vote, which included every House Republican as well as 48 Democrats who broke rank with their leadership and supported our efforts to wipe out the marriage tax penalty for 25 million married working couples. In the well, Mr. Speaker, I have a photo of three constituents from Joliet, Illinois, Shad and Michelle Hallihan. When we first introduced our bill almost a year and a half ago to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, Shad and Michelle were newlyweds. Because of delays put forth by the other party, using every parliamentary procedure to block passage in the Senate of our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, time has gone on, and now Michelle and Shad have a baby by the name of Ben. For Michelle and Shad Hallihan, two public school teachers from Joliet, Illinois, the marriage tax penalty is real money. Michelle and Shad, their combined income is in the low $60,000 range, about $62,000. If they filed as single, chose not to marry, lived together and filed as single people, they would each pay in the 15 percent tax bracket. But because they chose to get married, Michelle and Shad Hallihan pay a marriage tax penalty. Of course, when we think about Joliet, Illinois, $1,400 is a year's tuition at our local community college, Joliet Junior College; it is 3 months day care at a day care center for little Ben; and it is also a washer and dryer for their home. It is real money for real people. I would point out that Ben, who is growing very rapidly, by the time he is 18, if we eliminate the marriage tax penalty for Michelle and Shad Hallihan, $1,400 over 18 years is over $25,000 that they can invest in a college fund for Ben for his future. It is real money for real people, and that is why we need to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I am proud our bipartisan proposal, which is essentially identical to what we passed out of the House earlier this year in February. And of course now we are working to protect ourselves from a filibuster in the Senate, which is why we have to vote on it again today. We do several things. We help those who itemize and those who do not itemize. We help those who are poor working folks who utilize the earned-income tax credit. And we also protect parents from the AMT's impact on the child tax credit. We double the standard deduction for those who do not itemize to twice that of singles. That helps those who do not itemize their taxes. And for those who do itemize, I would point out that it is likely they, of course, own a home, so that they have a mortgage and property taxes that they use to deduct, as well as to give money to their church or synagogue or institutions of faith and charity. So they itemize their taxes. And the only way to provide marriage tax relief for those who itemize is to widen the 15 percent bracket. So that those who are in the 15 percent bracket as joint filers can earn twice as much as single filers in the 15 percent bracket. We provide marriage tax relief for those on earned-income tax credit, and again I would point out that we protect those who benefit from the child tax credit, the $500 per child tax credit from AMT. The bottom line is we want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It is an issue of fairness for 25 million working couples, 50 million Americans; people like Michelle and Shad Hallihan, parents of little Ben. Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle have realized they needed to respond and they are now offering an alternative, but I would point out that those who are middle class and homeowners are stuck with the marriage tax penalty. Under their proposal, middle class homeowners who itemize receive no marriage tax relief. They are left out because they think those individuals are rich, because they own a home. That is just wrong. We believe that suffering the marriage tax penalty is wrong no matter who the individual is. If couples are suffering the marriage tax penalty, it should be eliminated. That is the bottom line. Mr. Speaker, let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty in a way that benefits every one of those 25 million couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty. We have bipartisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker, if he votes against this legislation wiping out the marriage tax penalty, he will vote to deny 120,000 married taxpayers in the 12th District of Michigan relief from the marriage tax penalty. That is just not fair. We need to work together to eliminate the marriage tax penalty as it affects everyone once and for all. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud of the accomplishments of this Congress. We balanced the budget, the first time in 28 years; we are now balancing it for the 4th year in a row. We stopped the raid on Social Security just this past week. Sometimes I think my friends on the other side of the aisle have amnesia, because we have already passed prescription drugs, provided prescription drugs for our seniors, we are paying off the national debt with a plan we have adopted by the year 2013, already paying down the debt by $350 billion; and we are also working to make our Tax Code more fair, particularly more fair for working and middle class families. We have often asked in this House, many of us, a pretty basic, fundamental question. That is, is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code, married working couples pay higher taxes because they are married? Do we think it is right that 25 million married working couples, on average, pay $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married, compared to identical couples with identical incomes who live together outside of marriage. That is wrong. We are fortunate that in February this House passed legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support, legislation