Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to enter into the Congressional Record an article that appeared in The Reminder newspaper last week commemorating the 375 anniversary of the founding of the City of Springfield, Massachusetts. This was truly a joyous occasion, and this article does an excellent job of recording what a wonderful event this was. Congratulations Springfield! [From The Reminder, May 18, 2011] City Celebrates 375 Years of History, Innovation (By G. Michael Dobbs) Sringfield.--For Congressman Richard Neal, Saturday's events to acknowledge the 375th anniversary of the founding of Springfield had a d j vu quality. Speaking on the steps of City Hall, Neal recalled that he stood on the small spot 25 years ago as Springfield's mayor during the 350th celebrations. Neal was part of the thousands of people who attended the day's activities, from the annual pancake breakfast, to the kick-off event at City Hall with the chorus comprised of Springfield school children to the parade that went through downtown to the fireworks that ended the day at Blunt Park. Neal, whose fondness for history is well known, noted, ``The city has given great moments to the country and to the world.'' He read a letter of congratulations from President Barack Obama that said in part, ``You've written your own chapter in the narrative of the United States.'' Mayor Domenic Sarno told the crowd, ``You know, we are a good city.'' He then said, ``We need each and every one of you to be ambassadors for the city of Springfield.'' The children's chorus clearly moved the audience with its rendition of ``The Springfield Song,'' written by Springfield School music teacher Diane Rodriguez. Even after the ceremony at City Hall concluded, the pancake breakfast was still being served to hundreds of people. Sarno and his family led the parade, which started at the Springfield Technical Community College campus and went down State Street to Main Street and concluded at Mill Street in the South End neighborhood. Organizations, businesses and representatives all marched in the parade, which was a little more than an hour in length. Although the weather didn't give the giant Cat in the Hat baloon any difficulty, the new traffic lights along the route had the balloon skimming the street. For many people, ``Springfield'' is the name of the Simpson's hometown in the popular animated series. For those who know a little about the history of this country, ``Springfield'' has a different meaning. Springfield, Mass., the oldest and the largest city with that name, is known as the ``City of Firsts'' for a reason-- actually many reasons. Springfield is where basketball was invented. It's where the Duryea Brothers built and tested the first American gasoline powered car. It's the community where the first and perhaps most beloved American motocycle--they spelled it without the ``r''--the Indian was developed and manufactured. It is the city where the first American armory was built and where the Springfield Rifle was made. And it was the insurrection by Revolutionary War veterans led by Daniel Shays on that armory that led to the creation of the United States Constitution. Clarence Birdseye chose Springfield as his test market in the 1930s for something truly radical: frozen vegetables. A group of brothers, the Granvilles, literally off of the farm picked Springfield to be their headquarters in the 1920s and '30s where they would design and build the GeeBee racing planes that still awe aviation enthusiasts. The city was the home of Milton Bradley, who revolutionized the toy industry with board games. The city's streets, schools and parks gave hometown boy Theodor Gelsel, better known as Dr. Seuss inspiration for later books and illustrations. All of these accomplishments happened at a place where an English businessman named William Pynchon, the founder of Springfield, sensed potential in the mid-1600s. According to historian Ernest Newton Bagg, Pynchon, who was a patentee and magistrate to the Massachusetts Bay Colony, was attracted to the Connecticut River Valley as a place rich with fur animals, especially beaver. After a long voyage from England in 1630, Pynchon began trading goods he had brought from England with native people for furs. What attracted him to Western Massachusetts was the possible encroachment of Dutch traders who had established a trading post along the Connecticut River in what is now Hartford, Conn. Some of the Dutch traders even came to Springfield, but disease and hunger compelled them back to the relative safety of the Hartford establishment. Pynchon wanted to succeed where the Dutch had failed and began planning an effort to build a settlement in what is now Springfield in 1635. Using a ``shallop,'' a light single-mast vessel, Pynchon and his expedition sailed up the Connecticut River. He made a camp in what is now West Springfield and his men used the boat's lumber for their new home. The native people seemed friendly and Pynchon was impressed with the virgin forests with large and small game, a river teeming with shad and salmon and lands ready for agriculture. Pynchon left his men and returned to the settlement of Roxbury by foot. When he returned the next spring, he was told the relationship between the natives and Pynchon's men had deteriorated and Pynchon was forced to move his operation to the eastern side of the river. Despite the problems, caused in part by the damage to the natives' cornfields by the settlers' free-range hogs, Pynchon was able to come to an agreement on July 15, 1636, to acquire the desired Agawam land. Further negotiations gave him the control of an area from the Chicopee River to the Mill River. Trouble with crops, a narrowly averted war with the native people and even an earthquake were some of the challenges early settlers faced. Pynchon was right, though, about the richness of the area for furs. Bagg noted in his 1936 history of Springfield that although there was no record of just how well Pynchon fared during his 15 years of trading furs in the area, his son John continued the business after his father returned to England and regularly shipped 2,000 beaver skins annually to merchants in his native country. Pynchon has the additional distinction of being the author of the first book ``banned in Boston.'' His 1650 book, ``The Meritorious Price of a Man's Redemption,'' took exception to Puritan theology. The colony's General Court condemned the book and copies were burned on Boston Common. Pynchon was under great pressure to