Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce an article entitled ``Garry Brown will join a Hall of Fame that would be incomplete without him'' that was published in the Springfield Republican on January 28, 2014. This tribute written by Ron Chimelis highlights the outstanding career of Garry Brown. Garry has been a well-known and beloved sports writer in Western Massachusetts for over sixty years. Even after retiring, he still offers features and his famed column Hitting on All Fields, which he has written for the Springfield Republican for over forty years. Garry's passion and dedication to all sports in Western Massachusetts has earned him the admiration of his readers as well as his peers. As a result, Garry was inducted into the Western Massachusetts Baseball Hall of Fame on Friday, January 31, 2014. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to congratulate Garry on this well- deserved honor and wish him the best in the future. Garry Brown Will Join a Hall of Fame That Would Be Incomplete Without Him (By Ron Chimelis, The Republican) He was born in the same year as Mickey Mantle, grew up watching Ted Williams and began his sports writing career when Joe DiMaggio was playing center field at Yankee Stadium. Garry Brown was there at Busch Stadium in 2004, when the Boston Red Sox ended an 86-year World Series title drought. His encyclopedic knowledge of baseball's local history is unmatched. It is not who he has covered or where he has been, however, that best defines Brown. It is how he is viewed by others who find themselves practically forcing well-deserved honors upon a man too humble to expect them. One such honor will come Friday night. Brown is part of the seven-man inaugural class of the Western Massachusetts Baseball Hall of Fame, which will hold enshrinement at the La Quinta Inn & Suites in Springfield. No individual--not a player, manager or executive--has lived a life more interwoven with baseball's local history than Brown, who is still going strong at The Republican in Springfield. Technically, he is retired. That has not stopped the 82- year-old from continuing to offer features, retrospectives, and live coverage of the Springfield Falcons. He is still serving up ``Hitting to All Fields,'' which has survived 40 years of seismic change in newspapers. Achievements? Let's run down a few, sticking to baseball because the overall list is too long. Brown was a high school beat writer from 1952-66, which he calls his favorite time. He covered Pittsfield's run to the 1960 state title and that summer's American Legion World Series, with a 15-year-old shortstop named Mark Belanger leading the way. How about Chicopee High's three straight state titles from 1961-63? When fellow Hall of Fame inductee Al Stanek struck out 25 and Amherst's Cliff Allen whiffed 16 in Chicopee's 1-0 tourney win in 1960, Brown was there. He was the Red Sox beat writer from 1986 to June 2009, but also covered the World Series in 1967 and 1975. That was Brown, writing on deadline when Carlton Fisk's home run and Bill Buckner's error changed history. Awards? A story on Carl Yastrzemski's final weekend made ``Best Sports Stories of 1983.'' The American Legion's national award saluted his coverage in 1963. In 2002, Brown was in his 52nd year of writing when he earned a New England award for columns. In 2003, the Boston Chapter of the Baseball Writers Association of America honored him with the prestigious Dave O'Hara Award, a prized honor that signifies recognition by one's peers. The night was memorable. So was the acceptance speech by a man whose humility is rare for his field. ``I do get tired of people asking me if Cy Young was a nice guy,'' said Brown, who paused for effect. ``He was,'' the honoree said, drawing warm laughter and applause from the crowd. He won the Kid Gore Award for high school coverage in 1998. That's associated with basketball, but it's still a biggie. When the Springfield Public Schools Sports Hall of Fame selected its inaugural class, the committee wanted badly to elect Brown as a contributor. He respectfully declined, saying the first year should be reserved for the athletes. He was elected in the second. He campaigned tirelessly for a return of minor league baseball to Springfield. Had it materialized, a popular public choice for the new ballpark's name over his objections was Garry Brown Stadium. For the Western Mass. Baseball Hall of Fame, Brown was elected unanimously before he could say no. Now in his seventh decade of service, Brown was asked about the attributes that made him a success. ``Not knowing when to quit,'' he said with typical self- effacing humor. That knowledge, or lack of it, has been a blessing to his readers and made this region a much better place. The Western Mass. Baseball Hall of Fame would be incomplete without him, even if an ageless writer for all ages would never say so himself.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, on November 22, 2013, my hometown of Springfield, Massachusetts held a ceremony to remember President John Fitzgerald Kennedy on the 50th anniversary of his death. What sets this ceremony apart from the many others that took place on this significant anniversary is that in 1964, Springfield established a monument with an eternal flame in our beautiful Forest Park in President Kennedy's memory. The citizens of Springfield hold President Kennedy's memory dear and gather to remember him each November 22nd since. I am proud to have participated in at least forty of these ceremonies over the years. Following this year's event, I received a very touching letter from a long-time friend and Springfield native, Mary Ellen Long Franz. In the letter, she included a poem, which she had written in November of 1963. I found her poem to be very moving and believe it captures the emotions that millions across the country felt on that day. I want to thank Mary Ellen for this tribute to our fallen President and I submit this poem. The Passing of a President (By: Mary Ellen Long Franz, November 1963) Began the somber, solemn days of horror growing. Hollow tumult gnawing, aching, pelting . . . Dear God, this cannot be. But so it was and sorrow swelled and soared and burst its bonds to rush cascading . . . The million tears of all the millions flowing. Endless sadness softly going. O see, brave lady, love surrounding and enfolding, holding heartful. To give at last where always we have taken . . . And still are taking even now your grieving. Our loved one so much more is loved when gone, so unwarned gone. Forgive us this, our trespassing, and nearness to him wanting. Too undreamed were we of such nightmarish thing. Unwilling now to part, to break apart, to lose so soon, too sadly soon . . . In memory enough to keep his faith, his love that gave with heart's whole love . . . His mind that gleaned from all the good, from all the harvest of our history . . . Enough to hold his soul's warm dedication, His love of peace and laughter sunning, His giving, selfless giving of all that one can give? Please, God, it can be so.