Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL

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

Mr. NEAL. I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, my friend Mr. Brady spoke eloquently, as always, about the notion of fundamental tax reform. I mean, a reasonable mind in this Chamber might ask: When? The chairman is not even here this morning. He sends out as the starting pitcher his ace reliever, Mr. Brady, to defend what we all know in the end is going to be a 1-year extension of this tax provision. Friends, this is a messaging amendment. By the way, after they get done today with repealing the estate tax, perhaps we could move in this Chamber to call this now the ``House of Lords,'' where it might be peerage and peer review that brings us here. Mr. Speaker, it is April. The birds are chirping; the flowers are blooming; the days are getting longer; and the nights are getting warmer. Spring has sprung. The onset of spring brings with it a new baseball season--that time of year when hope springs eternal and every fan thinks his team has a fair shot of claiming baseball glory and immortality. However, for the fans of bipartisan tax reform, the Republicans are saying here in April: wait until next year. Yesterday was the 100th day of the 114th Congress. It is 100 days up, 100 days down, and we are no closer to making tax reform a reality. Our Republican friends have wasted 4 months of valuable time and have nothing to show for it. They have whiffed on the 10 permanent tax extender bills that they have passed this year. Not one of these bills has become law nor will any become law. The President has made that clear, and he has issued a veto threat on every one of these bills. Contrast this with the Senate Finance Committee. Rather than pursuing a minor league strategy of passing one partisan, unpaid-for, permanent tax extender bill after another on party-line votes, adding to the deficits, they are working together to move forward on bipartisan tax reform. Democrats have no quarrel with the bill that is before us today but for one exception: State and local sales tax deduction promotes tax fairness for the States that do not impose a State income tax. It only makes sense that, if taxpayers in income tax States can deduct their State and local taxes, so should the residents of sales tax States. We support making State and local sales tax deductions eventually permanent but not at the cost of $42 billion a year being added to the deficit. This is how they have done all of these tax extenders--the party, by the way, that frequently will have us believe that they are champions of fiscal responsibility. Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to step up to the plate as Democrats and pass a bipartisan tax reform bill that really hits it out of the park for middle class people, that creates jobs, that gives special interests a little chin music--or, as we call it, the ``brushback''-- and that ushers in lasting economic growth, much the same as we experienced during the Clinton years here in America: surpluses for years, growth unprecedented. There were 23 million new jobs created during those years. That is the experience that we should be talking about today. The chairman of our committee, my friend, Mr. Ryan, is always saying that this committee can walk and chew gum at the same time. Guess what? I believe him. So, Mr. Chairman, do we prefer Wrigley's, Hubba Bubba, or, maybe, the classic Big League Chew? Let's get on to the third inning and get tax reform done, and let's stop procrastinating in front of the American people. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to come before the House to introduce legislation to exempt from civil liability emergency administration of opioid overdose-reversing drugs, like naloxone by people who prescribe or are prescribed them. I am pleased to be joined in my efforts by Senator Markey who has introduced a companion bill in the Senate. Prescription drug overdoses have reached epidemic levels in this country. In the past ten years, opioid prescription has doubled. Every day 120 people die from drug overdoses fueled by prescription painkillers. Drugs like naloxone provide the means to counteract the effects of opioid overdoses. This is a life-saving treatment, but some are deterred from providing these drugs for fear of litigation. When an opioid overdose occurs, administration of an opioid reversal drug is necessary to prevent death. But it must occur within a certain window of time before the chance of survival is lost. This is the time for quick action, not deliberations over the possibilities of a lawsuit. First responders and other ``Good Samaritans'' who have the means to treat an opioid overdose should not be dealt this burden. The bill I am introducing today would protect treatment with opioid overdose-reversing drugs by volunteers at opioid overdose programs, health care professionals, and individuals who administer the drug to a person who is or reasonably appears to have suffered an overdose. This will give first responders the resources they need to save lives. This bill only protects those who prescribe opioid reversing drugs, or have been prescribed them. And it only covers circumstances in which someone is suffering or is perceived to be suffering from an opioid overdose. Reckless use of opioid reversing drugs will not be condoned. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on this important matter and I assure my colleagues that I will continue my efforts in preserving all lives.