Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today's debate is all about fairness. This Congress has accomplished so much over the last 5 years, and I am proud that just in the past year we have accomplished our goal of stopping the raid on Social Security for the first time in 30 years and we balanced the budget without touching one dime of Social Security, paid down $350 billion of the national debt, and 3 short weeks ago this House passed with 268 votes, 48 Democrats joining with every House Republican, legislation wiping out the marriage tax penalty for 25 million married working couples who pay higher taxes just because they are married. Like the marriage tax penalty, the earnings limit on our seniors is an issue of fairness. And I want to commend the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer), the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Shaw), and the gentleman from Texas (Sam Johnson) who have been tireless leaders and fighters for this effort to bring fairness to seniors. Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that this effort to repeal the earnings test on seniors was part of the Contract with America. It is unfinished business. For far too long, seniors who work after age 65 have been punished. Since the 1930s, seniors who live longer, want to be active longer and work longer, have been punished. 800,000 seniors in America, 53,000 seniors in my home State in Illinois, are punished just because they want to work when they are age 65 or older. I think of my own parents, farmers in their early 70s today who want to work and be active longer. Like millions, they suffer. Mr. Speaker, the earnings limit on seniors is wrong. Let us repeal it. I appreciate the fact the President now says he will sign it into law. That makes it a bipartisan effort. I commend the chairman and commend the Speaker and commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) my friend, for their leadership. Let us get the job done. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of Ms. Rose Marie Bell of Morris, IL, for the nearly seventeen years of service she has put forth as the Grundy County Circuit Clerk. In 1983, Robert T. Williamson retired from his duties as Grundy County Circuit Clerk. Ms. Rose Marie Bell, a lifetime resident of the County Seat of Grundy County, was wisely appointed to the position. The Circuit Clerk's seat is open every four years, which means Ms. Bell was elected on four separate occasions before retiring in December of 1999. Three of the four elections were unopposed. This shows her leadership both professionally and in the community have been cherished by the good people of Grundy County. In 1988, Ms. Bell had the uneniviable task of computerizing and automating the Circuit Clerk's office. She led her office through this trying and difficult time. When the spirits were low in the office she would comfort her workers by saying, ``And this too shall pass.'' Ms. Bell told the programmer she wanted a system where a deputy clerk could type in the court proceedings from within the courtroom and they would automatically transfer to the Clerk's office. The programmer said it could not be done, but Ms. Rose Marie Bell insisted on the installation. That particular system was used at that time by many Clerks' offices throughout the state and the code to access the record sheet was ``Rose01''. A down state judge, upon meeting Ms. Bell, said he was, ``pleased to finally meet `Rose01'.'' Not only has Ms. Bell served the public in an official capacity, she was also the founding force of ``Breaking Away'' which is a victims of domestic violence organization. The organization provides shelter, counseling, and assistance to women and their children who need to detach themselves from an abusive home life. She still is actively involved serving as President of the organization. Along with being a mother to her four sons Timothy, Daniel, Jeffrey, and Gregory, she was also known as ``Mother Bell'' to her staff in times of crisis both personally and professionally. She truly is a pillar of the community, holding a County office for 17 years, helping found ``Break Away'', being a mother of four and a friend to many. Mr. Speaker, I find it fitting and appropriate to recognize and congratulate the years of service Ms. Rose Marie Bell has given to the Morris community and the people of Grundy County.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Ms. Paula Wolff who is resigning from her position as President of Governors State University (GSU) on March 1, 2000. Ms. Wolff has a B.A. magna cum laude from Smith College and an M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in political science. Before becoming the President of Governors State University, Ms. Wolff was a tenured professor in the College of Business and Public Service between 1972 and 1976. Since becoming President, she has continued to teach public policy at GSU at least once a year. Between 1977 and 1991, Ms. Wolff served as Director of Policy and Planning for Governor James R. Thompson. She directed development and implementation of policy for all areas of state government, serving with her staff as liaison to 57 state agencies and chairing six subcabinets composed of their directors, representing 67,000 state employees with over a $25 billion budget. Paula Wolff became GSU's President in 1992. Governors State University is the only upper-division university in Illinois. The University, which serves over 9,000 students, has grown by over 22 percent within the past 6 years. Ms. Wolff has maintained a balanced portfolio of programs in the arts and professional areas. Eleven market-oriented programs have been added to the curriculum during Ms. Wolff's tenure. Paula is married to Wayne W. Whalen, a lawyer, and has five children. She participates in numerous boards and civic activities including the Illinois Courts Commission, the Ariel Capital Management Board, Metropolitan Planning Council, Harris Insight Funds, the Joyce Foundation, the Johnson Foundation and is Chair of the University of Chicago Hospitals Board and a Trustee of the University of Chicago. It has been my pleasure to work with Ms. Paula Wolff these past 6 years. She has and will continue to be a helpful colleague who is cited for her effectiveness in communicating with employers and legislators. Paula is so dedicated that she has donated her annual pay increases to the student scholarship fund. I urge this body to identify and recognize others in their congressional districts whose dedication and actions have so greatly benefited America's students, universities and the surrounding communities.