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize the accomplishments of Julia Lavoie, best known as Julie. She has been with the Greater Springfield Credit Union in Springfield, Massachusetts for thirty-five years and currently serves as its CEO. She will be retiring as CEO of the credit union on January 17, 2014. The Greater Springfield Credit Union was chartered on March 2, 1927. Its original charter was limited to mainly Springfield municipal employees and their families. Today it is open to any resident of Hampden or Hampshire Counties, while many of its members are City of Springfield employees, police officers, and firefighters. Thirty-five years ago, Julie began working at the credit union as a teller. Over the course of the next three decades she held several positions including loan officer, assistant manager, and COO before being named the CEO in 2008. Many credit union members have said that getting a loan from Julie was like going to the confessional, because no matter what the disclosed financial problem or the issue, she found a way to help the member. Over her more than three-decade career, spanning several generations of members, she has developed lifelong friendships due to both her friendliness and professionalism. She has left the credit union in outstanding financial shape. Julie credits her success as CEO to its loyal members, hard-working staff, and dedicated Board of Directors. Due to Julie's vast institutional knowledge and tremendous value, she has been named ``CEO Emeritus'' by the credit union's board. I know I join Julie's husband Ron Lavoie, her three daughters, and seven grandchildren in wishing her a happy retirement and continued success in all of her future endeavors.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to introduce Katherine M. Clark, with the always important reminder that there are fewer than 12,000 men and women who have had the honor in American history of taking this oath. This institution has been home to Presidents of the United States, members of the Supreme Court, and members of the United States Senate who have gone far and wide in helping America to succeed every day. Katherine Clark, one of those individuals who has now joined this important and august body, succeeds, again, a very favorite colleague of ours who served in this institution with distinction for 37 years, Senator Ed Markey. Mr. Speaker, Katherine Clark is well grounded in local government, having served at the school committee level. She served in the legislature as a member of the House of Representatives and as a member of the Massachusetts Senate. She has also served time as a prosecutor. She is well-distinguished in the State of Massachusetts and won a very handsome victory. It is an honor for me to submit to you for the first time the Honorable Katherine M. Clark from the State of Massachusetts.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, Section 203 in the Bipartisan Budget Act restricts access to the Social Security Administration's Death Master File (DMF). This provision requires the Secretary of Commerce to create a program to restrict access to the information contained in the DMF for a three- year period after an individual's death. Under this program, only individuals that are certified by the Secretary to have a legitimate need for the information and agree to maintain the information under safeguards may access DMF information. In implementing this section, the Department of Commerce in promulgating regulations for the certification program should provide sufficient time for legitimate current users of DMF information to comment on the regulations, especially as it relates to the timing of the effectiveness of this Section and as it relates to the authority to release the DMF to the public.

Mr. NEAL. Listen, I was happy to have it until I heard that the Republicans were responsible for all of the good things that are in this, and the Democrats were only responsible for the revenue side. Revenue is at about percent of gross domestic product right now. Those are the Eisenhower years. We need to have this discussion. Now, let me say this as well. Mr. Ryan deserves to be credited, as does Mr. Van Hollen, with the measure that is in front of us today. But if we can get past some of the acrimony and some of the ill-considered language here, maybe we could find a path forward. The Medicare picture has brightened substantially. It is wild what has happened. The automobile sector is doing much better. The private sector in general is. Americans are shedding debt, but not to miss the point that there is a very elusive term that needs to be addressed in America today, and it is a term of confidence. The government shutdown shaved 1 to 2 points off of gross domestic product. That is reality; that is not fiction. We need to get past, again, the harsh language that has now taken over this institution and provide investors and provide the American people with the idea of some confidence to unleash the forces of that $2 trillion that is sitting here domestically and another trillion that is sitting offshore. This is the sort of conversation that we need to have. This is a confidence-building measure. It does lighten up some of the spending caps, again, that would have caused grave damage to the economy. We should have found the time to help out on the issue of unemployment benefits. Mr. Speaker, we did the doc-fix this morning. I favor it; $8 billion over 3 months. We could have found money in this budget to extend unemployment benefits to American families.

