[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18911-18919]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   SENSE OF HOUSE THAT CONGRESS SHOULD COMPLETE ACTION ON H.R. 4019, 
             PERMANENT MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF ACT OF 2002

  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 547, I call up 
the resolution (H. Res. 543) expressing the sense of the House that 
Congress should complete action on H.R. 4019, making marriage tax 
relief permanent, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of H. Res. 543 is as follows:

                              H. Res. 543

       Whereas there are more than 36,000,000 American working 
     couples that are affected by the unfair marriage tax penalty;
       Whereas this unfair tax punishes our society's most basic 
     institution by discouraging couples from getting married;
       Whereas this burdensome tax forces married couples to pay 
     higher taxes than they would if they were single;
       Whereas a bipartisan majority of the House of 
     Representatives passed H.R. 4019 on June 13, 2002, 
     permanently extending the marriage penalty relief provided by 
     the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 
     2001;
       Whereas failure to enact permanent marriage tax relief will 
     reimpose the unfair marriage tax penalty after 2010 on more 
     than 36,000,000 married working couples;
       Whereas permanent marriage tax penalty relief will 
     encourage and promote the values of marriage, family and hard 
     work; and
       Whereas the Senate has not passed H.R. 4019 or equivalent 
     legislation: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that the Congress should complete action on 
     H.R. 4019 and the Congress should present it to the President 
     prior to adjournment of the 107th Congress so that 36,000,000 
     married couples can benefit from permanent marriage penalty 
     tax relief.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Matsui) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to bring House Resolution 
543, expressing the sense of the House that Congress should complete 
action on H.R. 4019, before the House today.
  H.R. 4019, which passed the House on June 13, 2002 by an overwhelming 
bipartisan vote of 271 to 142, makes the marriage tax penalty relief 
provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001 permanent.
  There are 42 million American working families, 42 million American 
working couples, that are impacted by the unfair marriage tax penalty 
and who would benefit from this legislation.
  My colleagues and I have often asked ourselves, is it right, is it 
fair, that under the Tax Code, that 42 million married working couples 
pay on average higher taxes, almost $1,700 more, just because they are 
married. Is that right? Is it fair that we punish society's most basic 
institution? We need to permanently eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

                              {time}  1100

  Last year's tax legislation, which we nicknamed the Bush tax cut, 
included efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It was signed 
into law by President Bush on June 6, 2001. Unfortunately, that 
legislation was temporary and expires in just a few short years.
  We helped married couples in a number of ways by eliminating the 
marriage tax penalty. First, we doubled the standard deduction to twice 
that of singles, helping families that do not itemize their income 
taxes. It is estimated that 21 million American families will be 
affected by provisions relating to the standard deduction each year.
  Second, we help those who itemize such as home owners and those who 
give to their church, charity or synagogue by widening the 15 percent 
tax bracket. And it is estimated that 20 million American couples 
benefit from the widening of the 15 percent tax bracket to twice that 
of singles.
  Third, we also help the working poor by eliminating the marriage tax 
penalty which existed in the earned income credit. This is currently 
helping 4 million low-income working couples annually, many who have 
children.
  Since 1969 our tax laws punished married couples when both the 
husband and wife were in the workforce. For no other reason than to be 
joined in holy matrimony 42 million married working couples who are 
both in the workforce pay higher taxes, what we call the marriage tax 
penalty, each year. They pay more in taxes than if they just lived 
together as two singles.
  Not only is the marriage tax penalty unfair, it is just plain wrong 
that our Tax Code has punished society's most basic institution. The 
marriage tax penalty exacts a disproportionate toll on working women 
and also on lower-income couples with children, all the more reason to 
make this legislation permanent.
  Many are familiar with a young couple from the district that I 
represent, Shad and Michelle Hallihan and how they suffered the unfair 
marriage tax penalty. And I have also recently introduced another 
couple from my district, Jose and Magdalena Castillo of Joliet, 
Illinois. And Jose and Magdalena Castillo have a combined salary of 
almost $82,000 a year. Jose earns $57,000 and Magdalena earns $25,000. 
They suffer on average a $1,125 marriage tax penalty. They have two 
children, Eduardo and Carolina. And as a result of the tax law passed 
last year, their marriage tax penalty will be reduced under the Bush 
tax cut under the marriage tax penalty provisions by $1,125; and that 
is real money in Joliet, Illinois. This represents a 12 percent overall 
tax cut for the Castillo family.
  Imagine the opportunities that this creates for the Castillo family 
and millions of other middle-income working families benefiting from 
our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. With that $1,125 the 
Castillos can start saving for their children's college education, save 
for their retirement, or put a small down payment on a new home. The 
bottom line is the marriage tax penalty of $1,125 or the average 
marriage tax penalty of $1,700 is real money to real American working 
families.
  Overall, in my home State of Illinois 1,149,196 couples will receive 
a total of $2 billion in marriage tax relief because

[[Page 18912]]