that was initiated by myself and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner), a Democrat, a bipartisan bill that had 233 cosponsors. It passed this House in February with the support not only of every House Republican, but 48 Democrats broke ranks with their leadership and voted to eliminate the marriage tax penalty for 25 million married working couples. Unfortunately, in the Senate, the Democratic leadership has used every parliamentary procedure possible to block this legislation. We are now forced to move through the reconciliation process so that the majority can rule in the Senate. The bottom line is, we want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It is wrong, it is unfair. Let me introduce Shad and Michelle Hallihan. This is a photo of them when we introduced the bill a year-and-a-half ago to wipe out the marriage tax penalty. Shad and Michelle are two Joliet township high school teachers, they suffer the marriage tax penalty because they are both in the workforce and, of course, the marriage tax penalty of $1,400 that they suffer is a lot of money in Joliet, Illinois, the south suburbs of Chicago. Mr. Speaker, $1,400 for Michelle and Shad Hallihan, that is a year's tuition at our local community college, Joliet Junior College, which is our Nation's oldest. It is also 3 months of day care for a child. That is why I think it is important to introduce a new photo of Shad and Michelle Hallihan. Since they were married at the time that we introduced the legislation, they have since had a baby, and if Al Gore and my friends on the other side of the aisle had their way, the child will probably be grown and out of college by the time we eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Shad and Michelle have a little boy by the name of Ben. Little Ben has brought a lot of joy to their life, but because of the marriage tax penalty, there is $1,400 that goes out of the pocketbooks of Shad and Michelle and comes to Washington, money that they can use to take care of little Ben and $1,400. That is about 3,000 diapers. That is a lot of diapers for little Ben. Over 18 years, that $1,400 a year, if they just set that full amount in a college fund, that is over $25,000 that Shad and Michelle can invest in little Ben and little Ben's future for college. So the marriage tax penalty is real money for real people. Shad and Michelle, the way they suffer the marriage tax penalty is the marriage tax penalty occurs when you have a husband and wife who are both in the workforce, they combine their income when they are married, file jointly, and when they combine their income, that means they are pushed into a higher tax bracket. If Shad and Michelle had chosen to stay single and just live together, they each, because of their income, would file in the 15 percent tax bracket. But they chose to participate in the most basic institution in our society which is marriage, and Shad and Michelle, because they are married, now pay in the 28 percent tax bracket. They suffer the marriage tax penalty. We believe it is wrong. We want to help Michelle and Shad Hallihan as well as little Ben to make sure he has a future and they have the resources for this. Mr. Speaker, under our bipartisan proposal, we do several things. We help those who do not itemize their taxes by doubling the standard deduction for joint filers at twice that of singles, and that helps about 9 million couples of those who suffer the marriage tax penalty. Those are the nonitemizers. Well, the rest, subtracting 9 from 25, that leaves 18 million couples who itemize their taxes who suffer the marriage tax penalty and they are people who are average folks, middle class, but they probably own a house. So if you own a home, you probably itemize your taxes, and the only way you can receive marriage tax relief is if we provide marriage tax relief as part of our proposal. We do that by widening the most basic bracket, the 15 percent bracket so you can earn twice as much in the 15 percent bracket if you are a joint filer as a single person, and that is how we help Michelle and Shad Hallihan as well as little Ben prepare for his future by widening the 15 percent bracket. I would also point out in our legislation that we provide marriage tax relief for those who participate in the earned income tax credit, ensuring that they also participate and receive marriage tax relief. We also protect those who use the child tax credit for the alternative minimum tax. So we help both itemizers as well as nonitemizers, poor working families, and protect those from the AMT. Mr. Speaker, I believe we need to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I want to thank my friends on the other side of the aisle, particularly the 48 who joined with us, and I invite more Democrats to join with us in our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I would point out that under the Democratic proposal, Michelle and Shad Hallihan would not receive any relief. If one itemizes their taxes, they would receive no relief under the Democratic proposal. If one is a homeowner and middle class and itemize your taxes, you receive no marriage tax relief under the Democratic proposal. Democrats say they do not want to help special interests, so I guess they say if you are middle class and you own a home and you itemize your taxes, you are stuck and you are still going to suffer the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, we have a bipartisan proposal that helps those who itemize, primarily homeowners; we help those who do not itemize, we help those on earned income tax credit, and we help those who may suffer the alternative minimum tax. It is a good bipartisan proposal. I urge adoption of this rule, and I invite strong bipartisan support of our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.