Mr. NEAL. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Van Hollen. I think the previous speaker forgot to mention the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, totaling $2.3 trillion. The war in Iraq was conveniently left out. The process of sequestration was ill-considered and the result is all around us.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, the Honorable Katherine M. Clark, be permitted to take the oath of office today. Her certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to her election.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the memory of President John F. Kennedy. On the fiftieth anniversary of his tragic passing, it is important to remember all of the ideals that President Kennedy championed and the many Americans that have dedicated their lives to public service based on his example. In honor of President Kennedy, I submit this poem penned by Albert Carey Caswell. Fifty Years Ago This Day (By Albert Carey Caswell) Fifty years ago this day . . . As a Nation cried and prayed . . . Fifty years ago this day . . . As up to Heaven, an American Hero made his way . . . Fifty years ago this day . . . as our Nation's hearts gave way! Fifty years ago this day . . . As Camelot, came to an end that day! As a Nation's great hopes were so torn away! As the tears so ran down her face . . . Fifty years ago today! For we will long remember, where we were so then there . . . Fifty years ago this day . . . When, we lost our most beloved JFK . . . As we all so knelt and prayed! As up towards Heaven a new Angel made his way . . . Fifty years ago this day . . . So young and so bright, who so fought to fight . . . To Save The World! In World War II, aboard P.T. 109 all in his most heroic hue . . . All in his ``Profiles in Courage'' as he stood true!

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mike Capuano for organizing this event on behalf of Barry Sullivan. Barry Sullivan is a reminder of the men and women who serve this institution day in and day out to make sure that it runs as efficiently as it possibly can. We depend very much here on accurate data and accurate information; and to call Barry Sullivan at any time of the day or night, you could depend on getting the best information that was available at that moment. Beyond that, he was an individual of great humor. He had the ability to laugh at himself. He had the ability to chuckle with all of us. I recall with some humor one day that he was in a great state of duress, and that was that he had only been able to deliver one blueberry muffin to Chairman Moakley. Chairman Moakley wanted two blueberry muffins, or as he would say at the time, Chairman Moakley wanted two blueberry muffins. I saw Barry in the hall, and I said, What have we got going today? He said, I don't know, but I am getting that second blueberry muffin if I get nothing else accomplished. It is these individuals that day in and day out make us look good here. That is the reminder. They oversee a very complex process in that cloakroom of trying to adhere to the rules of the House and at the same time making sure that the Members of Congress are well positioned not only in terms of time, but in terms of time management. Barry welcomed me here in 1988. He is one of the first people I met. There was Brian Donnelly and Joe Early and a number of others in the Massachusetts delegation. Nick Marvroules, Gerry Studds, and others come to mind. Of course, there was Barney and members of our delegation. We were always very proud of Barry Sullivan, and I thought that one of his great champions here had been Brian Donnelly in those years. That is how we got to know Barry as well as we did. I wish him well. I also would say that we can take great confidence from the fact that he was a student of this institution. He held the highest regard for it. He was an acolyte of Tip O'Neill and Joe Moakley, who revered service in this institution.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentlelady. Madam Speaker, this vote has been portrayed as an opportunity for new spending. The difficulty with that argument is that this is really an argument about paying our bills and for debts incurred. This vote tonight is a vote about paying for the war in Iraq, which I opposed, but still believe it has to be paid for. The former majority leader of this House said at a critical moment that having a tax cut in a time of war was patriotic. You know what is patriotic? Paying for those veterans hospitals, whether you were for the war or against the war. Those wars were put on the credit card. It is our responsibility to pay for them. That is what this debate is about tonight--not the opportunity for new expenditure and not a debate over social program spending in the future. It is simply a vote to pay for bills that have been currently incurred. To have shut this government down was not only wrongful, but that decent people across this country were hurt by this irresponsible manner of conduct in this House remains reprehensible. Tonight, we are going to have a chance to vote to reopen this government and repay our bills.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. The job killer that we are threatening tonight has nothing to do with the medical device tax. It has to do with our giving up our responsibilities. The idea that we would threaten the full faith and credit of the United States is the issue that's in front of us. We negotiated that medical device tax. It was originally proposed at 5 percent, and we cut it to 2.3 percent, in addition to which, based upon an industry request, we extended it to foreign competition. Now, an issue that has been conveniently left out of this discussion is: Who is the biggest purchaser of medical devices? Medicare. By expanding the Affordable Care Act, we are going to have more customers who are going to purchase more medical devices. That's the reality actuarially of what we are discussing tonight. This notion that you can separate the revenue portion from the overall legislation is ill-considered, and everybody knows it. This was negotiated in the full light of day--thoroughly discussed. Return to the argument I made a moment ago. If you're interested in not killing jobs, stop this ruse that you're playing on the American people tonight and with the full faith and credit of the United States--with the debt obligations that we have.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, June 25, our colleague, Ed Markey, was elected to the United States Senate. Mr. Speaker, from the Adams family to the Kennedy family, Massachusetts has sent great talent to the United States Senate, and always a reminder that John Kennedy served in this House and thought it was a privilege before he went to the United States Senate. I also will just say a couple of personal things about our colleague. Nobody ever walked away from Ed Markey and said he didn't know what he was talking about or that he was uninformed. He engages the debate fully. And I must tell you, having known him for more than three decades, he is fulfilling a personal ambition--in addition to which he has promised me that he will take the humility of this institution and bring it to the United States Senate. The last point that I think is very important and a reminder to all of us, in the polling data that led up to Ed's victory, by 15 points the people said they thought it was his experience that would serve him well. That was the deciding factor in why they sent him to the United States Senate. A round of applause for our friend, Ed Markey.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Gerlach, and thanks to our very capable staffers for having assembled parts of the argument here, and point out that in the Senate, this was done by unanimous consent. That's an important consideration. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 475, a bill to update the excise tax on vaccines against seasonal influenza. Year after year, the flu poses a threat to millions of Americans, causing between 24,000 and 49,000 deaths and 226,000 hospitalizations each year. In fact, my home State of Massachusetts had over 28,000 confirmed cases of flu this past season. The flu is particularly life- threatening for our Nation's most vulnerable, the elderly and children. During the most recent flu season, there were 150 pediatric deaths across the Nation, and it is estimated that 90 percent of those children were not vaccinated. America must prepare for the next flu season. Public health and medical professionals, hospitals and vaccine manufacturers are moving quickly to prepare for the upcoming season by manufacturing new vaccines and educating the public about the importance of preventing the flu. One critical step in this preparation is to make certain that the newest and most effective flu vaccine will be available to the public. To do that, I introduced this legislation that we're acting upon today with my friend, Congressman Gerlach, to update our law to ensure access to new flu vaccines. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was established in 1986 to ensure an adequate supply of vaccines, stabilize vaccine costs, and establish and maintain an accessible and efficient forum for individuals found to be injured by certain vaccines to be compensated. These awards are funded by a 75 cent per dose excise tax on vaccines that are widely used and recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for routine administration to children. The program requires congressional action from time to time because unless the excise tax is assessed on a particular vaccine, it is not covered by the program, and therefore, those injured can't be compensated under the program. Currently, the excise tax on seasonal influenza vaccine applies only to three-strain vaccines and excludes any non-three-strain vaccines. But for the flu season, three new advanced influenza vaccines will be available. These vaccines will provide broader protection against the flu because they can combat more strains of the virus. Therefore, we must amend the excise tax law to include the advanced flu vaccine. To ensure access to the new vaccine, our bill would apply the excise tax to all vaccines against seasonal influenza just as it has in the past. It is very important to note this will not increase the tax or change the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Let me repeat. It is very important to note that this will not increase the tax or change the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It's also important to note that this legislation does not affect in any way the FDA approval process. Vaccines for children, adolescents, and adults are approved and recommended through a rigorous, multiyear process. Vaccines must be approved by the FDA and then must also be evaluated and formally recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention before they are administered by health care providers or covered by health insurance programs. Before concluding, I'd like to note that this legislation has broad support, including AARP, Every Child by Two, Families Fighting Flu, Immunization Action Coalition, Infectious Diseases Society of America, and MassBio. Our legislation brings the excise tax into alignment with the most recent developments in medicine. The quick enactment of H.R. 475 is critical to making the newest seasonal flu vaccines available for the 2013-2014 season. I urge the House to pass this legislation as quickly as possible, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to come before the House to reintroduce the Retirement Plan Simplification and Enhancement Act of 2013. Our current retirement plan rules are very complicated. My bill includes a number of common sense reforms that will simplify the rules while still protecting participants. For example, under current law, small businesses that adopt a new retirement plan are eligible for a tax credit to cover some of their start-up costs. We're increasing the credit to $5,000 to cover all of these expenses. I hope this will encourage more small employers to sponsor retirement plans. Also, currently employers can exclude some part-time workers from participating in their 401(k) plans. As women are more likely than men to work part-time, these rules can be quite harmful for women in preparing for retirement. So my bill would require employers to allow certain long-term, part-time workers to make elective deferrals to their 401(k) plans. My bill also reforms the Saver's Credit. The current Saver's Credit provides a tax incentive for families to save for retirement. However, because the Saver's Credit is currently non-refundable, it does not benefit those who need it most--low and moderate income households who have little or no federal income tax liability. Therefore, my bill would make the Saver's Credit refundable and also incentivize taxpayers to pay the credit into their retirement accounts. The Retirement Plan Simplification and Enhancement Act also would establish a new automatic enrollment safe harbor. It was my legislation that established the existing safe harbor that promotes automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans. The power of inertia is a powerful tool. And automatically enrolling employees in 401(k)s unless they decide to opt out is a simple and effective way to harness this power of inertia. And my legislation has incentivized many employers to implement automatic enrollment in their 401(k) plans. However, the current safe harbor sets a minimum default level of contributions of 3 percent in the first year. Under the existing rules, employers can set the default at a higher percentage if they want to but many employers just stick with the floor amount of 3 percent. We all know that 3 percent is not enough savings for most American families--in fact, many financial institutions recommend that employees save at least 10 percent of their salary. So my proposal would keep the existing automatic enrollment but it would create a second safe harbor. And this second safe harbor would set the minimum default contribution rate at 6 percent in the first year, 8 percent in the second year and 10 percent in all subsequent years. Now remember, employees can lower the rate if it's too high for them--but this proposal would use the power of inertia to encourage employees to save more. Finally, my bill would help consolidate and simplify the many employee notices required by retirement plans. The current rules require retirement plans to provide employees with lots of information regarding their plans. Although well intended, it has become information overload with many employees just ignoring the many notices--or even worse, it confuses employees. My bill would direct the Secretaries of Treasury and Labor to review the current retirement plan reporting and disclosure rules and make recommendations to improve these requirements. Let me conclude by saying that I also intend to keep working on allowing for greater disclosure to participants in an electronic manner. We certainly need to protect employees without computers or individuals who just prefer paper. However, electronic disclosure provides many efficiencies, saves participants money that could otherwise be taken from their retirement accounts, and provides easy access to educational and financial tools. And, therefore, I plan to continue working on this issue. My legislation provides common-sense reforms that will help Americans prepare for a financially secure retirement. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting ``The Retirement Plan Simplification and Enhancement Act.''