of tax law changes that we have passed into law this past year.
  What Congress must do now is to make sure that American families know 
that this much deserved tax relief will not be taken away. Think about 
that. Married couples are now threatened with higher taxes unless we 
make our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty permanent. We 
must make marriage tax penalty relief permanent for 42 million American 
working couples. That is 84 million taxpayers that benefited from our 
legislation.
  As unfair as the marriage tax penalty is, it seems even more unfair 
to consider telling couples like Shad and Michelle Hallihan or Jose and 
Magdalena Castillo that in a few years they must bear the burden of 
higher taxes, and in Jose and Magdalena's case it will be $1,125 in 
higher taxes if we fail to make our efforts permanent and permanently 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  As my colleagues already know, the House has passed our legislation, 
overwhelmingly passed this legislation with an overwhelming bipartisan 
vote. Almost 60 Democrats joined with every House Republican in voting 
to eliminate the marriage tax penalty permanently. But the Senate has 
not yet acted.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 543 expresses the sense of the House that H.R. 
4019 should become law. H.R. 4019 is a good bill that encourages and 
rewards the values that we most hold dear: marriage, family, and hard 
work. I encourage and ask my colleagues in this House to vote for H. 
Res. 543, making marriage tax penalty relief a permanent part of our 
Tax Code. Let us not raise taxes on working families. Let us keep this 
marriage tax penalty relief permanent and prevent that tax increase.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, just so everyone understands exactly what we have before 
us on the floor of the House today, this is a resolution. And this 
resolution basically asks the Senate to consider a bill that we passed 
some months ago and sent to the Senate. And what is somewhat 
interesting about this resolution is that when one sends a bill to the 
United States Senate, one expects the Senate to understand that since 
the majority of Members sent it over there, that we support it as a 
body and, therefore, we request that they take action on it.
  And so what we are doing today basically is meaningless. It has no 
relevancy. And it is just basically taking up a lot of our time because 
the other body knows that we want a piece of legislation that was sent 
over there to be passed. We do not have to tell them again.
  And if some people feel anxious about this, which obviously some 
people do, the best thing to do is walk over there. It takes about 5 
minutes to walk to the other body and suggest to the other body that 
they take it up. And if the other body says, I do not want to take it 
up, then ask why, and then you can begin a dialogue. But to send over a 
resolution that is meaningless, that has no relevance, again, is 
wasting our time.
  Now, I have to say that there are three issues that we have to decide 
before we adjourn in another week or 2 weeks. One, obviously, is the 
issue of Iraq, a very important issue and one that we all have an 
obligation to address.
  The second issue, obviously, is our war against terrorism. And 
hopefully we will be able to take action on that in terms of the 
Homeland Security Department and others over the next couple of weeks.
  The third, obviously, is our national economy. And that means we have 
an obligation to the American public, to those people that are working 
so hard in the Federal Government, to pass the 13 appropriations bills 
and get them to the President of the United States so that he can sign 
them. And what is interesting is the fact that as of October 1 we have 
started a new fiscal year, but we have not yet sent one appropriations 
bill to the President.
  Now, I believe we have passed five in this body and we have sent them 
over to the other body. But we have eight more that we have not taken 
up yet. In fact, some are very ready to go because they have passed the 
subcommittee and Committee on Appropriations, but they are still not 
brought up. And this all relates and pertains to the economy, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The economy in this country today has major problems. And for us to 
be talking about a marriage penalty, by the way, which, incidentally, 
even if we were bringing up the legislation and not a resolution today, 
this bill that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is talking 
about really will not take effect until the year 2010, 8 years from 
now, 2010. And so what we are doing is not only not relevant, but, 
secondly, it is not relevant for at least 8 more years or the year 
2010. And so what we really should be doing is focusing on our national 
economy.
  Just this last week there were over 400,000, 400,000 claims for new 
unemployment benefits in this country. The stock market since President 
Bush has taken the oath of office in January 2001 has gone down 4,000 
points, about 38 percent. The average American and many pension funds 
have lost in excess of $17 trillion, $17 trillion because of the 4,000-
point drop in the stock market.
  And as a result of that, we should be taking up issues that the 
American public will be helped by, that will become relevant to the 
American public, not issues that are 8 years off, not issues that are 
somewhat meaningless in terms of the individual problems that people 
have at this particular time. We should be taking up issues, frankly, 
that have meaning to this economy, the average American, and to those 
many Americans who have lost their health insurance benefits and also 
their unemployments benefits.
  We have that obligation. That is why we were sent here, to represent 
the American public on issues that are long term, not marriage penalty 
that will come into effect in the year 2010, but long-term problems 
such as Iraq, such as the homeland security issue, and also problems 
facing the average American today like our national economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would note to my good friend from California (Mr. 
Matsui) that there are 48,251 married couples who will see higher taxes 
in the fifth district of California unless we make permanent the 
elimination of the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 543 and want to 
commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) for his leadership on 
this issue.
  Throughout the history of civilization, marriage has been a 
fundamental building block of society. If it were not for strong 
families, I think it is safe to say our country would not be the great 
country that it is today. But this government for far too long has been 
actually punishing families for staying together and punishing couples 
for getting married in the first place.
  Now, the Welfare Reform Law of 1996 went a long way to reversing 
this. Unfortunately, some in this Congress want to roll back those 
reforms, and the authorization bill still has not passed the other 
body. But the Tax Code itself penalizes couples for getting married. 
That is absolutely wrong. We had fixed it last year, but it was only a 
temporary fix. This year, we in the House have passed a bill to make 
that fix permanent, as it should be. Unfortunately, the other body has 
not seen fit to bring it up for a vote so that it cannot go to the 
President and become law.
  Mr. Speaker, this is very important legislation. I hope on behalf of 
every American couple that we can make repeal of the marriage penalty 
permanent this year. I thank, again, the gentleman for his leadership 
on the issue.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to myself.

[[Page 18913]]

  Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman from the State of Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) was kind enough to advise me of the amount of marriage penalty 
relief in the year 2010 and beyond that Californians will receive, I 
thought it would be important just to reciprocate and advise the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) that in the State of Illinois 
169,000 unemployed people would be benefited just by extending the 
unemployed benefit insurance program by a few months. And it would seem 
to me that that is what we should be doing now, taking care of those 
people that are unemployed so they can begin to spend money and maybe 
jump-start our economy and create a little more consumer purchasing 
power.
  Second, I might just point out too, and we do not need to get into 
the substance of this issue but perhaps it does make some sense, we are 
predicting deficits as far as the eye can see. And a vote in favor of 
this resolution, just as a vote we took some months ago on extending 
the marriage penalty beyond 2010, will invade the Social Security trust 
fund, thereby further jeopardizing Social Security recipients that are 
currently receiving benefits. And I think that the American public 
should be aware of that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the State of 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and 
the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Trade.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to pick up the theme of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), actually both themes.
  One of the issues is fiscal irresponsibility, and what the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and others are suggesting is we have a deep 
hole, so dig it deeper. And as the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui) has pointed out, what you are digging out are Social Security 
monies. These are monies that people pay in taxes for Social Security; 
and that is the height of fiscal irresponsibility.
  But I want to comment on the second theme about unemployment 
compensation. It is disgraceful that the majority intends to leave here 
without raising one little finger to help people who are unemployed 
through no fault of their own in this country. We passed earlier a 
temporary emergency unemployment compensation program. It terminates on 
December 28, 2002; but you have not done a darn thing to try to extend 
it or improve it.