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Bloom Township High School which is celebrating its 100th Anniversary in the year 2000. Bloom Township High School lies within Illinois School District 206 and my 11th Congressional District. Bloom Township High School began in 1900 in four rooms rented from Washing School in Chicago Heights, Illinois. Bloom had an initial enrollment of 81 students and three teachers. By 1901, ``new'' Bloom was built at the southwest corner of Lincoln and Dixie Highways. In 1931, under the leadership of Board of Education President, Harvey Adair, construction began on the Bloom Township High School at 10th Street and Dixie Highway. In 1934, Principal Rosewell C. Puckett watched his students carry their books and desks down Chicago Road to the new school. The school was a major architectural achievement highlighted by ``the Tower'', and later enhanced by the fresco murals and limestone statues. The frescoes were painted by Edgar Britton. Edgar Britton used Bloom students as models for the frescoes and show students in the foreground studying the life work that is being carried out in the background by adults. In 1982, Bloom was named as a National Historic Site. Bloom is the first public high school to be so designated. Bloom has experienced rapid growth over the years that required major additions to the school, including the Industrial Arts building, McCann Gym, the cafeteria, the music and art wing, the Nelson Field House, the Workman Auditorium and the Steckel Library. By 1954, a separate freshman-sophomore division was built at Cottage Groave and Sauk Trail, which ultimately became its own four-year high school in 1976, named Bloom Trail High School. The history of Bloom Township High School District 206 has been one of growth and change, with a continuing commitment to quality education and a dedication to meet the needs of a varied student population. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the many teachers, and administrators who have helped to make Bloom Township a success. I wish Bloom a successful year of celebration. I urge this body to identify and recognize other schools in their congressional districts whose dedication and actions have so greatly benefitted America's students and the surrounding communities.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, today is a big day. The House Committee on Ways and Means is going to act on another item on our agenda, an issue of fairness; and today, in the House Committee on Ways and Means, we are going to move forward on an item on the Republican agenda which helps 800,000 senior citizens, senior citizens over the age of 65, who because they need to work or want to work, they want to be active longer, or maybe they have two pensions, had their Social Security benefits taxed away. And that is called the earnings limit, or the earnings penalty. Today we are going to pass legislation which will wipe out that unfair quirk in Federal law which taxes away two-thirds of the Social Security benefits of 800,000 senior citizen who happen to earn more than $17,000 a year. We can all think of seniors that we know in our local communities who have to work, maybe they are waitresses, maybe they work or have a little hobby or they set aside some money and saved and invested well that they are making more than $17,000 a year, and today they are punished; they are penalized. We are going to pass legislation which deserves bipartisan support which wipes out the earnings limit for 800,000 senior citizens. That is a big victory as we work to bring about fairness to every American. Today I want to talk about another issue of fairness, an issue which this House has voted to address, an issue which responds to a fundamental question of fairness, the difference between right and wrong; 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 just because they are married? Is it right that a working married couple with an identical income, identical circumstances, pays higher taxes than a couple that lives together outside of marriage with identical circumstances? Of course not. It is wrong; it is unfair that under our Tax Code a working married couple pays more in taxes just because they are married. I want to introduce to my colleagues in the House Shad and Michelle Hallihan, two public school teachers from Joliet, Illinois. Shad and Michelle, of course, teach public school; they just had a little baby, a young couple, a nice couple. They suffer the marriage tax penalty just because they are married. They have a combined income of about $62,000. They are two public school teachers supposed to have identical incomes of about $30,000 each. They are middle class. Well, they pay the average marriage tax penalty. Michelle pointed out to me, she said, Congressman, as you work to eliminate that marriage tax penalty, let your colleagues in the Congress know that that marriage tax penalty that the Hallihans pay would buy about 4,000 diapers for their newborn child. It is real money for real people. And for other families in Joliet, Illinois, the hometown of Michelle and Shad Hallihan, that $1,400, the average marriage tax penalty, is 1 year's tuition at Joliet Junior College or a local community college. It is 3 months' of day-care at a local childcare center in the south suburbs of Chicago. It is 7 months' worth of car payments. It is a washer and a dryer for couples like Michelle and Shad. And they are a beautiful couple. They are young. But the marriage tax penalty is suffered by the elderly, as well. We have all heard the stories about elderly couples who get divorced because they can save money. Well, the marriage tax penalty punishes young and old just because they are married. And this House