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to come before the House to introduce legislation ending a current law loophole that allows foreign insurance groups to strip their U.S. income into tax havens to avoid U.S. tax and gain a competitive advantage over American companies. I am pleased to be joined in my efforts by Senator Menendez, who is introducing the Senate companion bill. Many foreign-based insurance companies are using affiliate reinsurance to shift their U.S. reserves into tax havens overseas, thereby avoiding U.S. tax on their investment income. This provides these companies with a significant unfair competitive advantage over U.S.-based companies, which must pay tax on their investment income. To take advantage of this loophole, several U.S. companies have ``inverted'' into tax havens and numerous other companies have been formed offshore. And, absent effective legislation, industry experts have predicted that capital migration will continue to grow, stating that ``redomestication offshore will be a competitive necessity for many U.S. primary `specialty' insurers.'' As we grapple with significant budget challenges in the years to come, it is essential that we not allow the continued migration of capital overseas and erosion of our tax base. Clearly, at a time when we are considering a move to a territorial system with base erosion rules applicable to U.S. companies, we must also have ``credible'' rules to prevent base erosion by foreign companies doing business in the U.S. There have been previous attempts to address the tax avoidance problem resulting from reinsurance between related entities. Congress first recognized the problem of excessive reinsurance in 1984 and provided specific authority to Treasury under Section 845 of the Tax Code to reallocate items and make adjustments in reinsurance transactions in order to prevent tax avoidance or evasion. In 2003, the Bush Treasury Department testified before Congress that the existing mechanisms were not sufficient. In 2004, Congress amended Section 845 to expand the authority of Treasury to not only reallocate among the parties to a reinsurance agreement but also to recharacterize items within or related to the agreement. Congress specifically cited the concern that these reinsurance transactions were being used inappropriately among U.S. and foreign related parties for tax evasion. Unfortunately, as recent data shows, this grant of expanded authority to Treasury has not stemmed the tide of capital moving offshore to take advantage of the tax benefit. Since 1996, the amount of reinsurance sent to offshore affiliates has grown dramatically, from a total of $4 billion ceded in 1996 to $33 billion in 2011, including nearly $20 billion to Bermuda affiliates and over $7 billion to Swiss affiliates. Use of this affiliate reinsurance provides foreign insurance groups with a significant market advantage over U.S. companies in writing direct insurance here in the U.S. Over the same period, we have seen a doubling in the growth of market share of direct premiums written by groups domiciled outside the U.S., from 5.1 percent to 11.1 percent, representing $57 billion in direct premiums written in 2011. Again, Bermuda-based companies represent the bulk of this growth, rising from 0.1 percent to 3 percent, although it peaked at 4% before some companies moved from Bermuda to Switzerland seeking protection under the tax treaties. And it should be noted that during this time, the percentage of premiums ceded to affiliates of non-U.S. based companies has grown from 13 percent to 57 percent. Bermuda is not the only jurisdiction favorable for reinsurance. In fact, one company moved from the Cayman Islands to Switzerland citing ``the security of a network of tax treaties,'' among other benefits. A coalition of 13 of the largest U.S.-based insurance and reinsurance companies has been formed to express their concerns to Congress. They recently wrote to the House Ways and Means Committee's working groups urging passage of my proposed legislation because, as they wrote, ``This loophole provides foreign-controlled insurers a significant tax advantage over their domestic competitors in attracting capital to write U.S. business. Our tax system should not favor foreign-owned groups over domestic insurers in selling insurance here at home.'' With more than 150,000 employees and a trillion dollars in assets here in the U.S., I believe it is a message of concern that we should heed. But it is not only the harm to our tax base that should concern us. According to a 2010 investigative report in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune entitled ``How Bermuda Rigs Insurance Rates in Florida,'' for which the reporter won a Pulitzer Prize, ``Two-thirds of property insurance premiums now leave Florida as unregulated payments to largely offshore reinsurers . . . without rate control or consumer oversight.'' It clearly cannot be good for us to lose regulatory control over our U.S. insurance industry. That is why I am again filing legislation to end the Bermuda reinsurance loophole. This proposal has been developed working with the tax experts at both the Treasury Department and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation to address concerns that have been raised with prior versions of the bill and develop a balanced approach to address this loophole. The proposal is consistent with our trade agreements and our tax treaties. Specifically, the proposal I am filing today uses a common-sense approach to combat earnings stripping through the use of affiliate reinsurance. It will effectively defer the deduction for premiums paid to the offshore affiliate until the insured event occurs--thereby restricting any tax benefit from shifting reserves and associated investment income overseas. This is accomplished by denying an upfront deduction for any foreign affiliate reinsurance (if the premium is not subject to U.S. tax) and then excluding from income any reinsurance recovered (as well as any ceding commission received), where the premium deduction for that reinsurance has been disallowed. This ``deduction deferral'' proposal is similar to one contained in the Administration's budget this year. The bill allows foreign groups to avoid the deduction disallowance by electing to be subject to U.S. tax with respect to the premiums and net investment