                              {time}  1115

  So here are the numbers and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui) mentioned Illinois, but what is true of Illinois is true 
throughout this country as unemployment stays high; 860,000 workers 
whose benefits ran out by the end of September and who remain 
unemployed. This is through no fault of their own or they would not be 
receiving this money. Add to that 610,000 who are going to, this is an 
estimate, exhaust their benefits, UC benefits in the final three months 
of this year.
  So we are now up to what, a million and a half people, most of them 
with families, and then we have another 820,000 unemployed workers who 
will have their TEUC benefits cut off at the end of December when the 
program ends. Then added to that, an estimated 800,000 who are going to 
exhaust their regular benefits for unemployment in January and 
February. The numbers are staggering.
  These are human beings, most of whom have worked all of their working 
lives and my colleagues come forth here, not having done anything to 
address their needs, and they want to pass a bill about 2011. What 
about 2002? What about October, November, December of 2002, not 2011? 
What about January, February, March of 2003?
  This shows the difference between these two parties.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains, if I might inquire, 
on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Weller) has 22 minutes remaining and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Matsui) has 21 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to yield to the gentleman from 
California, I have a note to my good friend of Michigan, that there are 
61,086 married couples. So if we multiply that by two, that is 122,000 
taxpayers in the 12th District of Michigan who will pay higher taxes, 
just because they are married, if we fail to make elimination of the 
marriage tax penalty permanent.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I know the other side of the aisle talks 
that we have not passed any appropriations bills. The Senate, the other 
body, has only sent the House two bills. I am very careful, I am not 
going to bad mouth the Senate. I am just making a fact. They have only 
sent us two appropriations bills, Defense and MILCON which we are going 
to act upon.
  We have sent them 54 bills that the Senate has not acted upon. Some 
of those are critical. The marriage penalty is the issue, but some of 
these bills my colleagues talk about like workmen's comp corporate 
accountability, the energy bill that is critical for California, we 
have seen the brownouts and the blackouts that we had in the State of 
California.
  Look at the home land security bill. I do not think we ought to leave 
this body in the House until the Senate has acted on homeland security 
and leave America vulnerable. We should pass that particular bill but 
let us just say that since the other body has only sent us two bills, 
and I cannot talk about what the Senate is doing on the floor, let us 
take any other body out there, anybody, not the Senate, but let us just 
say that the House has a budget and this other body has not passed a 
budget.
  Let us say that we have acted in a fiscally responsible way, but yet 
whatever this other body is, it has no budget, on every bill that they 
just propose that they add $1 trillion for prescription drugs. They 
propose that we add $278 billion more in Labor HHS. They propose that 
we do all these things, knowing that there is no way that when we come 
to conference, we can do that without bankrupting the country. Yet that 
other body wants to beat up on Republicans because they will not do 
their appropriations bills and play the game of politics for the 
election.
  We are not going to play that game. We are going to pass the bills. 
We are going to do it responsibly. And we will pass a continuing 
resolution.
  I would tell my friends on the marriage penalty, it is wrong. We 
should give incentive for people getting married, not penalize them. It 
is not a tax break for the rich. If a person gets married, I want to 
tell my colleagues, to start off today in a household, my daughter is 
getting married this next summer. I can tell my colleagues, her husband 
is a teacher. She is going to be a librarian. They will not make a 
whole lot of money, and tax relief for getting married will help my 
daughter and her husband get along. Needless to say, we are going to 
have to help them get into that first house, and I think many of my 
colleagues have children for whom they do the same thing.
  So it is not a tax break for the rich. It is just wrong to penalize 
married couples, and let us make this permanent so that millions of 
Americans will receive the benefit of the marriage penalty.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. While the Chair would congratulate the 
gentleman from California on being skillful, under our constitutional 
scheme, the other body he is referring to could only be one other body, 
and all Members are reminded to avoid characterizations to actions or 
inactions taken in the Senate.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just to make an 
observation to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) who I 
have a deep amount of respect for and is really a wonderful colleague 
of mine.
  I might just point out that he had said his son was getting married 
in a few months. My son got married three months ago, but I do not 
think it makes him feel any better if I tell him that we just passed a 
resolution to instruct the Senate to take action on a

[[Page 18914]]