has done something about that. We have been working over the last several years to wipe out the marriage tax penalty. And 230 Members of this House joined together to cosponsor H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, legislation which wipes out the marriage tax penalty for couples like Michelle and Shad Hallihan. I am proud to say that this House voted, in fact 48 Democrats joined with every House Republican to vote to wipe out the marriage tax penalty, benefiting 25 million married, working couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty. Our legislation will essentially wipe out the marriage tax penalty for Shad and Michelle Hallihan. We do it in several ways. It has three key components. It is legislation designed to help everybody who suffers the marriage tax penalty, and we do it in three approaches. One is, first we help the working poor. Those who participate in the earned income credit, which helps those working poor families, particularly with children, well, there is a marriage penalty and we adjust the income threshold so that working, married couples who participate in earned income credit will see their marriage penalty eliminated. Let us remember that the biggest part of the marriage tax penalty is caused when we have a husband and wife like Shad and Michelle Hallihan, who, because they are married, they file jointly, they combine their income. We eliminate the marriage tax penalty by widening the 15 percent tax bracket as well as doubling the standard deduction. The Senate needs to act. I hope the Senate will join us and move in a quick way, a timely way, and in a bipartisan way to join us in wiping out the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, this House is making progress. This past week we passed legislation to address what I consider to be the most unfair aspect of the Tax Code, the marriage tax penalty suffered by 25 million married working couples who pay $1,400 on average in higher taxes just because they are married. Later on today in the Committee on Ways and Means, we are going to move legislation that eliminates the earnings penalty on senior citizens who are on Social Security who need to continue working or who want to continue working and right now they are punished. In fact, $2 out of $3 of their Social Security benefits if they earn more than $17,000 are taxed and taken away just because they want to work. That is wrong. That is what that is all about. We want to bring fairness to the Tax Code. That is why we worked to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. My hope is our friends in the Senate will join with us. My hope is those on the other side of the aisle will join with us and make it a bipartisan effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and to eliminate the earnings penalty on our senior citizens. It is all about fairness.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to just talk about a very fundamental issue, a fundamental issue of importance to 50 million American taxpayers, 50 million middle-class working Americans. I have often been asked, whether I am at the steel workers hall in Hegwish in the South Side of Chicago or the Legion post in Joliet or a chamber of commerce or the coffee shop called Weit's Cafe in Morris, Illinois, my hometown, or the local grain elevator, a pretty fundamental question; and that question 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 just because they are married? Folks back home just do not understand why for almost 30 years we have had a marriage tax penalty, which the average is $1,400 each for 25 million married working couples. In the south suburbs in the South Side of Chicago, $1,400 is real money. It is a year's tuition at a local community college for a nursing student. It is 3 months of day care. It is a washer and a dryer. It is 4,000 diapers for a child. Mr. Speaker, we need to address the issue of fairness. We need to address the issue to wipe out the marriage tax penalty suffered by 50 million married working people. It is an issue of fairness. Here is how it works: what causes the marriage tax penalty is when a couple decides to marry, when they file their taxes, they file jointly. When they file their taxes jointly, their combined income usually pushes them into a higher tax bracket. Let me introduce Shad and Michele Hallihan, two public school teachers from Joliet, Illinois. Shad and Michele have been married almost 2 years now. They just had a baby, a wonderful young couple; but they suffer almost the average marriage tax penalty. Now, Shad and Michele have a combined income of about $62,000. Suppose that they have an equal income, each making $31,000. Michele here, if she stayed single, would be in the 15 percent tax bracket; but because she and Shad married, their combined income of $62,000 pushes them into the 28 percent tax bracket, creating well over almost the average marriage tax penalty of $1,400. We want to help couples like Shad and Michele. Michele pointed out to me that the average marriage tax penalty would buy almost 4,000 diapers for their newborn baby. Should not those couples like Michele and Shad be allowed to keep money, keep their hard-earned salary, their hard-earned income, rather than paying a tax just because they are married? We are working to address that, and I was so pleased that this House of Representatives overwhelmingly supported, with a bipartisan vote, 268 Members of the House endorsed wiping out the marriage tax penalty in order to help couples such as Michele and Shad Hallihan. H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, passed this House as a stand-alone bill and addresses one issue, the need to wipe out the marriage tax penalty for 25 million married working couples. If we look at who pays the marriage tax penalty, one half of them itemize their taxes, millions of middle-class families itemize because they own a home or give money to church or charity, have education expenses. Well, we wipe out the marriage tax penalty for those who itemize their taxes by widening the 15 percent tax bracket so that joint filers can earn twice as much as single filers and stay in the 15 percent tax bracket. That