income from affiliate reinsurance of U.S. risk. Special rules are provided to allow for foreign tax credits to avoid double taxation. This ensures a level-playing field, treating U.S. insurers and foreign-based insurers alike. The legislation provides Treasury with the authority to carry out or prevent the avoidance of the provisions of this bill. A fuller technical explanation of the bill can be found on my website. It is important to note that the bill I am re-introducing today does not impact third party reinsurance, which adds needed capacity to the market. Third party reinsurance is a fundamental business technique for risk management and is to be fostered. Rather, the bill is targeted solely at reinsurance among affiliates, which adds no additional capacity to the market and is often used for tax avoidance. The LECG group, a respected global expert services and consulting firm, says that this fact alone causes opponents' claims regarding potential adverse effects on capacity and pricing to be untrue. LECG also found it highly unlikely that foreign groups would stop providing coverage in the U.S. market if they are required to compete on a level playing field with domestic competitors. But, even if they did, the rest of the market would quickly replace any capacity. In a recent Boston Globe piece, an independent S&P credit ratings analyst and reinsurance market expert reached the same conclusion, saying that any effects on capacity and pricing would be minor. The foreign companies' ``interest in the US market will not change. The US is the largest reinsurance market in the world,'' she said. Ending this unintended tax subsidy for foreign insurance companies will stop the capital flight at the expense of American taxpayers and restore competitive balance for domestic companies. In explaining the Administration's proposal, the Treasury Department expressed similar concern over the current competitive balance, stating ``Reinsurance transactions with affiliates that are not subject to U.S. federal income tax on insurance income can result in substantial U.S. tax advantages over similar transactions with entities that are subject to tax in the United States.'' Closing this loophole does not impose a new tax. It merely ensures that foreign-owned companies pay the same tax as American companies on their earnings from doing business here in the United States. Congress never would consciously subsidize foreign-owned companies over their American competitors in order to serve the domestic market. Thus, there is no reason an unintended subsidy should be allowed to continue. I agree with the U.S. companies. ``It is time to close this loophole to protect our tax base and place and U.S. and foreign-based insurers on a level-playing field.'' 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 to combat offshore tax avoidance, regardless of what industry is impacted.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Madam Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the repeal of the Patients' Rights Act. Seventy-one million Americans have already taken advantage of this opportunity for preventive health care services, 100 million Americans no longer will have a lifetime limit on their health insurance program, and young adults can stay on their parents' health insurance until they're 26. Ninety-eight percent of the people of Massachusetts are insured. The number regularly polls in the high 70s for customer satisfaction. Let me just state this with some degree of certainty: the best hospitals in the world are in Massachusetts. Arguably, the best doctors in the world are in Massachusetts. Certainly the best teaching hospitals in the world are in Massachusetts. They've made it work. People are happy with the plan. If you're going to get sick, I say this to my Republican friends, as well, I'm going to get you a spot in Massachusetts. Here's the point that we ought to be discussing today: the implementation of this successful plan. And I want to say this today tongue-in-cheek, but also with some satisfaction, we should thank Governor Romney for working with a Democratic legislature to make sure that the model for the Affordable Care Act was in place. Let me say that again: thank Governor Romney for helping to make sure this plan was successful.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about legislation that I have reintroduced--the Automatic IRA Act of 2013. According to Boston College's Center for Retirement Research, the United States has a retirement income deficit of $6.6 trillion. One area I think we need to focus on is getting more low and middle- income workers into retirement savings. It is estimated that 75 million workers--or half of American workers--have no employer-provided retirement plan or other opportunity to save for workplace contributions. The auto IRA is a commonsense solution to dramatically expand retirement savings in the United States. Listen to this: this auto IRA proposal was jointly developed by myself, along with the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation. It has garnered widespread support, including from AARP, the U.S. Black Chamber of Commerce, the Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement, and the Aspen Institute Initiative on Financial Security. This is a commonsense piece of legislation that should be joined by both parties in advancing retirement opportunities for the American people.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Madam Speaker, I stand in opposition to the Republican proposal today to pay China first. Now, I think that there is another way that we might describe this legislation from our Republican friends, and it would go like this: let's balance the budget when Bill Clinton is President, and let's balance the budget when Barack Obama is President. But in the intervening 8 years, let's go on a reckless spending spree and cut taxes by $2.3 trillion, engage two wars internationally, embrace a prescription drug bill, spend the country into oblivion, and cut taxes for the wealthiest people. Recall: balance the budget when Bill Clinton is President, and balance the budget when Barack Obama is President. Worry about the debt not when George Bush is President, but only when you have Democratic Presidents. This is a reckless proposal today, and everybody knows it. Speaker Boehner is quoted in one of the dailies this morning as saying of course we pay the bondholders first. That's a fact. The previous speaker didn't mention that. He said, let's deal with the facts. So who are the bondholders? They emphasize, they suggest that it's the American people. Foreign debt is held by the Chinese and the Japanese second, and everybody knows it. So it's austerity for the American people, but make sure that the bondholders are paid. It's cut back on everything for the American people, but make sure the bondholders are paid. Cut taxes by $2.3 trillion, and not to worry about the austerity of the American people. Recall: balance the budget when Bill Clinton is President; balance the budget when Barack Obama is President.