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to recognize Chief Master Sergeant David A. Wells of Springfield, Massachusetts on the occasion his retirement from the United States Air Force Reserve. For the past 31 years, Chief Wells has proudly served his country with distinction and I am privileged to thank him on behalf of a grateful nation. Chief Wells was raised and still resides in my hometown of Springfield. He graduated from the High School of Commerce in 1984 and entered the U.S. Army Infantry School at Fort Benning, GA shortly thereafter. During his time with the 187th Infantry Brigade out of Fort Devens, Massachusetts, he was deployed to various locations abroad including Iceland and Canada. By 1987, he had quickly moved through the ranks to become a Staff Sergeant. In 1994, Chief Wells was transferred to the Air Force Reserve after the 187th Infantry Brigade was disbanded. He was first assigned to the 439th Engineering Squadron at Westover Air Reserve Base, only a few miles from his home in Springfield. Throughout his 11 years at Westover, he served in many roles as part of the Fire and Emergency Services Flight. In 2005, Chief Wells was assigned to the 22nd Air Force at Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Georgia to become the Fire Emergency Deputy Fire Chief. In this position, he was charged with maintaining combat readiness for all Numbered Air Force Prime Base Engineer Emergency Force (BEEF) Fire Emergency units. Chief Wells has also been deployed overseas to with U.S. operations in the Middle East. In 2002, he was deployed to Kuwait as part of Operation Southern Watch and then again in 2008 to Kirkuk, Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Chief Wells has been awarded numerous times for exemplary service over his career, including the Air Force Meritorious Service Medal, Air Force Commendation Medal, and the Army Commendation Medal. While he may be retiring from the Air Force, Chief Wells will continue to serve his community as a captain in the Springfield Fire Department, as he has done for the past 26 years. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chief Master Sergeant Wells for his dedication to this country and I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill in its current form. I would remind my colleagues that this amendment to the bill will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. Now, I must tell you that I, having served on the Ways and Means Committee for a long time, think that we should label tax reform as ``Chairman Ryan's tax reform by ambiguity.'' I can't figure this out. We have a set of final decisions that are putting ours in front of the discussion and the debate. Mr. Ryan stands and says: You are supposed to stick to your principles; you are supposed to stick to your beliefs; you don't need bipartisanship. And the majority leader addressed the House 10 minutes before, blaming the President because he sticks to his beliefs and he sticks to his principles and he adheres to some basic policy tenets. Well, this is Friday the 13th. What an appropriate way to discuss tax reform. But I have figured out what the problem is. They, on the Republican side, are now afraid of doing tax reform. They must be afraid of what they see as the luck that might come to the Democratic Party based on tax reform. Let me say this today, right now. Every Democrat in this institution favors 179 and favors expensing for small businesses. If anything, we would extend the principle beyond its current form so that we might include even more individuals. But like garlic to the vampire, the permanent unpaid-for extension of these tax bills harms bipartisan tax reform because it goes out of its way to violate not just procedure, but something that is elusive and hard to put our arms around in this institution, and it is called the principle of goodwill--which, by the way, used to exist, particularly on the Ways and Means Committee. It was the hardest committee to get on. There was deep thinking that you had to adhere to at virtually every tax measure. People spent careers trying to get on and, once they got on, spent careers trying to perfect legislation that might come to the aid of the American family. But not in this instance. I heard my friend, Mr. Tiberi--and he is my friend--say a few moments ago, he addressed the issue of the framework. Democrats do not object to the framework that David Camp used--or as Mr. Tiberi called him, Saint David Camp--to do fundamental tax reform. We strongly endorse the principle offered by Chairman Camp of framework and procedure. He included Democrats right through the whole discussion. And then when it failed--and incidentally, as I told you it would. When it failed, Mr. Camp said: Well, we have to do the extenders. So there is a bit of amnesia at work here today. They were in charge when we had to do the extenders in, what we might call in New England with Super Bowl champions, the 2-minute warning. That is precisely what happened. We had to do this at the very end after the referee came in and said: If we don't get this done quickly--and, by the way, another group that they disdain, the IRS, because the IRS said, for the 2- minute warning, what? They simply said to us: You will not be able to prepare tax reforms for April if we do not get this done right now. So succumbing to what had been a very good framework, we had to do tax extenders because the Republican Party rejected David Camp's tax reform proposal. Now, our proposal here is essentially the same. And Mr. Tiberi is correct when he says everybody here favors 179. What we object to is you