will help Shad and Michele Hallihan. For those who do not itemize, we double the standard deduction, helping those who do not itemize by doubling the standard deduction to be twice that of single people. We also help the working poor, those who participate in the earned income credit, by addressing the income eligibility, eliminating the marriage penalty for the working poor as well. Mr. Speaker, it is a good bill. It helps those who itemize. It helps those who do not itemize. The primary beneficiaries are those with incomes between $30,000 and $75,000, those who suffer the marriage tax penalty the most. We do not raise taxes on anyone. We wipe out the marriage tax penalty. We help stay-at-home moms. We help those who are homeowners. Mr. Speaker, eliminating the marriage tax penalty is a fundamental issue of fairness, and that is what it is all about. Let us make our Tax Code more fair. Now, this legislation, the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, H.R. 6, passed the House with 268 votes. Every House Republican and 48 Democrats broke with their leadership to support our effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We have tremendous momentum, and my hope is our friends in the Senate will follow the lead of the House, move quickly to move a stand-alone bill wiping out the marriage tax penalty; not loaded up with amendments or extraneous riders or other poison pills. My hope is that they will keep it a clean bill and that they will move expeditiously and as quickly as possible to wipe out the marriage tax penalty for couples like Michele and Shad Hallihan. That is what it is all about, fairness. Let us wipe out the marriage tax penalty. Let us make the Tax Code more fair. We ask for bipartisan support.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs in Illinois; and I am often asked about a fundamental issue of fairness, whether I am at the steelworkers' hall in Hegwish in the City of Chicago, or a legion or VFW post in Joliet, the Chamber of Commerce functions, a coffee shop in my hometown of Morris, or at a grain elevator, and that is the fundamental issue of whether or not it is right or it is fair that under our Tax Code 25 million married working couples on average pay $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married. My colleagues, the folks back home, whether they live in the city, the suburbs, or the country, have all told me that they think it is just wrong that under our Tax Code 25 million married working couples pay on average $1,400 more just because they are married. They think it is wrong, and they want Congress and the President to do something about it. Let me introduce Shad and Michelle Hallihan, two public school teachers from Joliet, Illinois. Shad and Michelle chose to get married a couple of years ago. They just had a little baby, just a couple of months ago. But Shad and Michelle are a typical example of the 1.1 million Illinois married couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty. Now, if Shad and Michelle stayed single and decided just to live together, they would avoid the marriage tax penalty because the marriage tax penalty results when two people get married and they file jointly. So, for example, Shad and Michelle have identical incomes of $31,000. Michelle is making $31,000 a year. Under our Tax Code, if she is single, she pays at a 15 percent tax bracket. But when she and Shad chose to get married, and suppose that Shad has an identical income of $31,000, remember he is in the 15 percent tax bracket as well, but when they get married they file jointly and their combined income pushes them into the 28 percent tax bracket. So they are now paying a 28 percent tax rate on that same income. Is that right? Of course not. It is time that we do something about the marriage tax penalty. I am proud that this House this past week, last Thursday, voted to wipe out the marriage tax penalty with the passage of H.R. 6, legislation that wipes out essentially the marriage tax penalty suffered by Shad and Michelle Hallihan as well as 25 million other married working couples who are punished just for getting married under our Tax Code. H.R. 6 passed this House with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. Every House Republican and 48 Democrats bucked their leadership and voted to wipe out the marriage tax penalty for 25 million married working couples. That is a big momentum. Of course, our hope is the Senate will follow our lead. One thing that I am so proud of our leader, the leader of this House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the House Speaker, I thought made a very smart decision. He made a decision to allow H.R. 6 to come to the floor as a stand-alone bill, a bill that only deals with one subject. A clean bill that wipes out the marriage tax penalty and that is all it does. No extraneous issues. Remember when the President and Al Gore vetoed our effort to wipe out the marriage tax penalty last year? It was part of a package, tax- related legislation. And, unfortunately, they used the other provisions as an excuse to wipe out our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. My colleagues, we have a great opportunity. And my hope is the Senate will follow our lead and move quickly to move H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, through the Senate as a stand-alone bill. No extraneous provisions, no riders, no poison pills. We need to keep it bipartisan. Let us keep partisan politics out of our efforts to wipe out the marriage tax penalty. Over the next few weeks, 25 million married working couples like Shad and Michelle Hallihan are going to be back home watching to see if Congress and the President do something about the most unfair aspect of our complicated Tax Code, and that is the marriage tax penalty. We have a great opportunity, and it is all about fairness. Is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code 25 million married working couples pay on average $1,400 more just because they are married? Twenty-five million couples just like Shad and Michelle Hallihan. Let us wipe out the marriage tax penalty. The House has done its job. My hope is the Senate will do its job, and my hope is the President will keep his word. Because, remember, in his State of the Union address, he mentioned the marriage tax penalty and the need to do something about it. We have an opportunity. Let us keep it bipartisan, let us get the job done, let us bring fairness to the Tax Code and wipe out the marriage tax penalty once and for all.