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the life and significant accomplishments of Donald S. Feigenbaum. Donald regrettably passed away on March 5th at the age of 87 at Berkshire Place in his beloved hometown of Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Donald was born in Pittsfield, the son of S. Frederick and Hilda Vallin Feigenbaum. He attended Union College as an electrical engineering major and received his degree in 1946. Union College later recognized Donald as an ``Outstanding Engineering Alumnus'' and awarded him an Honorary Degree of Doctor of Science. Donald also received an Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters degree from the University of Massachusetts and a Doctor of Science degree from the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. Union College named its administration building the ``Armand and Donald S. Feigenbaum Hall,'' in honor of the financial and professional contributions made to the college by Donald and his brother. After serving in the Navy as a Seabee, Dr. Feigenbaum began his career with the General Electric Company in Schenectady, New York where he became a pioneer developer of value engineering, which has become a basic to product design and manufacturing in America. In 1957, Dr. Feigenbaum became the General Manager of the International Systems Company, guiding the company to a leadership position within the systems technology industry. In 1960, Donald and his brother Armand founded the General Systems Company, a global leader in designing and installing proprietary management operating systems. Donald and his brother Armand co-authored the book, ``The Power of Management Capital,'' which laid out a new direction for management not only in industry, but healthcare, education, public administration, and technology as well. The book has been influential worldwide and the brothers have toured the globe extensively sharing their ideas. In recognition of their influence, the Feigenbaum Leadership Excellence Award was established by the Middle East Quality Association to encourage the adoption of total quality management. Donald has made significant personal, professional and financial contributions to civic, educational, and charitable organizations. His commitment to the betterment of his home county is reflected by his membership on the Board of Directors of the Berkshire Economic Development Corporation, the Board of Trustees of the Berkshire Athenaeum, the Board of Overseers of the Hancock Shaker Village, the Board of Trustees of the Berkshire Museum, the Board of Trustees of the Colonial Theater Association, the Board of Trustees of the Colonial Theatre Association, the Board of Trustees of the Berkshire Theatre Festival, the Board of Directors of the Rotary Club of Pittsfield Foundation, and as a corporator of the Berkshire Medical Center. Donald, with his brother Armand funded the creation of the Feigenbaum Hall of Innovation at the Berkshire Museum. The extensive permanent exhibition that opened in 2008 presents the numerous achievements of Berkshire County residents in science, technology, and management, as well as innovations in the arts and other disciplines. The brothers have been key in the development of the Michael Walsh Trail on West Stockbridge Mountain, the Hilda Vallin Feigenbaum Berkshire Authors room in the Berkshire Athenaeum, the Feigenbaum Forum at Union College, the Feigenbaum Forum at the University of Massachusetts' Medical School, and the restoration of the Colonial Theatre in Pittsfield. To continue their legacy of philanthropy, Donald and his brother Armand established the Feigenbaum Foundation. Mr. Speaker and fellow members, please join me in recognizing the life and accomplishments of Dr. Donald Feigenbaum.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, the month of March is national colorectal cancer awareness month. I introduce today the Supporting Colorectal Examination and Education Now (SCREEN) Act. This legislation removes barriers in colon cancer screening, one of the most effective preventive health screenings available. The bill helps save lives, improve quality of care, while also reducing Medicare costs in the process. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation. The statistics surrounding colon cancer are startling. Over 50,000 people will die this year from this disease according to the American Cancer Society. Colon cancer is the number two cancer killer in the United States for both men and women. Many of us in this chamber have had friends, family members, and associates affected by this terrible disease. Thankfully, colorectal cancer is highly preventable with appropriate screening. According to an important study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, colorectal cancer deaths may be reduced by over 50 percent by removing precancerous polyps during the screening colonoscopy. Colon cancer screening is a unique preventive service as pre-cancerous polyps are removed during the same encounter, thus preventing cancer from developing, as opposed to other cancer screenings where early detection is the goal. That is one reason why the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force provides an ``A'' rating for CRC screenings. Unfortunately, only half of the Medicare population is being screened, despite the availability of a Medicare colon cancer screening benefit. According to CMS and the American Cancer Society, Medicare claims indicate that only 55-58 percent of beneficiaries have had a colonoscopy or any colorectal cancer test. Screening rates among minority populations are especially low despite the fact that incidences of colon cancer