Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I say to the previous speaker, elimination of the marriage tax penalty is not only an issue of tax fairness, it is an issue of tax simplification, and that if he chooses to vote against this legislation, he will vote to deny 122,000 married taxpayers in the 2nd District of Massachusetts relief from the marriage tax penalty. That is not fair. I invite him to join the 48 Members of the Democratic party on the other side of the aisle who voted with Republicans to eliminate the marriage tax penalty once and for all. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) a very distinguished and senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would remind my good friend and colleague from Washington State that it was a Republican Congress that for the first time locked away 100 percent of Social Security and Medicare, stopping the raid. It was a Democrat Congress that raided the Social Security trust fund for 30 years. I would also say to the previous speaker that if he votes against this effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, he will vote to deny 106,000 married taxpayers in the seventh district of Washington relief from the marriage tax penalty. That is not fair. I invite him to join the 48 Democrats earlier this year who broke with him and voted with the Republicans to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), one of the leaders, a proven leader in the effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, one of the chief sponsors of the Weller-McIntosh-Danner Marriage Tax Elimination Act.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I note my friend's comments about one-half of the relief going to those who do not suffer the marriage tax penalty. If they analyzed their own bill, what they do with the standard deduction provides a similar proportion of those who do not suffer the marriage tax penalty some relief. I would also say to the previous speaker that if he votes against this legislation to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, he votes to deny 132,000 married taxpayers in the third district of Maryland relief from the marriage tax penalty. That is just not fair. I want to invite my friend from Maryland to join the 48 other Democrats who have broken with their leadership and are supporting efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty once and for all. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a senior and respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Texas, the previous speaker, if he votes against this legislation, this bipartisan legislation to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, he will vote to deny 116,000 married taxpayers in the 10th District of Texas relief from the marriage tax penalty. By voting for the Democrat substitute, one votes to discriminate against those who itemize, particularly middle-class, married couples who own a home. I also want to extend an invitation to my friend from Texas to join the 48 Democrats who broke with their leadership this spring and vote in a bipartisan way to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp). (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, of course, I want to once again remind my good friend from New York, the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, that this legislation, when it passed the House earlier this year, it received bipartisan support. Forty-eight Democrat Members of the House joined every House Republican to vote yes to eliminate the marriage tax penalty for 25 million married working couples. I would also point out to the previous speaker that if you vote against our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty in a bipartisan way, you will vote to deny 60,000 married taxpayers in the 15th District of New York relief from the marriage tax penalty. That is just not fair. Again, I want too extend an invitation to my friend from New York to join us in a bipartisan effort, join those 48 House Democrats who voted with Republicans, to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), a distinguished Member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my good friend from Mississippi, who I share many of his concerns on behalf of our friends, I would point out many of our military men and women suffer the marriage tax penalty, and invite him to join with us in a bipartisan efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, to close, I yield the balance of my time to my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a leading and respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. WELLER. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to briefly respond to my good friend from New York, and I respect his efforts to offer a proposal addressing the marriage tax penalty, and I would point out that even though he means well, his proposal falls short. Unfortunately, under the Democratic alternative, there is a very large group who suffer from the marriage tax penalty who are left out, essentially discriminated against under the Democratic alternative, and they are those who itemize their taxes. I would point out that those who primarily itemize their taxes are middle-class families, middle- class married couples who itemize their taxes because they give money to charity, their church or their synagogue, their temple, institutions of faith and charity, or they own a home. So if we think about it, we think about our constituents back home, married couples who, of course, suffer the marriage tax penalty and whether or not they own a home and, of course, I have thousands of married couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty and own a home. Under the Democrat proposal, they would be left out. They would still have to tough out suffering the marriage tax penalty. Let us remember, what is the average marriage tax penalty? The average marriage tax penalty is $1,400. Here in Washington, $1,400 is a drop in the bucket; it is nothing to those who want to spend money here in Washington. But for families back home in Illinois and the Southside of Chicago and the south suburbs where I have the privilege of representing, it is real money. Fourteen hundred dollars is a year's tuition at our community college, it is 3 months of day care at our local child care center, it is a washer