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, of course today is known as Valentine's Day. It is a great day for those who care for one another. It is a day of the heart. This past week we had some important action in this House of Representatives which affect 28 million married working couples who because of their heart pay higher taxes. The American people have often told me that they are frustrated; they think it is unfair that 21 million married working couples on average pay $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married. That really is a fundamental question. Is it right, is it fair, that under our Tax Code, 25 million married working couples on average pay $1,400 more? Now, I represent the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs in Illinois, and folks back home they tell me that $1,400 is a year's tuition for a nursing student at a community college in Illinois; it is a washer and a dryer; it is several months' worth of car payments; it is 3 months of day care, but it is higher taxes, money that is taken from married couples, just because they are married. That is wrong. Of course, Valentine's Day is today and today is the day that we can celebrate the fact that the House passed H.R. 6, legislation wiping out the marriage tax penalty for 25 million married working couples. Let me explain how the marriage tax penalty works. If one is single, of course, they file as a single person; but when they get married, they file jointly. They combine their incomes. The way our Tax Code works is if a couple is a machinist and a schoolteacher with identical incomes, say a machinist makes $31,000, if he stays single he pays in the 15 percent tax bracket; but if he meets and marries a public school teacher with an identical income of $31,000, their $62,000 combined income pushes them into the 28 percent tax bracket. They pay the average tax penalty of almost $1,400 just because they got married. Right now the Tax Code discourages marriage by punishing it with financial penalties. That is wrong. This past week, the House passed H.R. 6, and I want to commend the leadership of the House, Speaker Dennis Hastert, for moving a stand- alone, clean, marriage tax elimination legislation. There is no other extraneous provisions. There are no excuses like the President used last year when he vetoed our effort to wipe out the marriage tax penalty. We deal with one issue, that is, wiping out the marriage tax penalty for 25 million married working couples. I would point out that H.R. 6 helps married couples in a number of ways. If one looks at who pays the marriage tax penalty, one half of married couples itemize their taxes because they own a home or give money to church or synagogue or charity or have education expenses. The other half do not. So we help both in the legislation that we passed. We double the standard deduction for those who do not itemize for joint filers to twice that of singles and for those who do itemize, and of course most middle-class families own their home so they are required to itemize their taxes. So we help them by widening the 15 percent bracket so that joint filers can earn twice as much in the 15 percent bracket as a single filer. It is fair that way. We also help, I would point out, the working poor with addressing the marriage penalty that is in the eligibility for joint filers for married couples for the earned income credit to help the working poor. So we double the standard deduction. We widen the 15 percent bracket. We address the earned income credit marriage penalty, and we help 25 million married working couples by being fair. It is time that we make the Tax Code fair. It is time that we make the Tax Code marriage neutral so that one is not punished when they get married. Of course, I am proud our proposal does not raise taxes on anyone else in order to wipe out the marriage tax penalty. So two single people, two married people, no one pays more taxes than the other. It is the fair way to do it; and I am proud that 268 Members of this House, every Republican and fortunately 48 Democrats, broke from their leadership and supported our effort to wipe out the marriage tax penalty. That is progress, tremendous momentum. An overwhelming majority of the House supported our effort to wipe out the marriage tax penalty, an issue of fairness for 25 million married working couples. I am concerned, though. I have been told that there are some in the Senate who want to load up the marriage tax elimination effort. They want to put poison pills, and they want to put other extraneous provisions on this bill. My hope is we can avoid that. My hope is that we can convince the Senate to keep it a stand-alone, clean, marriage tax elimination bill. That is the best approach. That way it is fair. There are no excuses for the President to veto it this time. He said during the State of the Union that he thought we should address the marriage tax penalty. We want the President to keep his word. We want to give the President the opportunity to do that by sending him a stand-alone bill. There is no need for partisan politics. We had a bipartisan vote when this legislation passed the House this past week; and what better gift to give 25 million married working couples on this Valentine's Day then enactment into law the Marriage Tax Penalty Act.