bill that will not take effect until 2011. I do not think that makes 
him feel he is anymore richer or anymore secure in terms of his 
economic well-being.
  That is what we are talking about: doing something that is irrelevant 
at a time when in California, I might also point out to the gentleman 
who just spoke, we have 404,000 Californians that have lost their 
unemployment benefits; in addition to that, their health insurance 
benefits. And so unless we take action to extend these unemployment 
benefits, it is going to be catastrophic to many of these people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
the State of Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the House Committee on 
Ways and Means, a member also of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction 
over welfare reform.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution we are going to be spending our time 
working productively on in this body, but it does give us a chance to 
talk about the economic program that the Republicans have brought 
forward, an economic program that has cost this Nation 2 million jobs 
since March of last year, hardworking people who cannot find 
employment, people, through no fault of their own, who are now drawing 
unemployment insurance or who have exhausted their unemployment 
insurance, people who are trying to maintain their dignity and their 
mortgage, but instead of addressing their concerns and extending 
unemployment compensation for the millions of people who have exhausted 
or will exhaust their unemployment insurance, we are talking about a 
resolution that has no impact for a long time if it were acted upon by 
the other body.
  Two point seven people seek a job for every job that is open in this 
country. We do not have enough employment opportunity. We need to have 
a safety net for those people who are unemployed. Since we debated the 
resolution last week on this floor, 50,000 more Americans have 
exhausted their unemployment insurance, and yet this body does nothing 
to deal with that.
  1.5 million Americans are long-term unemployed. 8.1 million Americans 
are unemployed today. That is as high as it was in March of this year 
when we acted on an unemployment extended benefit program. The problem 
is that if we do not act again, the next time we will have a chance to 
do this will be 5 months from now, and in that 5-month period, 3 
million Americans will either lose or exhaust their unemployment 
insurance.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1992, the last recession that we had, this body, the 
Congress of the United States, enacted 26 weeks of extended benefits on 
top of the regular unemployment insurance. In this recession, we have 
done only half as well, 13 weeks. In the last recession, we extended it 
for 2\1/2\ years. We have only done it for 9 months, 9\1/2\ months 
during this recession. It is just not right, Mr. Speaker.
  We should be using the time on this floor today to act for the people 
who need our help today and not on a resolution that has no impact. I 
think the American people should be outraged that we are not taking the 
time available to do what is right for this Nation and protect the 
people who, for no fault of their own, have lost their jobs. We have 
always done it in the past in a bipartisan way. Democrats and 
Republicans have come together through every recession in the modern 
history of this Nation to protect those people who are unemployed, but 
somehow we do not have time for that in this Congress. Shame on the 
Republican leadership.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, before I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham) to respond to his colleague's 
comments, I do want to point out that in the 3rd District of Maryland 
that there are 66,851 married couples who will suffer higher taxes if 
we fail to make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. 
That is why we are here today, to talk about elimination of the 
marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I tell my colleague, I 
have got a daughter, not a son, and I have an adopted son, but I am 
speaking about my daughter.
  I would also, when you look at jobs lost in the State of California, 
Governor Davis frittered away billions of dollars, but now because of 
energy crisis Buck Knives is moving to Idaho, they save a half a 
million dollars a month. When my colleague wants to look at loss of 
jobs and lack of leadership of our governor, take a look at that and 
how it has affected every job in California.
  We have the highest workmen's comp of any of the States in the Nation 
in the State of California, but if we take a look, a lot of our 
businesses are leaving because of Gray Davis.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the State of Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I am coming to this side of the aisle this 
morning so my remarks can be heard by my Republican colleagues, 
especially the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  What are we doing here today? We have before us a resolution which 
tells the Senate to take up legislation to make the marriage tax repeal 
permanent. Are they going to get this resolution and take it up? No, 
because they are debating homeland security. They are going to start 
debating the President's resolution to provide a preemptive strike on 
the country of Iraq, and so they have other things that they are doing. 
So let us see what we are doing.
  We are passing a resolution today to ask the Senate to take up a bill 
that we passed some time ago. What is not being really told here today 
is that the repeal of the marriage penalty is already law. The 
President signed that bill last year, and so we are being told by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) that this family from his 
District, the Castillos, are going to suffer the loss of this marriage 
penalty which benefits them some $1,125 unless we make this repeal 
permanent.
  Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Castillos have received nothing 
from repeal of the marriage penalty. The reason is it does not start to 
phase out until the year 2005. So the Congress, with the gentleman from 
Illinois' (Mr. Weller) support repealed the marriage penalty beginning 
in 2005 and phasing it to total repeal in 2010. Then what they did in 
2011, it comes back into being.
  The point I am trying to make is he says that the Castillos are going 
to get $1,100 and they can do such things as day care for their 
children.

                              {time}  1130

  They can start saving for education for their children, their 
retirement, or the downpayment on a new home. That is all nonsense. The 
Castillos in 2002 are going to get zero, in 2003 they are going to get 
zero, in 2004 they are going to get zero, and in 2005, when we start 
the phaseout, they will get a total of about $223. So what we are doing 
here is sheer and utter nonsense.
  If my colleague wants to tell the Senate to take action on this bill 
or any other bill, he can call his two Senators. The taxpayers gave us 
a phone in the office. Call them.
  So the things we are hearing today are just total nonsense. And why 
are we doing this debate? Well, because the House does not want to take 
up the appropriation bills. We have passed five of 13 appropriation 
bills. The Federal fiscal year started yesterday. Eight bills are 
sitting there waiting for action, and the Republicans in the House of 
Representatives want to go on telling the Senators what to do. Well, if 
I were a Senator, I would call the House and say, Do not tell me what 
to do; I will tell you what to do: take up the other eight 
appropriation bills. Or, let us start talking on this floor about the 
shabby state of the economy.
  Thousands of jobs have been lost since this President took over. The 
market has gone down by some 38 percent, meaning millions of Americans 
have lost trillions of dollars in their retirement accounts. 
Unemployment has

[[Page 18915]]