are going to borrow the money to end up paying for it because you violate the principles that in one moment you adhere to and in the next moment you relinquish. We might think, on this side, tomorrow is Valentine's Day. There could have been some goodwill established here today. There could have been some common ground as we go forward on tax reform. I saw how Mr. Rostenkowski did it when I joined the committee; I saw how Mr. Rangel did it. And do you know what? I saw how Mr. Archer and Mr. Camp did it. They were institutionalists by nature. They would not have done what is being done today. All four of those individuals would have said: Well, first of all, to make it work and to make it great, it has to be bipartisan in nature as you relate to tax reform. When you hear about tax reform in '86, one of the things that comes to mind immediately is the fact that it was done with President Ronald Reagan and Speaker Thomas O'Neill. Let me say something, Mr. Speaker. As upset as I am today by the manner in which this is being offered, I want to say to our Republican colleagues, Happy Valentine's Day. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Levin for yielding to me. I want to speak specifically to what the previous gentleman has just stated. I had not intended to speak because I am going to offer the motion to recommit on our side, but the gentleman appeared in his commentary to belittle the notion of procedure. Procedure in this institution is sacrosanct based upon the rules that we adopt in the earliest moments of the new Congress. I was struck by the notion that we should just cast aside and denigrate procedure. That is how the institution operates, based upon procedure, established precedent, and settled law. To suggest that somehow we could just offend procedure, we remind ourselves of what has happened to this institution during the last two decades when virtually all the Members on both sides got elected by running against the institution. They could never step away from the campaign rhetoric to get on with actual governance of the institution. Procedure in this institution means that we adhere to a prescribed set of rules and orders and, yes, goodwill. Now, again, I had not even intended to get up and talk about this issue, arcane as it might seem, but it underlies the whole notion of a representative democracy and a duly elected legislative institution. Procedure, the basic tenet of which is, oftentimes: Shall the institution simply concur with a motion to proceed? That is the antecedent of the term, ``procedure.'' That is how the body works. Today, fundamentally what is being proposed here and what we object to in no small measure is the violation of the whole notion of procedure.

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

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill in its current form. I want to remind my colleagues that this amendment to the bill will not kill the bill or send it back to committee if adopted. It will simply allow us to proceed to final passage, as amended. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Chairman Ryan, spoke a few moments ago about the notion of goodwill and confidence. But he used a peculiar term as a substitute. He called it the ``baseline.'' What about a baseline of some goodwill and confidence building and a measure that acknowledged that, in terms of procedure, this is a violation of the confidence that we have all tried to establish as we proceed to tax reform? Some of us who have been around for a long time and have participated in actual tax strategy, we would offer the following: the last time that the Tax Code was changed in America, the Internet had not been invented, Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States, and Tip O'Neill was the Speaker of this House. Now, in terms of procedure, why we object is the following: if you recall, the gentleman from Michigan, Chairman Camp, waited until tax reform last year was completely dead and then asked us to go through the motion. And that, in the end, is exactly what it was, to have gone through the motion of trying to pass some permanent extended tax bills. Well, in New England 2 weeks ago, we were talking about deflated footballs. Now we are talking about deflated tax reform expectations. Six weeks into this Congress, and we are doing this procedural instead of substantive achievement that might lead to some tax relief, as the President has acknowledged, for American corporations or tax relief for individual and family filers? We are doing this with the argument that, somehow, Democrats don't support charitable giving? Our objection today is based on the following: Fiscally, this is reckless; procedurally, it violates the notion of goodwill in the House; and lastly, and just as importantly, I think it pushes apart the two parties from getting to tax reform. Mr. Speaker, this is a positioning amendment: How might we embarrass the minority? Do you know what? They are saying here, as they go forward in this argument, that this keeps everything the way it is, it extends charitable giving. You have to borrow the money eventually to pay for this. That adds to the deficits. Mr. Speaker, that is the argument that we are having here today. We want to know how this is paid for. We are not objecting to the thrust or mission of what is being offered. Under different circumstances, these bills would pass without any problem with broad support. Mr. Speaker, I don't have any personal quarrel with the merits of this policy, but when it is unpaid for, it means more borrowing. We all