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, we have often asked over the last several years, 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 just because they are married? Clearly the folks back home in the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs that I have the privilege of representing say it is just wrong, it is unfair that married working couples pay more just because they are married. $1,400 in Illinois, it is 1 year's tuition for a nursing student at Joliet Junior college. It is 3 months of day care. It is a washer and dryer to take care of the kids' clothes. Let me point out what causes the marriage tax penalty. The marriage tax penalty, I have got a machinist and a schoolteacher, $31,000 in income or $31,500 of income each. While the machinist stays single, he is in the 15 percent tax bracket; the same with the schoolteacher. But they chose to get married. Because when they are married, they file jointly, they are pushed into the 28 percent tax bracket, causing almost $1,400 in marriage tax penalty. We want to help couples like the machinist and schoolteacher, people who pay the marriage tax penalty. We do that in several ways. Of course, if my colleagues listen to the folks in the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, they point out that one-half of those who suffer the marriage tax penalty, and there is 1.1 million married couples suffering the marriage tax penalty in Illinois, one-half of them itemize their taxes, and one-half of them do not. If we are going to wipe out the marriage tax penalty for everyone and be fair about it, we have to help both. Of course, that means that those who do not itemize, we double the standard deduction, which helps wipe out their marriage tax penalty. For those who do itemize, and if one itemizes, one is probably a homeowner. Most middle-class families pursue the American dream. That is why they itemize as a homeowner or give to their church or charity or synagogue or they have student loan expenses. We help them by widening the 15 percent bracket. We also help the working poor by increasing the income eligibility for their earned income credit, erasing that marriage penalty as well. My Democratic friends have a substitute. They claim it just helps those who do not itemize. That is all they want to help. If one is a homeowner, tough. But under the Democrat's substitute, according to the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the Democrat plan is phony. It is phony. It is a sham. According to Joint Committee on Taxation, the Democrat substitute they are going to offer today provides zero, nada, nothing in marriage tax relief. It is designed never to work. Mr. Speaker, we want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. People often point out that next week is Valentine's Day. When one thinks about it, for 25 million married working couples, what better gift to give them than bipartisan support that helps everyone who suffers the marriage tax penalty, those who do not itemize as well as homeowners and those who give to church and charity as well as the working poor. Let us wipe out the marriage tax penalty for everyone. It is all about fairness in the Tax Code. Not just give relief to a handful, but let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty for everyone.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) that if he votes against H.R. 6 and for the motion to recommit, that 62,000 married couples in the 9th Congressional District of Indiana, one-half of whom are itemizers, that they will not get any relief, no relief from the marriage tax penalty. That is not something I hope that he ever wants to explain to those couples back home. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, over the last several years, many of us have been raising a pretty fundamental question of fairness in this House; 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 just because they are married? Is that right? Is that fair? Of course not. Today we have the opportunity to address that issue of fairness. The motion to recommit fails that fundamental test of fairness because, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the motion to recommit, which is basically identical to what this House has already rejected, provides zero marriage tax relief. The average marriage tax penalty is $1,400. I have with me a photo of Shad and Michelle Hallihan, two public schoolteachers from Joliet, Illinois. They pay almost the average marriage tax penalty. In the south suburbs of Chicago which I have the privilege of representing, $1,400 is a year's tuition in a community college. It is 3 months of day care. It is a washer and dryer for a home. As Michelle Hallihan has pointed out to me, she said, ``We just had a newborn baby. Share with your friends in the Congress that the marriage tax penalty that we send to Washington would buy over 3,000 diapers for our newborn child.'' It is for couples such as Michelle and Shad Hallihan that we should eliminate the unfairness of the marriage tax penalty. There are 25 million married working couples such as Michelle and Shad Hallihan. I am so proud of what we are doing today. Think about it. Democrats and Republicans today have the opportunity to vote to eliminate and wipe out the marriage tax penalty, the most unfair consequence of our Tax Code. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner) and almost 30 other Democrats who have joined in this bipartisan effort to cosponsor H.R. 6 which we are voting on today. This is a bipartisan effort. Democrats and Republicans have been working together for over a year now and working to eliminate the marriage tax penalty with this proposal. We help those who itemize by widening the 15 percent bracket. Let us remember, the motion to recommit, even if it did provide tax relief, would do nothing to married couples, any kind of help for those who itemize such as homeowners or those who give money to church or charity. So we want to widen that 15 percent tax bracket. That is how eliminate the marriage tax penalty for Shad and Michelle Hallihan. We also want to help those who do not itemize by doubling the standard deduction; and for the working poor, those who benefit from the earned income tax credit, we address the marriage penalty there as well. So we help the working poor, we help those married couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty who happen to be homeowners, and we also help those who do not itemize. It is the fair way to do things. That is what this is all about. Do we want fairness in the tax code, or do we want to do nothing? If my colleagues want to do nothing, vote yes for the motion to recommit. If my colleagues want to make the tax code more fair, vote no on the motion to recommit and yes on H.R. 6. Let us wipe out the marriage tax penalty. Let us make the tax code more fair. Let us do it in a bipartisan way.