are higher in these populations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concludes that 1,000 additional colorectal cancer deaths will be prevented each year if screening rates reached 70 percent. In addition to saving lives, colorectal cancer screening has been demonstrated to save Medicare long-term costs as noted by the New England Journal of Medicine in a recent article. The direct costs of treating colorectal cancer in 2010 reached $4 billion. These costs can be partially avoided with proper screening. Congress can and should help increase the number of individuals receiving colorectal cancer screenings. The SCREEN Act takes several much-needed steps to increase access to life-saving colorectal cancer screenings for Medicare beneficiaries. The SCREEN Act waives all Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing for colorectal cancer screenings where polyps are removed during the examination. Currently, Medicare waives cost-sharing for any colorectal cancer screening recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. However, should the beneficiary have a precancerous polyp removed, the procedure is no longer considered a ``screening'' for Medicare purposes. The unintended consequence of this is that the beneficiary is obligated to pay the Medicare coinsurance. This is an unexpected and unwelcome ``sticker shock'' that does nothing to promote screening or improve patient care. The Administration announced in February 2013 that private insurers participating in state-based health insurance exchanges must remove all cost sharing for colon cancer screenings where a polyp was removed. We must have a similar policy in the Medicare program. The SCREEN Act also provides incentives for Medicare providers to participate in nationally recognized quality improvement registries so that our Medicare beneficiaries are in fact receiving the quality screening they deserve. Congress and other organizations can look to the SCREEN Act as a model for Medicare reimbursement reform as the bill reimburses providers in a budget neutral manner based on the quality of the procedure and not on the quantity of services. Lastly, the SCREEN Act would allow a Medicare beneficiary to sit down and discuss the screening with a physician before undergoing the procedure. The federal government and patient advocacy groups have concluded that the ``fear of the procedure'' is a major impediment to increasing colorectal cancer screening rates. This pre-procedure visit is good clinical practice and would help improve screening utilization. The patient plays an integral role in colon cancer screening aside from just showing up for the procedure. This role dictates the quality of the screening itself. Medicare should recognize this and provide coverage for a pre-screening visit to review the preparation and procedure itself. There is no reason why a Medicare beneficiary sees the physician for the first time right before being sedated for the procedure. Promoting access to colorectal cancer screening is good policy. It will save lives and reduce costs to families and the health care system. Please join with me in the fight against colorectal cancer by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Levin. Well, we're at it again. There is no greater misuse of time than re- fighting the last election. The last election is just that: the last election. It's over. Governor Romney's pollster said at the time, ``We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers,'' after it was pointed out that there were so many mistakes and miscalculations in their proposal. They might not have cared about the facts, but today I do. I chaired the Democratic position with Lynn Woolsey and Vic Fazio at the behest of Dick Gephardt at the time. One of the goals of welfare reform was to move unemployed Americans from welfare to work, and it did work. The legislation has been very successful in meeting that goal. Welfare reform put people back on the work rolls. Welfare rolls have dropped by half, and poverty amongst children has dropped as well. The administration's TANF waiver initiative continues on this success of promoting welfare to work. It is ludicrous for our Republican friends to try to get in the way of people working by their stopping this waiver initiative--an initiative, by the way, that the Republican Governors asked for. Bill Weld was a very successful Governor of Massachusetts on the issue of welfare reform. He wanted the waiver. He asked for the waiver, as did George Pataki of New York. They asked for the waivers, Republican Governors. The President is not dropping welfare's work requirements. He is allowing the States to experiment. You would think our Republican friends would be entirely in favor of letting Governors experiment on getting people back to work fairly quickly. Secretary Sebelius has stated that the Department's goal is to accelerate job placement, requiring States to commit to a plan that will move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to work compared to the last marker of the State's performance. Let me repeat: a 20 percent increase in getting people on welfare to work from the last marker. I must be missing something here. I sat through months and months and months of deliberation. We reached a compromise. Some of us were disappointed in parts of it, but the Clinton administration signed on. It worked. Those are the facts, not opinions.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Levin. Our job here is to educate the public, not to entertain them. They ran up deficits on the Republican side of $6 trillion during an 8-year period of time--$2.3 trillion worth of tax cuts and two wars. Now they come back today with a glitzy proposal of no work, no pay. Institutional memory. Do you remember their term limits pledge? They invented that. They're all still here. Do you remember their line-item veto? the constitutional theorists? They got rid of that. How about that they were going to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution? My dad used to say, ``At least Jesse James had enough personal respect to wear a mask.'' The people who put us into this situation are now quibbling about raising the debt ceiling when they almost broke the country with the proposals that they offered during all of those years, and never once did they deny President Bush on those proposals.