and a dryer. Frankly, for someone who just had a baby such as Michelle and Shad Hallihan, two public schoolteachers from Joliet, if they are able to set that full marriage tax penalty every year, that is $25,000 that they could set aside for their little child, Ben. The bottom line is, if we want to help those who suffer the marriage tax penalty, we should help those who itemize taxes, such as those who give to charity, those who give to their church or their synagogue, as well as those who own a home. So clearly, I rise in opposition to the Democrat alternative. The bipartisan effort which was supported by every House Republican, as well as 48 Democrats who broke ranks with their leadership, and again, I want to extend an invitation to those who did not support us this spring to join with us in an even greater bipartisan effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would remind my good friend, the minority whip, that the balanced budget we are working on this year not only locks away 100 percent for social security, but it pays off the national debt before 2013, the same year the President has set as a goal, and also sets aside $40 billion for prescription drug coverage under Medicare, legislation we passed just a few short weeks ago. I would also note to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan, that if he chooses to vote against our bipartisan efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, he will vote to deny 122,000 married taxpayers in the Tenth District in Michigan relief from the marriage penalty. That is just not fair. Let us work together. I would extend an invitation to join with the 48 Democrats who broke with their leadership and voted in a bipartisan way to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), a family advocate and leader in the effort to eliminate the marriage penalty.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say to my good friend, the gentleman from California, that if he chooses to vote against our bipartisan effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, he will vote to deny 88,000 married taxpayers in the 30th District in California relief from the marriage tax penalty. That is just not fair. Let us work together. I invite my friend from California to join the 48 Democrats who broke with their leadership and supported our bipartisan efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), who has been a real leader on behalf of families.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) that while she claims that the Democrat proposal provides more marriage tax relief than the bipartisan proposal, I would point out according to the Joint Committee on Taxation that the bipartisan proposal provides $51 billion of marriage tax relief over 5 years, while the Democrat provides only $38 billion; 38 is less than 51. It is simple math. Mr. Speaker, I would also ask the previous speaker, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) to note that if she chooses to vote against our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, she will vote to deny 101,000 married taxpayers in the 46th District of California relief from the marriage tax penalty. That is just not fair. I want to extend that invitation for her to join the 48 House Democrats who broke ranks with their leadership in order to join in a bipartisan effort to wipe out the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) that not only does our balanced budget this year provide $40 billion for prescription drugs and that we passed it 2 weeks ago, but also point out when he talks about a portion of the relief here going to those who do not suffer the marriage tax penalty, the Democratic alternative, one half of the relief it provides goes to those who do not suffer the marriage tax penalty, so same goes. Mr. Speaker, I would also point out to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) that if he chooses to vote against this bipartisan effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, he will vote to deny 122,000 married taxpayers in the 25th district of Texas relief from the marriage tax penalty, and that is just not fair. I want to extend an invitation to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) to join the 48 Democrats who broke with their leadership and supported our bipartisan effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty earlier this year. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a good friend and distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) that, if she chooses to vote against our bipartisan effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, that she would be voting against 6 million senior citizens who benefit from the legislation to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. But specifically, she would be voting to deny 89,000 married taxpayers in the 3rd District of Florida relief from the marriage tax penalty. That is just not fair. I invite her to join with us in a bipartisan effort, rather, to join with the 48 House Democrats who broke with their leadership and voted in an effort, in a bipartisan way, to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella). (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) that 6 million senior citizens will benefit from our bipartisan efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I also note that, if he chooses to vote against our bipartisan efforts to eliminate marriage tax penalty, that he will deny 123,000 married taxpayers, including seniors in the 24th district of California relief from the marriage tax penalty. That is just not fair. I invite the gentleman from California to join with us, join the 48 House Democrats who broke from their leadership and voted in a bipartisan effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to my good friend from Texas that if he chooses to vote against this bipartisan effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, he will be voting to deny 92,000 married taxpayers in the 29th District of Texas relief from the marriage tax penalty, and that is just not fair. And I want to extend an invitation to my good friend to join us and join those 48 House Democrats who broke with their leadership to vote in a bipartisan way to give marriage tax relief Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains in debate?