Mr. WELLER. I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to address the substitute being offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). And of course I rise in opposition to the substitute, with all due respect to my colleague, and rise in support of H.R. 6, the bipartisan approach to eliminating the marriage tax penalty. My colleagues, H.R. 6 helps 25 million married working couples, 50 million Americans who today pay higher taxes just because they are married. We believe to be fair, and eliminating the marriage tax penalty is a fairness issue, that we should help everybody who suffers the marriage tax penalty. That is why we double the standard deduction for those who do not itemize. I would point out that that benefits 6 million senior citizens. It is a good idea, and we make it effective immediately. We also help those who itemize. And the Joint Committee on Taxation tells us that half of those who suffer the marriage tax penalty do not itemize and the other half do itemize. The main reason that many middle class families itemize is because they are homeowners, or they give to their church or synagogue or charity, so they itemize their taxes. The Rangel substitute ignores homeowners and those who give to charity, their church, synagogue, or temple and itemize. We should help everybody who suffers the marriage tax penalty if we truly want to make the Tax Code fair. We do so by doubling the standard deduction. But I would also point out that widening the tax pack in the 15 percent bracket, helping those who itemize, we will benefit 42 million Americans. We also help the working poor by addressing the marriage penalty under the earned income tax credit. And that will benefit 1 million low-income families who receive higher earned income credit payments, up to $421 a year more, because we wipe out their marriage tax penalty as well. My colleagues, the Joint Committee on Taxation scored. They are the ones that tell us whether or not there is tax relief in a proposal. They said they estimate the substitute will not go into effect and thus there is no revenue impact. And what they mean by that is, the way this is written, it will never happen. So under the Democrat substitute there is not going to be any marriage tax relief. It will never happen. Under H.R. 6, we begin providing marriage tax relief for the middle class next year immediately. And my hope is a good number of Democrats will join with us. I was proud that 30 Democratic Members chose to cosponsor the bill, joining almost 240 colleagues of this House, a bipartisan majority, cosponsoring an effort to wipe out the marriage tax penalty for a majority of those who suffer it. It is a fairness issue. We should work together. My hope is that, by the time this legislation reaches the President's desk, it is a stand- alone bill, there are no extraneous issues. It is a clean marriage tax elimination proposal that helps 25 million married couples. It deserves bipartisan support. Let us get it signed into law.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), for the long-time leadership that he has given on the issue of eliminating the marriage tax penalty in his time and tenure in the House and on the Committee on Ways and Means. Over the last several years, many of us have been asking a pretty fundamental question, and that is, is it right, is it fair, that under our Tax Code that 25 million married working couples on average pay $1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married? In fact, in my home State of Illinois, 1.1 million married working couples, almost 120,000 married people in the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs that I represent, suffer the marriage tax penalty. Of course, we know that the marriage tax penalty is created when a man and woman get married. Two single people when they marry they file jointly and their combined income pushes them into a higher tax bracket, creating the marriage tax penalty. Some say that the $1,400 average marriage tax penalty is just a drop in the bucket, it is no big deal, let us keep that money here in Washington and spend it here, but for the folks back home the $1,400 is real money for real people. $1,400 is one year's tuition for a nursing student at a community college in Illinois. It is 3 months of day care in Joliet. It is a washer and a dryer for a home. It is real money for real people. We want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty for everyone. If we look at who suffers the marriage tax penalty of those 25 million people, one-half of them do not itemize their taxes. The other one-half do. Many middle class families itemize their taxes because they are homeowners or they give money to the church or the charity or their synagogue. We need to help everyone who suffers the marriage tax penalty. And I am proud that the bill that we have before us under the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), H.R. 6, legislation which has almost 240 cosponsors, a bipartisan bill, Democrats and Republicans working together. And I am proud that almost 30 Democrats have joined with us in an effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and help married couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty in three ways. For those who itemize, such as homeowners and those who give to charity, we widen the 15 percent bracket. That helps 42 million married couples. We also help over 9 million couples by doubling the standard deduction for those who do not itemize; and for the working poor, those who benefit and are helped by the earned income credit we address the marriage penalty and eligibility for those who suffer the marriage penalty under the earned income credit. Over the last several years, I have pointed to a young couple that came to me asking for help from the marriage tax penalty. This is Shad and Michelle Hallihan, two public school teachers. They have a combined income of $61,000. Under the Democrat definition of rich, these