support the work of public charities and private foundations in our communities. We support the good works of charitable communities, and we strive to provide these charities with the resources that they need to carry out their mission. Let me ask you this: Why would they try to masquerade this notion that somebody from Massachusetts is against charitable giving? Universities, hospitals, and foundations, they abound throughout my State. Like the rest of our Caucus, I favor charitable giving and object to the procedure in which this is being offered today. We object to the procedure. Why are we taking up this time debating these bills? We should be coming together on tax reform, as promised, for middle class families that grows the economy. If the goal of Mr. Ryan is to eventually remove all deductions, preferences, and exclusions in the Code to get to a lower rate, that should be stated, but not to do it this way. We are debating bills that the administration has already said they will veto and the Senate has given us no indication they will take them up. So to fix this moment, our motion to recommit offers the following: a 1-year bridge to tax reform. By the way, my predictions of this in terms of the extenders have been far more accurate over the years than their proposals on the extenders. We are suggesting here a proposal that does not add to the deficit and addresses the longstanding problem of corporate inversions. By the way, why are companies inverting? Because of the tax system in America. We are suggesting today that there is a difference and a distinction to be drawn between tax evasion and tax avoidance. They are avoiding taxes in some cases and evading them in the others. We have an opportunity to do something about this Tax Code that would help bring that about. We pay for our provision. It gives, I think, a measure of comfort for the Democratic minority today to vote for this motion to recommit, and I urge Republican support for this provision.

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

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. NEAL. I am opposed to the bill in its current form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the tremendous service of Raymond E. Cook of Brimfield, Massachusetts who received the Congressional Gold Medal along with his comrades of the First Special Service Force on February 3, 2015. The First Special Service Force was an elite military unit during World War II comprised of volunteers from the United States and Canada. This unit was specifically trained to fight behind enemy lines in the most inhospitable conditions. They distinguished themselves on multiple occasions, most notably for their critical role in Allied victories in Italy, North Africa, southern France, and Anzio Beach. The unit became known as the ``Black Devils'' because they would blacken their faces for nighttime missions. Raymond served as an United States Army Ranger before joining the First Special Service Force in early 1944 and remained with them until the unit was disbanded at the end of that year. Raymond continued to serve in the Army until he was honorably discharged in October 1945. During his tour of service, Raymond was awarded two Purple Hearts for the injuries he sustained during combat. Mr. Speaker, Raymond Cook fought courageously for the ideals of freedom and peace that our nation holds dear. I want to thank him for his service and congratulate him on receiving the highest award that Congress can bestow.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Anna E. Barry School of Chicopee, Massachusetts for the honor of being named a National Blue Ribbon School for 2014, and to recognize their achievements both in academic excellence and in narrowing education gaps between students. The Anna E. Barry School currently enrolls students from kindergarten through fifth grade. In its mission statement, the school states that its purpose is ``to educate children . . . in order that they may successfully continue with their education, pursue their aspirations and eventually become contributing community members.'' The National Blue Ribbon School Program was established in 1982 to honor elementary, middle and high schools which have excellent performance, or which have substantially reduced the performance gap for disadvantaged student populations. Created under Secretary of Education Terrel H. Bell, the program was designed to celebrate achievement among public and private schools alike, as well as to encourage the sharing of successful teaching strategies. With just fewer than 7,900 educational institutions having been named National Blue Ribbon Schools, it is an extraordinary achievement for the Anna E. Barry School to be recognized with this award. The uniting feature of National Blue Ribbon Schools is their commitment and dedication to outstanding educational outcomes for their pupils, and I am proud to count a school from the First District of Massachusetts among them. In being named a National Blue Ribbon School, the Anna E. Barry School has been recognized for their outstanding work improving the results of both students with special educational needs, and those who have English as a second language. The school's accomplishment has been the product of tailored student teaching, the integration of technology, and the engagement of the community. By focusing on individual achievement and establishing positive lines of communication with families, the Anna E. Barry School has not only improved educational outcomes, but has made learning a collaborative exercise between students, parents and teachers. The success of the school can also be attributed to the dedication of its teachers and administrators in promoting and advancing the students' education. I wish the school, its staff and the students well in their future endeavors, and again congratulate them on this remarkable achievement.