gone up. Yet what are the Republicans talking about in the House of 
Representatives? Telling the Senate what to do. Let us talk about the 
economy. Let us debate how we are going to get this ship back on 
course. The administration is not doing it. They are incensed with 
starting a war with the country of Iraq and every day their arguments 
keep shifting.
  And if in fact we do that ill-fated deed, that will cost $9 billion a 
day, adding to the deficit. When this President took over, we had a 
surplus as far as the eye could see. My colleagues, today we have a 
$165 billion deficit, and it is growing.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
note that besides the 548,859 married couples in Wisconsin that will 
suffer higher taxes if we fail to make permanent the elimination of the 
marriage tax penalty, the left wing policy gurus for the Democratic 
party, like Stanley Greenberg, James Carville, Robert Shrum of the 
Democracy Corps noted in their strategy memo to the Democrats earlier 
this year that they really need to get behind some of their own 
initiatives on tax cuts. And making permanent the abolition of the 
marriage penalty is something that the left wingers even recommend. And 
I would note that 60 Democrats did vote with us earlier this year to 
make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Crane), a leader in helping working families.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong support of House Resolution 543, calling 
upon Congress to make marriage penalty relief permanent.
  I can think of fewer provisions in the Tax Code that are more 
offensive than the marriage penalty tax. Why we would continue to 
punish dual-wage earning families in this regard is absolutely obscene. 
Congress did the right thing in providing significant relief for over 
35 million low- and middle-income married couples when it passed the 
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act last year.
  Unfortunately, the law with it, the marriage penalty relief 
provisions, will expire in the year 2011. What happens if the law 
expires? First, the standard deduction for 21 million married couples 
will be reduced, forcing an increase in their taxes. Second, the 15 
percent tax bracket for married couples will be reduced, thus 
increasing taxes for 20 million married couples. Overall, we will be 
looking at a $25 billion tax increase on married couples by 2012.
  The time to act is now. Delaying action will, under our scoring 
rules, only increase the revenue needed to make the current provisions 
in the Tax Code permanent. This is not a Republican issue or a Democrat 
issue; it is a families issue. In that regard, I hope we can amass a 
broad bipartisan vote on this resolution and send a signal to all 
Americans that we will resolve this issue soon.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the State of Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, in a little over three months, my wife, Libby, and I 
will celebrate our 34th wedding anniversary. But I recognize that not 
every family in this country and every individual in this country has 
been as fortunate as we have. Some have had their marriages cut short 
by war. Indeed, the very disparity in the Tax Code that is currently 
called the marriage penalty originated when a World War II widow, who 
had lost her husband in the defense of our country during the great 
victory in World War II, came to Congress and said: ``I lost my 
husband. Why should I have to pay higher taxes than those who did not 
lose their husband and remain married?'' She said, ``This constitutes 
discrimination against widows.'' In response, the Congress tried, 
though not with great perfection, to correct that penalty.
  This is not a debate about the marriage penalty. I have yet to meet a 
Member of this Congress, in any of the several sessions we have taken 
up this measure, that has not voted in one form or another to correct 
the marriage penalty. This is totally about distraction from the 
ineptness of this Congress.
  Now, the specific proposal that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller) is advocating is very relevant to our current time. Because, 
clearly, since Americans will have to do almost all the dying in the 
war that the Administration wants to start against Saddam Hussein, we 
will have more war widows in this country. And under the proposal of 
the gentleman from Illinois, he proposes that those war widows and 
widowers will have to pay higher taxes than married couples in the same 
situation.
  Additionally, if a woman leaves her husband because she has been 
battered, she will have to pay higher taxes than a similar woman in the 
same situation who remains married. If one chooses to be single for 
whatever reason that individual also will have to pay higher taxes than 
those in a similar situation who choose to be married.
  This is a single person's discrimination act. It does not maintain 
neutrality without regard to marriage, as it should. That neutrality 
concept is the one that I favor for our tax code.
  There is one aspect of this tax program that has been completely 
effective, and I think credit is due to the gentleman from Illinois, 
the Republicans, and the Administration for its effectiveness. If you 
are an investor and you are getting your third quarter statement about 
now, you show only losses, no gains. These folks have given you a 100 
percent tax cut with this Bush stock market because you do not have any 
investment income on which to pay taxes. So that aspect of their 
program has been very effective in cutting taxes.
  If you are one of the more than 2 million people who have lost their 
job since the beginning of last year, you have no earnings to report. 
Republicans have provided a 100 percent tax cut for you.
  This economy and the whole legislative process related to it, have 
been very effective in reducing the taxes for some Americans. 
Unfortunately, because Republicans, through this and related 
resolutions, focus on what might happen in 2011 instead of what is 
happening in 2002, this has left many Americans behind; many Americans 
with empty pockets. So these Americans will not be paying any taxes, 
but they will not have any income either.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
note, in response to my colleague's claims that somehow single people 
would pay higher taxes under the legislation signed into law last year, 
that that is absolutely false. The marriage tax elimination legislation 
actually makes the Tax Code neutral. So that two single people living 
together or two married people living together, who are all in the 
workforce, do not pay higher taxes. So whether you are single or 
married, we make the Tax Code neutral so that married couples do not 
pay higher taxes just because they are married.
  And let us remember that 58,612 married couples suffer the marriage 
tax penalty. We want to eliminate it personally. We need bipartisan 
support in both bodies to achieve that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Ryun).
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to consider the 
consequences that the marriage tax penalty holds for married couples 
and for those considering marriage. The American people are asking why 
couples should be penalized $1,400 just for saying ``I do.''
  Those who choose marriage as a way of life to raise their children in 
America today deserve to be rewarded and not penalized. The marriage 
tax penalty discourages couples from entering the sacred institution of 
marriage. Married couples with stay-at-home mothers often have to seek 
out employment while trying to raise a family just to pay their taxes.
  While our recent tax cuts began the process of alleviating the tax 
burden on

[[Page 18916]]