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I would inform the previous speaker that if she chooses to vote against our bipartisan effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, she will be voting to deny 110,000 married taxpayers in the third district of Connecticut relief from the marriage tax penalty. I want to extend to my friend from Connecticut an invitation to join with us and to join with those 48 House Democrats who broke with their leadership to vote in a bipartisan way to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my good friend, the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, as well as the minority leader, I want to just say this, and that is today we are here to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. That is our goal today. My friends on the other side of the aisle, they have offered reasons to vote against eliminating the marriage tax penalty, and let me give one pretty basic good reason to vote against the motion to recommit. The motion to recommit, as designed by my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, is designed to enact zero marriage penalty relief. The Joint Tax Committee, which is a bipartisan committee, has scored this as providing zero marriage tax relief. With all due respect, I would point out that just 2 weeks ago this House enacted a good plan, a $40 billion plan, to provide prescription drug coverage for every senior who wants to have that coverage. That is a great accomplishment. My hope is we could do it in a bipartisan way. So my recommendation, of course, and I rise in opposition, is to vote to reject the motion to recommit. Let us talk about the real issue that is before us today, and that issue is a basic goal of this Congress, and that is to bring about tax fairness. I represent a very diverse district, city, suburbs and country on the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs. As I talk with my constituents, they often talk about their taxes. They complain not only are their taxes too high, but they are unfair and they are too complicated. They often ask a pretty basic question, and that is, is it right, is it fair, that under our Tax Code, that a married working couple, husband and wife, a two-income household, pay higher taxes just because they are married? Mr. Speaker, they often ask the question, is it right, is it fair, that under our Tax Code 25 million married working couples pay on average $1,400 more in higher taxes? Often I have come to this well, and I have talked about who benefits from our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. The district I represent, 60,000 seniors, as well as working families, will benefit. I also want to introduce Shad and Michelle Hallihan. Many of you have seen Shad and Michelle Hallihan in their wedding photo. Well, that was about the time we introduced the legislation, and because of the delay in enacting this into law, Shad and Michelle Hallihan have since had a baby, and little Ben is now their pride and joy. I would point out that for Shad and Michelle Hallihan, $1,400 is real money. In Joliet, Illinois, for two public school teachers by the name of Shad and Michelle Hallihan, $1,400 is a year's tuition at a community college, 3 months of day care, it is a washer and a dryer, and, frankly, if we enact this into law over the next 17 years, they will be able to set aside almost $25,000 if they put that marriage tax penalty into little Ben's college fund. It is real money for real people. I would point out that the Democratic motion to recommit denies marriage tax relief for good people like Shad and Michelle Hallihan. But our bipartisan proposal, identical to the proposal that received overwhelming bipartisan support earlier this year, will help working married couples like Michelle and Shad. We help those who do not itemize by doubling the standard deduction to twice that for joint filers for single filers. We help those who itemize, people who own homes and give money to church and charity, by widening the 15 percent tax bracket. We help the working poor by providing marriage tax relief for those who participate in the earned income tax credit, and we also protect those who need the child tax credit from the alternative minimum tax. The bottom line is we help every one of the 25 million married working couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty. And what is it all about? Today it is all about fairness, fairness for these 25 million married working couplings. I want to extend an invitation to my friend on the other side of the aisle. February, when we passed this legislation, 48 House Democrats joined with every Member of the House to pass this legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support. I want to extend that invitation again today, to vote no on this motion to recommit, which provides zero marriage tax relief, and to vote yes on a bipartisan proposal that will. We all know the President has changed his mind before. My hope is the President will join with us in a bipartisan proposal to eliminate the marriage tax penalty by signing this legislation into law when he receives it within the next 2 weeks. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members, please vote no on the motion to recommit, please vote aye on our efforts, our bipartisan efforts, to eliminate the marriage tax penalty once and for all.