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. I am opposed to the bill in its current form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill in its current form, and I want to remind colleagues that this amendment to the bill will not kill the bill, nor will it send it back to committee, and, in fact, if adopted, we will immediately proceed to final passage. Mr. Speaker, we are here today debating this faulty effort for one reason and one reason only: the failure fundamentally to change the Tax Code. Now, let me say to my friends, the praise delivered on behalf of Mr. Camp is well-earned. But I also want to say something today. We all love to say, ``I hate to say I told you so,'' but we really like to say, ``I told you so.'' I told you so. The staff would be rich if they took that bet that I offered not long ago on the very floor of this House. Now, Mr. Camp, the wily sorcerer of tax policies that he is, he employed every bit of magic at his disposal to bring forth tax reform. He put together a great model and, for 3 years, without the glare of publicity, we actually had an adult conversation between the parties, principals and the stakeholders, who listened carefully to what everyone had to say. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership was not spellbound by the sorcerer's good deeds. When he was pleased to release his tax proposal, the leadership of the Republican side said, Blah, blah, blah. Well, one blah in support of continuing uncertainty for the American family and for business; two blahs, or a second blah, for cutting economic growth and business investment; and finally, a third blah to the lowest worker participation rate in 36 years. Seven to 8 million Americans still looking for work, but we can't do tax reform. The last time we reformed our code, the Internet didn't exist, but we can't do tax reform. Economic growth at 2 percent, but we can't do tax reform. Forty percent of the Business Roundtable's major alliances said this week they plan on hiring new employees. That means 60 percent don't-- but we can't do tax reform. Thirteen percent of these companies said they are committing to investing in buying new equipment, but that means 87 percent are not. Our inaction on tax reform is harming this economy, and it is not Mr. Camp's fault. Rather than working on this bill and staying with it, with wage stagnation, low worker participation rate, depressed business investment, instead of addressing these problems, we are debating a bill that, once the President signs it, we will immediately see it as being outdated, and we are going to start the process all over again, maybe in just a couple of days. What we have before us, in terms of process, is the pinnacle of congressional nonsense. This bill does not incentivize companies to invest more; no more for research. We are rewarding companies for their past behavior. You cannot find any economist with credibility that will suggest that retroactivity in the Tax Code is sound policy. Pick up the newspaper and you are going to find very quickly that, as we released this draft, over that same period of time, more companies inverted. The sound of the dam breaking is all around us. Recent reports have stated that the United States stands to lose $2 billion next year alone, and since the first inversion in 1982, we have lost more than $9 billion. Sadly, these inversions are a part of an epidemic that started a decade ago. CRS points out that at least 47 companies have inverted since the beginning of the last year, 19 inversion deals are still pending, and 14 more are sure to come in the coming year alone. The Joint Committee on Taxation says now it is costing us $33.6 billion in lost tax revenue because of our inability to deal with corporate tax inversions. I understand the argument about tax avoidance versus tax evasion. We have done a reasonably good job at cracking down on Switzerland and Liechtenstein and other places, but we need to address this question of Bermuda and these other tax havens where corporate residents of America pay their fair share, and those who invert to escape taxes--while, incidentally, we are engaged militarily across the globe with a substantial bill--they feel as though they don't have to deliver anything. Now, my motion to recommit today is very simple. Those companies that have inverted cannot take advantage of the very tax benefits that we are going to vote upon in a few minutes, which, by the way, I favor extending. If you have inverted, you should not be allowed the same credits and deductions and exclusions that American businesses who have stayed here dutifully, respectfully, and with great patriotic fervor continue to pay. I don't understand, for the life of me, why Republicans can't support doing something about corporate tax inversions.