married couples, one simple truth remains. The marriage tax penalty 
will be back in full force by the year 2011, when the scheduled cuts 
will expire and the penalty will be reinstated.
  I urge each of us to consider the negative consequences that await us 
if the marriage tax penalty is not permanently removed. Let us end this 
regressive tax once and for all.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the State of Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), a member of the 
House Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me 
this time, and if I could ask my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Weller), 
my good friend, a question before I begin my remarks, I would 
appreciate that opportunity.
  At the end of most of my colleagues' comments, the gentleman from 
Illinois has pointed out his assertion as to how many couples, working 
families, et al would be benefited. I am from the first district in 
Indiana. I thought perhaps we could begin my discussion with those 
figures now instead of ending with those.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  MR. WELLER. What is the gentleman's question again?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Would the gentleman have an assertion as to how many 
working families in the First Congressional District he would assert 
are benefited because of the resolution on the floor today?
  Mr. WELLER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, and, of course, 
I am on the gentleman's time, I would note that the only people who 
suffer----
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Does the gentleman have a number?
  Mr. WELLER. The only people who suffer the marriage tax penalty----
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Do you have a number?
  Mr. WELLER. The only people who suffer the marriage tax penalty----
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Well, I will reclaim my time if you do not have a 
number.
  Mr. WELLER. Are those who are working. And there are 54,601 married 
couples in your district, sir, since you asked----
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.
  Mr. WELLER. Who are working and suffer the marriage tax penalty 
benefit under this legislation.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I take my time back, Mr. Speaker.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The time has been reclaimed 
by the gentleman from Indiana. The Chair would appreciate the courtesy 
of all Members in only speaking when yielded time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I also have a 
statistic. There used to be 6,700 working families in the First 
Congressional District. They are not going to be benefited by this 
resolution, and not because of the reasons that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui) stated, that this is meaningless for the next 8 
years. It is because they have lost their job since George Bush became 
President and the 107th Congress began; 6,700 people do not have a 
paycheck. They do not have to worry about this resolution.
  I must tell my colleagues that last week, under similar 
circumstances, I suggested I was tired. Today, I am surprised, with the 
record of the majority over the last 2 years of getting things done. My 
Republican colleagues have turned a surplus of $237 billion into a 
deficit of $165 billion; they have turned economic growth into a 
recession.
  The Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 10,646 at the beginning of 
this Congress. Under Republican leadership, yesterday it closed at 
7,863. My colleagues have also been able to turn median household 
income around. It has declined. It has declined from $43,100 to 
$42,200. Maybe they do not quite need as much help.
  The resolution today talks about making permanent a tax change. 
Hopefully, by 2010, these aberrant facts will have changed. But two 
things have become permanent under my colleagues' leadership. I have 
people who have permanently lost their jobs in the domestic steel 
industry, and they are never going back. Many of those people 
permanently lost their health insurance. They are never getting it 
back. Many of those people at LTD, who permanently lost their job, 
permanently lost their health care, permanently, forever, the rest of 
their lives, lost part of their pension.
  We ought to be voting on 4646 to provide people who used to have a 
job with some real health care protection. That is what we ought to be 
doing today.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
remind my colleague from Indiana, who is a friend, that there are 
606,024 married working couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty and 
will face higher taxes unless we make permanent our efforts to 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman), who has been a real leader in efforts to help working 
families.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I congratulate the gentleman on being persistent on this 
issue over the years.
  There are not many issues we agree on in this Chamber, particularly 
as we come up to an election, but this is one where I think we have a 
consensus, which is that just by the act of getting married, one should 
not have to pay higher taxes. Married people should not pay higher 
taxes than those who might be living together, but not in marriage as 
individuals. That is the principle behind this legislation.
  Because of a Senate procedural quirk, the legislation which passed 
this House on a bipartisan basis was not able to be permanent. It had 
to be a 10 year, now because we are 2 years later, 8.5 year piece of 
legislation so that this marriage penalty relief that this House agrees 
on on a bipartisan basis expires in 8 short years. If we do not make 
this permanent, what will happen? It means that $17 billion will be 
increased in terms of taxes in 2011, and there will be a $25 billion 
tax increase in 2012 to primarily middle-income married couples who 
otherwise would benefit from the marriage penalty relief which passed 
this House.
  All we are saying today is let us make this permanent. We heard my 
colleague talking about the economy, and I could not agree with the 
gentleman more. We have a serious economic problem that started in the 
spring of 2000, as any economist knows, during the Clinton 
administration. The downturn got pretty deep over the next several 
months, and hopefully we are now coming out of it based on all the 
economic data. But my colleague was suggesting that because we are in 
an economic downturn, although hopefully we are coming out of it, that 
somehow we should not make the marriage tax penalty permanent.
  I guess I would ask the gentleman, going back to the philosophical 
basis here, should people who are married pay significantly more taxes 
than if they were single living together? The philosophy here is one 
that there seems to be a consensus on in this House, and the question 
is should we make this a tax law change, which is to say, we change the 
code on a permanent basis. Congress can always come back and revisit 
any of our tax law legislation; or should we have an absurd situation 
where it is going to be in place for the next 8 years, and then it will 
suddenly expire and we will go back to previous law where again 36 
million low and middle income married couples will end up paying higher 
taxes to the tune of $17 billion in 2011, and $25 billion in the year 
2012. That does not seem to make sense.
  This resolution, I think, is important just to shine light on this 
issue. This is one issue that we could resolve on a bipartisan basis. 
Admittedly, it is unlikely the Senate will act, but it is possible. If 
the Senate were to act, I think it would be a strong bipartisan vote on 
the floor of the Senate, and the House would eagerly take up the 
legislation, get it to the President who would happily sign it and 
enact it into law. I

[[Page 18917]]