two public school teachers from Joliet, Illinois, are rich because they make $61,000. Well, they suffer the average marriage tax penalty. Of course, under the Democrat plan they would not have much relief. We provide relief by widening the 15 percent bracket and essentially wipe out the marriage tax penalty. Michelle, who just is the proud mother as Shad is the proud father, just had a baby and they point out by wiping out their marriage tax penalty they have extra money equivalent to about 3,000 diapers for their newborn baby. The marriage tax penalty is real money for real people. Now, the Democrat leadership has offered a lot of excuses, and why not, to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. In fact, they say we have to do all of these other things. Tough luck if one suffers the marriage tax penalty. Maybe in 10 years we will take care of it. Well, that is the difference. The Joint Committee on Taxation was asked to score, to determine how much marriage tax relief was in the bipartisan proposal or the Democrat leadership plan. Of course, over 10 years we provide about $182 billion in marriage tax relief. Without this, that means those married couples still pay $182 billion in higher taxes because they are married. Under the Democrat plan, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, married couples get zero relief. Mr. Speaker, let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It is all about fairness. Let us help everyone who suffers the marriage tax penalty. Let us vote down the Democrat substitute and support H.R. 6.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker, my friend, if you vote against H.R. 6, 92,000 married people in the Twenty-ninth Congressional District of Texas will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. One-half of them are itemizers. No more excuses. Let us bring fairness to the Tax Code. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to my friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the previous speaker, that if he votes against H.R. 6, 61,000 married couples, one-half of whom are itemizers in the 2nd Congressional District of Massachusetts, they will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. I would also note that my friend from Massachusetts voted against the outright repeal of the alternative minimum tax this past year. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), one of the real leaders in the effort to bring fairness to the Tax Code and one of the authors of Weller-McIntosh.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to my friend, the previous speaker, that if he votes against H.R. 6, 59,000 married couples, one-half of whom are itemizers, in the 10th Congressional District of Texas will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. I would also note that my friend from Texas voted against last year's effort to wipe out the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) a real leader in the effort to make the Tax Code fair by eliminating the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, the previous speaker, that if he votes against H.R. 6, 42,000 married couples, one- half of whom are itemizers in the 5th Congressional District of Florida, that they will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. We protect Social Security. We are paying down the debt. No more excuses. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means, a real leader in the effort to make the Tax Code fair.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to my friend, the previous speaker, that if he votes against H.R. 6, 62,000 married couples, half of whom are itemizers in the 4th Congressional District of Wisconsin, will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. Yes, we want to help stay-at-home moms and dads who own their homes. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to my friend, the previous speaker, that if he votes against H.R. 6, 60,000 married couples, one-half of whom are itemizers in the Third Congressional District of Maryland, will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. This has been a bipartisan effort. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner), who has been a real leader, in fact the lead Democrat cosponsor of H.R. 6.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne), the previous speaker, that if he votes against H.R. 6, 45,000 married couples, one-half of whom are itemizers in the 14th Congressional District of Pennsylvania will not get relief in the marriage tax penalty. Let us bring about fairness. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), who has been a real leader in our effort to bring fairness to the Tax Code by eliminating the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), the previous speaker, that if he votes against H.R. 6, 51,000 married couples, half of whom are itemizers in the 21st Congressional District of New York, will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. We protected social security. We are paying down the debt. Let us end the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) who has been a real leader in our effort to make the Tax Code more fair by eliminating the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the previous speaker, that if he votes against H.R. 6, 53,000 married couples, and half of whom are itemizers in the Seventh Congressional District of Washington, will not get relief in the marriage tax penalty. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Mr. Speaker, this effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty has been a bipartisan effort. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Traficant), who has been a leader in the effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker that if she votes against H.R. 6, 56,000 married couples, one half of whom are itemizers in the 3rd Congressional District of Connecticut, will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. The gentlewoman may be able to explain that to them, but I sure cannot. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and a leader in our effort to bring fairness to the Tax Code by eliminating the marriage tax penalty.