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, this year the Hampden County Massachusetts Bar Association celebrates its 150th anniversary, having been officially incorporated on October 20, 1864. For all those years, this group has been one of the pre-eminent organizations in my district and beyond. The association is much more than a group of lawyers looking out for the interests of their profession. The association is now over 1,000 members strong and out of its membership over the years have emerged some of the most outstanding lawyers and jurists in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. For a century and a half the association has been a proven leader in providing legal assistance for the poor, educating the public on our legal system and seeking improvements in our courts. The Hampden County Bar Association plays a significant role in providing Pro Bono services and access to justice, as well as community outreach programs to the local community. Such programs include a legal clinic, a lawyer referral and information service, and providing for Lawyer for a Day Programs, in its Housing, Probate and District Courts. This volunteer organization of lawyers provides professional support and education to its members and advocacy on behalf of lawyers, the judiciary and the public at large. Its members have continued to provide an unwavering commitment to the legal profession, to each other and to the people they serve. One of the many noteworthy services provided by the Hampden County Bar Association occurred following the June 1, 2011 tornado, which impacted Springfield and its surrounding communities. The Bar Association served as the base and primary liaison to coordinate efforts to assist victims of the tornado, including setting up a hotline for the public as well as a FEMA hotline. Members of the Association attended various town meetings to assist property owners with legal issues resulting from the tornado devastation. This service also included representing individuals who were facing condemnation hearings because of the significant property damage to their premises. In addition, the Hampden County Bar Association maintained the FEMA hotline a few months later in 2011 when flooding from Hurricane Irene affected Franklin and Berkshire Counties, knowing that their bar associations did not have the resources. I urge all citizens to take note of the good work of the Hampden County Bar Association as it begins its next 150 years of public service.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the 30th anniversary of New England Public Radio's weeknight program, Jazz a la Mode. Jazz a la Mode, with its host and producer Tom Reney, started broadcasting on August 6, 1984. This exemplary program provides its listeners with some of the greatest recorded jazz, stretching from the classics to music created by emerging artists. Jazz a la Mode gives a broad offering of styles and the evolution of jazz from Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington to Miles Davis and John Coltrane and beyond. Additionally, Tom Reney has had the opportunity to interview many famous musicians such as David Brubeck, James Moody, and Wynton Marsalis. The hallmark of Tom Reney's program is special yearlong series that he dedicates to individual artists that had a substantial impact on jazz as a genre. Jazz a la Mode has done centennials for Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, and Count Basie. In addition, Reney makes a point to highlight the jazz concerts, performances, and festivals that take part around New England. His audience will always have the most up-to-date information to be able to see live performances. Reney also acts as host for many jazz festivals around New England including the Tanglewood Jazz Festival and the Springfield Jazz and Roots Festival in my district. Mr. Speaker, Jazz a la Mode has been a part of the cultural identity of western Massachusetts and New England for the past 30 years. As they celebrate this important milestone, I wish Tom Reney and the staff of Jazz a la Mode further success and many more years of entertaining New England.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the 25th anniversary of the Spirit of Springfield. Since incorporated on December 21, 1989, the Spirit of Springfield has entertained approximately eight million area residents and visitors with events that bring the community together in celebration and provide community vitality. These events currently include the World's Largest Pancake Breakfast, Spirit of Springfield Golf Classic, MassMutual Star Spangled Springfield, Tower Square Parade of the Big Balloons, City of Bright Nights Ball, Bright Nights at Forest Park and annual free holiday concert by the 215th Army Band of the Massachusetts Army National Guard. Bright Nights at Forest Park is the largest event the Spirit of Springfield presents and it is in conjunction with the Springfield Department of Parks, Buildings & Recreation Management. The three-mile drive through magnificent lighting displays has been honored by the American Bus Association as one of the Top 100 Attractions in North America for multiple years. 2014 marks the event's 20th season. The Spirit of Springfield is also pleased to provide event services to the City of Springfield for events that include the mayoral inaugurations, building dedications, swearing-in ceremonies, police academy graduations and September 11th Remembrance Ceremony. To produce the events, the non-profit organization, which is governed by a Board of Directors and employs three-full time employees, raises approximately $450,000 in corporate contributions and an additional $450,000 in donated goods and services. The magic is all made by three full-time employees, college interns, volunteers and a dedicated board of directors. Mr. Speaker, as a longtime supporter of the Spirit of Springfield, I am very proud to congratulate them on their 25th anniversary and wish them many more years of success with their future endeavors.