thank the gentleman for raising it today. I hope this is one issue we 
can resolve.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. Time and time again this year, rather than being in a posture to 
work with the other side of the aisle on issues that really matter, the 
budget, the economy, Social Security, health care, corporate 
responsibility, growing unemployment, education, instead of working on 
those issues, we find ourselves again debating imprudent and ill-timed 
public policy.
  Why imprudent? Well, we were told by President Bush upon his 
assumption of office that we would have massive surpluses so we could 
afford tax cuts which are weighted towards the wealthy. Today we are in 
deficits just 2 years into this presidency.
  Persistent recession, we were told last year this will only last a 
few months, we will be out of this. But we continue to be mired in 
recession.
  Regarding homeland security needs, 2 years ago when the President 
assumed office, he could not have expected that we would need to devote 
so many of our resources to protect the homeland and to deal with 
terrorist threats abroad.
  Education, we have a President who is reneging on his promise to fund 
education, even under his own bill which he calls the No Child Left 
Behind Act.
  On health care, we all know the stories of seniors having to make 
decisions between their rent or their prescription drugs. Ill-timed and 
ill-conceived. The timing could not be worse. We are talking about the 
possibility of this country engaging in war which will cost tens of 
billions of dollars. We are talking about an uncertain future for a 
country that has got a stock market that is plunging. And we talk about 
Americans who, today and every day, are losing their jobs because we 
have a government leadership that is not focusing on putting people 
back to work.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems evident that the priorities of my friends on 
the other side of the aisle, above all else, and at the expense of 
addressing the growing unemployment in this country, above all else and 
at the expense of providing money for our schools, above all else and 
at the expense of dealing with our growing health care crisis, that 
their priority is to ensure that upper-income Americans are ensured tax 
cuts a decade from now because this policy does not affect today or 
tomorrow or the day after. It is a decade from now.
  We have got sight of Iraq and Saddam Hussein now, and we are talking 
about debating, after we should have finished a budget for the Federal 
Government and we have not, we are talking about doing something 10 
years from now for people whom we do not know what circumstances they 
will be in.
  Mr. Speaker, unemployment is increasing. More than 2.5 million people 
are unemployed today versus when President Bush took office. Two years 
ago, there was growing job creation. 1.7 million jobs were created 2 
years ago. In 2000, 1.7 million jobs were created. In 2 years, we have 
lost virtually every single one of those jobs.
  Poverty is on the rise for the first time in more than 8 years. We 
have seen the ranks of the poor increase by over 1 million people. 
Incomes are falling for the first time since 1991. Hundreds of 
thousands of people are filing for bankruptcy. Almost 800,000 Americans 
filed for bankruptcy in the first half of the year 2002. Mortgage 
foreclosures are at a record high. The Federal budget deficit has 
increased.
  Mr. Speaker, we have work to do, and it is now, today, not in 10 
years. It is for all Americans, not just wealthy Americans. Let us move 
on from here and do the real work of the Congress.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would note to the gentleman who spoke in opposition to 
eliminating the marriage tax penalty that there are 2,752,159 married 
working couples in California, and 44,685 married working couples in 
the 30th Congressional District of California who will face higher 
taxes unless we make permanent the elimination of the marriage tax 
penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cox).
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The statement that we just heard from the gentleman on the other side 
of the aisle was essentially aimed at one point, and that is because 
Saddam Hussein is in Iraq, the worry about the economy and so on, we 
ought to raise taxes on everyone; and we ought to do so on schedule, a 
little less than 10 years from now.
  At once I heard that is so far off from now, why are we worried about 
it? And on the other hand, if we do not have that tax increase a few 
years from now, then all hell is going to break lose.
  The truth is that 36 million married taxpayers, low and middle income 
taxpayers, deserve to be treated fairly. Americans should not be taxed 
more because they are a working woman. When a woman goes to work, her 
husband goes to work, she ought to be treated the same as every other 
American. But, we have a penalty right now if married couples work, and 
they do not pay taxes the same way as two Americans would if they were 
two men sharing an apartment. They do not pay taxes the same way that 
they would if they were a man and woman who were not married. It is 
discrimination, plain and simple, against working families, against 
working couples. It is wrong. That is why we want to get rid of the 
marriage tax penalty. It is unfair. It is immoral for the United States 
to do this.
  We did, in fact, pass a law here that has been signed by President 
Bush to repeal the marriage tax penalty, but in the Senate, which we 
are now privileged to call it on the House floor, because of their 
arcane budget rules, they put in this poison pill which had a time bomb 
that will blow up in 2011 and then hike taxes on 36 million married 
people. That is wrong. This says let us fix it, and we shall.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair reminds all 
Members that characterizations of the rules of the Senate or of the 
Senate are not appropriate.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, to close.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, there is an easy way to clear 
up these budget differences we have today. I propose formally that 
every letter in this institution submitted to an appropriator be 
published, requesting the expenditure of the public purse. The most 
egregious violators of budget discipline here tend to be those who 
pontificate in the well of the House about spending regularly.
  We have talked about the marriage penalty. In light of the fact that 
President Bush has requested $48 billion more for defense, $38 billion 
more for homeland security, measure that against the fact that the 
stock market has lost almost 3,000 points in the last year and a half, 
we have no enthusiasm in this institution, it seems to me, for going 
after those who have perpetuated the hoax of seizing pension benefits 
from regular employees at the same time that they would not allow those 
employees to sell Enron stock. Where is the enthusiasm we have for 
taking that up today?
  Instead, we go over and over the simplicity of the message: Let us 
cut taxes. Why do we not have the time after we have discussed this 
marriage penalty bill time and again in this institution, why do we not 
have time to bring up the Bermuda tax loophole or get a vote on the 
issue of Bermuda?
  These corporations have gone to Bermuda in the time of a war that the 
Nation is preparing for, for one purpose, to escape taxes. And what is 
the answer from the other side? The majority leader said that is like 
going to North Carolina or Florida. I guess they think Bermuda is the 
51st State.
  I am amazed that we can discuss the marriage penalty relief, anything 
that

[[Page 18918]]