Mr. WELLER

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

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, over the last several years many of us have asked a question that we hear back at home time and time again. I represent the South Side of Chicago, the south suburbs, Cook and Will Counties, communities like Joliet, bedroom communities like Morris, Frankfort, a lot of farm towns. I find whether I am in the city, the suburbs, or the country people often ask a pretty basic, fundamental question. That is, they ask a question: Is it right, is it fair that under our tax code 25 million married working couples pay on average $1,400 more in taxes just because they are married? They ask that fundamental question of fairness: Is it right, is it fair, that under our Tax Code if one chooses to get married, their taxes are going to go up? We call that the marriage tax penalty, and it occurs where we have a husband and wife who are both in the work force, a two-earner household who, when they choose to join together in holy matrimony, one of our society's most basic institutions, they end up paying higher taxes than if they stayed single or got divorced. The vast majority of folks back home tell me they believe that is wrong. The marriage tax penalty essentially works this way. Let me introduce a couple here, Shad and Michelle Hallihan, two public school teachers from Joliet, Illinois. They just had a baby this year and are starting a family. But because they are both in the work force, they suffer on average the average marriage tax penalty of almost $1,400. Back home in Joliet that $1,400, that is 3 months of day care for their child at the local day care center while they both teach. That is a year's tuition at Joliet Junior College. The marriage tax penalty on average is real money to real people. For some here in this House and some over in the Senate, particularly the folks down at the White House, they want to spend that money here in Washington rather than letting good folks like Shad and Michelle Hallihan keep what they suffer in the marriage tax penalty, money they could spend on their newborn baby. Madam Speaker, Shad and Michelle's marriage tax penalty occurs because when we are married, we file jointly, we combine our income. So Shad and Michelle with their current income, if they stayed single or just chose to live together, they would each pay in the 15 percent tax bracket. But because they combine their income when they file jointly, they are forced to pay in a higher tax bracket, which causes them to pay $1,400 more in higher taxes. I am proud to say as a key part of the Republican agenda this year this House passed overwhelmingly the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, H.R. 6. Every Republican and thankfully 48 Democrats broke ranks with their leadership and said they, too, wanted to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We passed it out of the House with overwhelming bipartisan support. Unfortunately, I guess I should congratulate the Senate Democrats because they prevented the Marriage Tax Elimination Act from moving through the Senate. Of course, we are now moving it through the budget process to get around their parliamentary procedure that they are using to prevent us from eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Later this week we are going to be voting on an agreement between the House and Senate which essentially wipes out the marriage tax for 25 million couples. In fact, the legislation we will be voting on later this week is identical to what the House passed earlier this year, doubling the standard deduction for joint filers to twice that of singles. That will help those who do not itemize their taxes who suffer the marriage tax penalty, essentially wiping it out for every one of them. We also widen the 15 percent bracket so joint filers can earn twice as much as single filers in the 15 percent tax bracket. The benefit of that is that means if one is an itemizer, someone who owns a home, and most middle class family do, that is why they itemize their taxes, they, too, will see their marriage tax penalty eliminated. There are some on the other side and those at the White House who say, well, maybe we will do a little marriage tax relief, and we will just help those who do not itemize. So they are saying if one owns a home and is married and suffers the marriage tax penalty, that is tough. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, want them to continue suffering the marriage tax penalty. Madam Speaker, I believe there is a need to help everyone who suffers the marriage tax penalty, whether they own a home or not, whether they itemize their taxes or not. We have a great opportunity this week, Madam Speaker. I invite every Democrat to join with every Republican in voting to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Think what it means to young couples like Shad and Michelle Hallihan, two hard-working public school teachers from Joliet, Illinois, who, because they chose to live together in holy matrimony and chose to join together in marriage, now suffer the marriage tax penalty. We are going to help them by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. Madam Speaker, I want to invite everyone in this House to join together in helping good people like Shad and Michelle Hallihan. Let us do it. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us do it in a bipartisan way. I hope this time the President will sign it into law.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, many of us over the last several years have asked a very basic and fundamental question, and this question is going to be answered again this week, and that is: Is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code 25 million married working couples pay on average $1400 more in higher taxes just because they are married? Is it right, is it fair that two people who joined together in holy matrimony, who both happen to work, are forced to pay higher taxes if they choose to get married? Today, the only way to avoid the marriage tax penalty if both the husband and wife work in the workforce is either choose not to get married or to get divorced. That is just wrong, that 25 million married working couples, 50 million Americans, pay higher taxes just because they are married. It is wrong, I believe, and I know many in this House do believe that it is wrong, that we punish society's most basic institution, marriage, with higher taxes. That is just unfair. Let me introduce to my colleagues Shad and Michelle Hallihan, two public school teachers, from Joliet, Illinois. Shad and Michelle chose to get married a couple of years ago. They are both in the workforce. They just had a child this past year, a new baby. They pay the average marriage tax penalty of $1400. They knew that going into getting married, that they were going to pay more in taxes, but they chose to still get married. I believe it is wrong. They pay $1400 more in higher taxes. In Joliet, Illinois, which is a south suburban community southwest of Chicago, $1400 for Shad and Michelle Hallihan, the average marriage tax penalty, is one year's tuition at Joliet Junior College, our local community college. It is 3 months of day care for their child. It is just wrong they have to pay more in taxes just because they are married. Now, the marriage tax penalty comes into play when two people marry and they are both in the workforce and have two incomes, because under our Tax Code they file jointly, which means they combine their incomes. So in the case of Shad and Michelle, had they chose to stay single and just live together, they would each file as singles and they would each pay in the 15 percent tax bracket. But because they chose to get married, their combined income pushes them into the 28 percent tax bracket, so they get stuck with a higher tax bill just because they chose to get married. Now, we believe in this House, and it is clearly one of the top agenda items for House Republicans, that we should bring about some tax fairness by eliminating the marriage tax penalty. I am proud that earlier this year every House Republican, and 48 Democrats who broke with their leadership, voted to wipe out the marriage tax penalty for 25 million married working couples. Unfortunately, Senator Daschle and the Senate Democrats used parliamentary procedures to block action on that legislation, and we have now had to go through the budget process, or so-called reconciliation, which is a word few people know the meaning of, but it allows us to bring up a bill with a simple majority vote. With that ability, this week both the House and Senate are going to be voting on legislation which will wipe out the marriage tax penalty for 25 million married working couples. Now, some on the other side and Al Gore and a few others say, Well, let's give just a little bit of marriage tax relief so we can say we are for it. Al Gore says we should only give marriage tax relief to those who do not itemize their taxes, those who use the standard deduction. Well, we want to help those who do itemize, as well as those who do not itemize. If you think about it, most middle-class families, most middle-class couples, itemize their taxes because they are homeowners. Think about that. If you are a homeowner, those who oppose the bill we are going to be passing this week, because they do not want to help homeowners and they do not want to help those who itemize taxes, because they say they are rich, only rich people own homes today, according to Al Gore and other people. Well, the bottom line is, the only way we can help Shad and Michelle Hallihan is if we pass the legislation we are going to pass this week, legislation that doubles the standard deduction for joint filers to twice that of singles, so we wipe out the marriage tax penalty for those who do not itemize, and then for those who do itemize, such as homeowners, or those who take the charitable deduction because they give to their institutions of faith or charity, we also widen the 15 percent bracket to twice that for joint filers to twice that of singles. That will eliminate essentially the marriage tax penalty for Shad and Michelle Hallihan. Think about it. If we eliminate the marriage tax penalty, which we are going to vote this week to do, for 25 million married working couples, 50 million Americans, people like Shad and Michelle will have that extra $1,400 to take care of their child. That is 3 months of daycare. It is a year's tuition at Joliet Junior College if they want to continue to improve their education. I want to extend an invitation to my friends on the Democratic side to join with us. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty this week.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, let me ask a basic question of fundamental fairness: Is it right, is it fair, that under our Tax Code, 25 million married working couples on average pay $1,400 more in taxes just because they are married? Is it right that under our Tax Code that a husband and wife who are both in the workforce are forced to pay higher taxes if they choose to get married and the only way to avoid the marriage tax penalty is either to get divorced or just not get married? Madam Speaker, that is wrong, and I am so proud this House of Representatives passed overwhelmingly legislation to wipe out the marriage tax penalty for 25 million married working couples. This week we are going to pass legislation, agreement with the House and Senate, which will wipe out the marriage tax penalty for 25 million married working couples. I was proud to see that every House Republican supported H.R. 6, and 48 Democrats broke with their leadership to support our efforts. I want to extend an invitation to my Democratic friends on other side of the aisle to join with us and make it a bipartisan effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It is unfair; it is wrong. It is wrong to tax marriage. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to give my strong support to H.R. 4733, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2001. The legislation supports two important priorites, the restoration of the Kankakee River and the construction of the Tunnel and River Project. The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2001 provides resources to continue environmental cleanup and restoration of the Kankakee River, a critical habitat for wildlife and one of Illinois' greatest treasures. For years, the Kankakee River has been choked by sand and sedimentation. This legislation continues the funding of studies to cleanup the River and solve its problems. Mr. Chairman, I am especially pleased that the Appropriations Committee has provided $600,000 for the ongoing Army Corps of Engineers Feasibility Study of the Kankakee River and $300,000 for the State Line Sand Removal Project. The goals of these projects will be to restore the natural hydrology and aquatic habitat back to the river, the removal of excessive sand buildup, the restoration of adjacent wetlands, and the reintroduction of native mussels into their natural habitat. The cleanup and restoration of the Kankakee River deserves high priority; the legislation before us today recognizes the importance of this project. Additionally, the Committee awarded $7.8 million for the construction funding for the McCook and Thornton Reservoir projects of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. The McCook and Thornton Reservoirs are part of the Chicago Underflow Plan, a comprehensive flood protection and water quality protection plan for the Chicago metropolitan area. Mr. Chairman, this system has been enormously effective in achieving its goals as evidenced by the elimination of 86 percent of combined sewage pollution in a 325 square mile area. The result of this progress is the dramatic increase in water quality of the Chicagoland waterways and the protection of Lake Michigan, our drinking water source. 131,000 home owners rely on the continued construction of the ``Deep Tunnel'' flood relief and clean water project. This appropriation will add to the $30 million already appropriated for flood relief in the South Suburbs and will eventually produce $104 million in savings and benefits annually. Mr. Chairman, I commend the hard work of Chairman Packard and Chairman Young and urge my colleagues to support this good legislation.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, over the last several years, as I have represented the South Side of Chicago and the south suburbs, I have often been asked the question should our senior citizens today have to make a choice between buying lunch or dinner or paying for their prescription drugs? Today we are answering that question with bipartisan legislation to ensure that seniors no longer have to make that choice between paying for their prescription drugs or paying for lunch or breakfast or dinner. We have a bipartisan plan that is now before us that is available for every senior. If you qualify for Medicare under this bipartisan plan, you qualify for prescription drug coverage. It is affordable. If you have prescription drug coverage today, another benefit is we let you keep it; if your retirement has good coverage, you do not have to worry about losing, because it is covered by Medicare as well. It is also voluntary, which means if you like what you have, you do not have to take it. We have the security of insuring that if you have a catastrophic situation, of course, that is covered as well. The bottom line is it is a bipartisan plan. It is affordable. There are choices, and it is secure for every senior.