[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 76 (Tuesday, June 11, 2002)]
[House]
[Page H3302]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  MAKING PERMANENT MARRIAGE TAX RELIEF

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of January 23, 2002, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I just want to 
kind of just make a comment. I find it is always interesting that my 
Democratic friends advocate permanent increases in spending and they 
are always first in line to advocate permanent increases in taxes, but 
they will fight tooth and nail any permanent tax cut. That is what I 
would like to talk about today, and that is, the fact that just a 
little over a year ago today President Bush signed into law a tax cut, 
a tax cut unfortunately because of congressional rules that had to be a 
temporary measure; but this was a tax cut which provided across-the-
board tax relief for every American.
  When President Bush became President, he inherited a weak economy; 
and he said if we could put a little bit of money back into the 
pocketbooks of working families, they will have some extra money to 
meet their needs back home; and, frankly, that money in the private 
sector will get our economy moving again, and of course, economists 
told us that since that bill was signed into law in June that by Labor 
Day of last year the economy was on the rebound. Unfortunately, the 
consequence of a terrorist attack just a new days later, as we know, 
shocked the confidence of consumers and investors; and of course, we 
are working to get our economy moving again.
  As we work on getting our economy moving again, we also recognize 
that permanency in the Tax Code affects decision-making; and that is 
why last week we passed legislation to make permanent the elimination 
of the death tax, which will benefit family farmers and small 
businesses who are making long-term investment decisions knowing the 
tax consequences. That is good for the economy.
  Today, I want to talk about legislation that we are going to be 
bringing before the House later this week, and this is legislation to 
make permanent the marriage tax relief that was in the Bush tax cut 
that we enacted 1 year ago.
  Like many of my colleagues, I have come to the floor over the last 
several years asking a very fundamental question, that is, Is it right, 
is it fair that under our Tax Code married working couples paid higher 
taxes than two single people who chose to live together? Is it right, 
is it fair that 43 million married working couples paid on average 
about $1,700 more in higher taxes just because they are married? Is it 
right, is it fair that our Tax Code, prior to this past year, punished 
society's most basic institution with higher taxes?
  I am proud to say that thanks to the leadership of House Republicans, 
under the leadership of Speaker Hastert, we fought time and time again 
to eliminate the marriage tax penalty; and while we suffered vetoes 
under President Clinton, we are proud to say that under President Bush 
the marriage tax penalty was eliminated. We helped married couples in a 
number of ways, three ways as a matter of fact.
  First, we doubled the standard deduction that is used by families who 
do not itemize their taxes. Almost 9 million married working couples do 
not itemize their taxes. So they use the standard deduction, and we 
doubled the standard deduction to be twice that for singles, 
eliminating their marriage penalty.
  For those who itemize, such as those who give to their institution of 
faith, their church, their charity, synagogue or temple or mosque, we 
recognize that most married couples itemize their taxes if they own a 
home, for example, and we helped those by widening the 15 percent tax 
break so they could earn twice as much as a married couple as a single 
person and stay in the 15 percent tax bracket. We eliminate their 
marriage tax penalty.
  Third, for low-income families who utilize and are helped by the 
earned income credit, we eliminate their marriage tax penalty as well. 
So we help low-income working middle-class married couples who have 
suffered the marriage tax penalty.
  Let me give my colleagues an example of a married couple from Joliet, 
Illinois, in the district I represent in the south suburbs of Chicago. 
Jose and Magdalena Castillo, they are laborers. They have a combined 
income of $82,000. That is their combined income. Their children are 
Eduardo and Carolina. They are happy people. They work hard, great 
American citizens, enjoying life in the south suburbs of Chicago; but 
they suffered the marriage tax penalty because they chose to get 
married, and we believe the Tax Code should be marriage neutral.
  Prior to the Bush tax cut being signed into law, Jose and Magdalena 
Castillo paid about $1,150 more in higher taxes just because they were 
married. If they chose to get divorced and live together, they would 
have saved $1,150 a year. Jose and Magdalena Castillo were helped by 
the Bush tax cut, which originated right here in the House of 
Representatives; and I am proud to say that that was signed into law 
last year, and for the next few years, the marriage tax penalty for the 
Castillo family will be eliminated.
  If this Congress does nothing, it will be made permanent, and I 
believe we need to help married working couples; and this week, on 
Thursday, we are going to be voting to make permanent the marriage tax 
penalty relief in the Bush tax cut, and my hope is that we will have 
bipartisan support, that even our Democratic friends will join with us, 
in making marriage tax penalty relief permanent to help couples like 
Jose and Magdalena Castillo of Joliet, Illinois.

                          ____________________