says lower taxes to get us through this election cycle, but we cannot 
talk about Bermuda. The reason that we do not talk about Bermuda on 
this House floor is very simple: Because 350 Members of this House will 
vote to do something about it rather than trying to sneak through this 
election cycle.
  These companies leave in the dark of night. Name them. Stanley came 
to their senses because they finally wanted to help us do things right. 
We watched this parade out of country, and they preach patriotism to 
all of us. We deserve a vote on the Bermuda bill in this House, and let 
us send a message to the American people about fairness and equity in 
our lives.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of interesting arguments on the other 
side of the aisle. I would note that every one of them tries to 
distract from the issue that is before us today. The issue that is 
before us today is do we permanently eliminate the marriage tax penalty 
for 42 million married working couples who benefit from the Bush tax 
cut. Unfortunately because of a rule in the Senate, it had to be 
temporary.
  We have often asked in this House of Representatives whether or not 
it is right, it is fair, to punish a married working couple where the 
husband and wife are both in the workforce, that we should punish them 
with higher taxes just because they are married. In the House this 
year, we have passed legislation to permanently eliminate the marriage 
tax penalty. I would note that 271 Members of this House, a bipartisan 
majority, voted to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Even those who 
all spoke against this, I would note, all voted ``no'' on eliminating 
the marriage tax penalty, so it is understandable why they would 
continue to oppose eliminating the marriage tax penalty, that there 
were still 60 Democrats who joined with us. They saw the merit in 
making the Tax Code neutral when it comes to marriage, so that a 
married working couple does not pay $1,700 more on average just because 
they are married.
  My friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that 
eliminating the marriage tax penalty somehow just benefits rich people. 
The average or typical married couple suffering the marriage tax 
penalty makes 60, $70,000. They are middle class, they are both in the 
workforce, on average they have kids, they have a mortgage, and they 
pay higher taxes just because they are married.
  I have an example of a couple here from the district that I represent 
in the south suburbs of Chicago, Jose and Magdalena Castillo, a typical 
couple in Joliet, Illinois, who work hard and are raising a family, 
little Eduardo and Carolina, have hopes and dreams, have a home, want 
to send their kids on to college. Thanks to the Bush tax cut, they are 
seeing their marriage tax penalty eliminated. For Jose and Magdalena 
Castillo, their marriage tax penalty was about $1,125. My colleagues 
who have argued against permanently eliminating the marriage tax 
penalty for Jose and Magdalena Castillo of Joliet, Illinois, are the 
same ones who have called for repeal of the Bush tax cut, essentially 
saying, let us pull it out from under the Castillos, let them pay that 
marriage tax penalty because we need the money here in Washington 
because we could spend it better here than Jose and Magdalena Castillo 
can spend it back in Joliet, Illinois.
  The marriage tax penalty, $1,125 for the Castillos, is real money. It 
is money they can set aside for college for little Eduardo and 
Carolina. It is money they can use to make several months' worth of car 
payments or several months' worth of day care. It is real money.
  We worked when we passed into law the Bush tax cut, which was signed 
into law in June of last year to help every married couple who suffers 
the marriage tax penalty. We helped them in a number of ways. We 
doubled the standard deduction for those who do not itemize so that a 
married couple has a standard deduction twice that when they file 
jointly compared to a single. That benefits 21 million married working 
couples. They would see their taxes increased if this fails to be made 
permanent. For those who do itemize, homeowners, those who give to 
their church or institutions of faith and charity, their synagogue, to 
help the itemizers, we widen the 15 percent tax bracket so that those 
filing jointly, married couples, can earn twice as much in the 15 
percent bracket as a single and not pay higher taxes just because they 
are married. Also, we help poor people, the working poor. Those who 
utilize the earned income tax credit, 4 million married working 
couples, low-income working couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty 
saw their marriage tax penalty eliminated because of the Bush tax cut. 
Of course, those low-income working couples will pay higher taxes if we 
fail to make marriage tax penalty elimination permanent.
  I noted earlier that we had overwhelming bipartisan support of the 
effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty when this bill passed the 
House. As you know, the Senate has not yet acted. Our hope is that we 
can work in a bipartisan way and do the right thing and, that is, to 
permanently eliminate the marriage tax penalty so that no married 
couple has to look forward to the threat of higher taxes just because 
some people in Washington would rather spend their money in Washington 
rather than allowing them to take care of their family's needs.
  Mr. Speaker, this really is a vote on do we impose higher taxes on 
married couples. We have worked to make the marriage tax penalty 
eliminated. We have worked to make the Tax Code neutral so that a 
married couple, both in the workforce, pay no more in taxes than an 
identical couple who happen to be not married who are all in the 
workforce. That is the right thing to do. We can eliminate the marriage 
tax penalty.
  As I noted earlier in debate, even the left-wing policy guru James 
Carville has suggested that Democrats probably really ought to get on 
board and support permanently eliminating the marriage tax penalty 
because the true beneficiaries of eliminating the marriage tax penalty 
are the middle-class and low-income families. As I noted here with Jose 
and Magdalena Castillo, their combined income, they are construction 
workers, is about $85,000. There are some on the other side who 
probably think that Jose and Magdalena are rich because they make 
$85,000 a year. In the south suburbs of Chicago, that is a middle-class 
family. Before the Bush tax cut, they suffered $1,125 in higher taxes 
just because they were married. We want to permanently eliminate and 
prevent that tax burden from being restored and reimposed on Jose and 
Magdalena Castillo and the other 42 million married working couples who 
benefit from the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. That is what 
this debate is all about.
  We have heard so much from the other side of the aisle who want to 
confuse the debate, who want to change the subject when the issue 
before us is a basic one, and, that is, it is an issue of fairness. 
Should a middle-class couple who are both in the workforce pay higher 
taxes just because they are married? We answered that question last 
year when we passed as part of the Bush tax cut our legislation to 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Unfortunately because of a rule in 
the other body, it had to be temporary. It should be an overall 
bipartisan goal to treat working families fairly. My hope is that more 
than 60 Democrats will vote with every Republican today to permanently 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty because that is the vote that is 
before us. If Members vote ``no,'' they are really voting to raise 
taxes on 42 million married working couples. They are voting to raise 
taxes on married working couples such as Jose and Magdalena Castillo.
  As I have noted, the House has passed this overwhelmingly. The Senate 
has not yet acted. Let us vote to ensure that Congress gets it done 
this year. I ask for a bipartisan ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support 
permanent repeal of the marriage tax penalty. The unfair marriage tax 
adversely affects more than 21 million married couples. It forces 
couples to pay more

[[Page 18919]]

in income taxes than they would pay if filing individually. It is a tax 
on marriage and a tax on starting families. If anything, we ought to 
give newly married working couples a tax break.
  Several months ago this House voted to permanently repeal the 
marriage tax. The House has acted; the Senate has not. In my Texas 
district, over 65,000 married couples would benefit from the permanent 
repeal of the marriage tax penalty. The tax code is unfair and ought to 
be changed.
  It is time to say ``I do'' to relief from the marriage tax penalty.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 547, the resolution is considered read 
for amendment and the previous question is ordered on the resolution.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________