recant and after one appearance before the Court, he decided to transfer all of his holdings to his son John and return to England before he was forced to appear before the General Court once more. He left the colony in 1652. His death at age 72 in 1662 closed the first chapter in the city's history. Pynchon's legacy was that his purchase of land just didn't create one community, Springfield, but the following towns and cities as well: Agawam, Chicopee, East Longmeadow, Hampden, Holyoke, Longmeadow, Ludlow, Southwick, Westfield, West Springfield, Wilbraham and Enfield, and Suffield, Conn. No less a person than General George Washington had a hand in the next major development of the community. In February 1777, Washington authorized an ``establishment of the laboratory at Springfield.'' The armory became known as a center for technological innovation in manufacturing and undoubtedly led to Springfield becoming a center for skilled manufacturing. Another famous gun maker, Smith & Wesson, made the city its home and is still in business today. Early in its history, the Armory attracted the attention of a group of farmers enraged at the taxation tactics of the Massachusetts state government. In February 1787 as part of a series of armed protests, Daniel Shays, a Revolutionary War veteran and farmer from Pelham, led a group of men to capture the armory. Although Shays failed at the armory, his protest succeeded in showing the weakness of the Articles of Confederation and in May 1787 the Constitutional Convention was convened to re-shape federal government. Thomas Jefferson expressed his reaction to Shay's Rebellion previous to the attack on the Armory in a letter to James Madison on Jan. 30, 1787. Jefferson wrote, ``I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people, which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.'' The armory inspired another kind of reaction from American poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. Longfellow and his second wife Frances visited Springfield and the Armory in 1845. The tour inspired what was considered to be Longfellow's most effective anti-war poem, ``The Arsenal at Springfield.'' The first two stanzas are: ``This is the Arsenal. From floor to ceiling, Like a huge organ, rise the burnished arms; But from their silent pipes no anthem, pealing Startles the villages with strange alarms. ``Ah! What a sound will rise, how wild and drear, When the death-angel touches those swift keys! What a loud lament and dismal Miserere Will mingle with their awful symphonies!'' In the book ``Springfield Memories,'' published in 1876, Mason Green wrote about the development of the city: ``Modern Springfield was born with the peace of the War of 1812. In the re-action from embargoes and war from 1814 to 1825 there was a general housecleaning and business re-adjustment. The old tavern site was cleared off for a Common, a church and court-house was built by the side of it and another church (Unitarian) down Main Street, Union and Court Streets were opened, the river bridge, that was swept away by a flood was restored (1818), a line of boats was established between the village and Hartford, connecting with Boston and New York schooners, neighboring water powers were utilized, many mechanics and artisans were called in, who became residents, and the Weekly Springfield Republican was started, which insured the place a future.'' In 1936 when the city was celebrating its 300th anniversary, the unaccredited author of one of the commemorative booklets wrote, ``Varied are the products of Greater Springfield: Intricate machines, radios and electrical appliances, tires, motorcycles, garments, arms, games and school materials, books and magazines, newspapers, wire, chains, machine tools, cigars, chemicals and medicines, valves, oil pumps, fine paper, jute boxes, clocks and leather goods. Here once were the pioneers in the manufacture of automobiles. Across the river are the railroad shops.'' The first American-made gasoline powered car was built and tested in Springfield by Charles and Frank Duryea on Sept. 20, 1893. The city would later be the site for a factory producing Duryea cars. The Knox Automobile Company produced cars from 1900 to 1914 in Springfield and stayed in business with tractors until 1924. And the city was picked by Rolls Royce as the site for its only American automobile 28 manufacturing plant. The Springfield Rolls Royce facility opened in 1920 and closed in 1931 and the cars made there are sought after by collectors. Also still highly prized are the Indian Motocycles made in the city from 1901 to 1954. The brainchild of engineer Oscar Hedstrom, the ``motocycles'' were the first ones made in this country and were well-known for their power and durability. Brought to the city by bicycle racer George Hendee, Hedstrom developed a motorcycle that he tested publicly on May 25, 1901 on Cross Street hill. Newspaper reporter R.D. Pepin wrote about the test on its 25th anniversary. ``Hedstrom bravely climbed the old hill and forcefully demonstrated to the residents of Springfield the first step towards an industry destined to fill a long place in the field of industry, utility and sport.'' Pepin noted that Hendee had featured motor-drive bicycles made in Europe at his bicycle-racing track. ``The uncertainty of these motors was a source of great anxiety to the management and of dissatisfaction to the patrons of the track,'' Pepin wrote. With Springfield a growing center of transportation technology, it's little wonder that a group of brothers came off of the family farm to Springfield to pursue their dream of developing faster and more powerful airplanes. Although the Granville brothers were in business for only five years from 1929 to 1934 and built just 24 aircraft, their revolutionary designs created a legend among aviators. Springfield was also a city of ideas as well as industry and technology. Abolitionist John Brown made the city his headquarters in 1846 when he established a business to represent wool producers to the New England mill owners. Later, the city was a stop on the Underground Railroad. G & C Merriam, Company, was founded In 1831 as printers and booksellers and the pair of brothers--George and Charles-- purchased the rights to the name and all copyrights to the best-seller dictionary written by Noah Webster in 1843. Since that time, the nation's best-known reference book has been written and published in Springfield. When stumped about how to excite his winter physical fitness class, a young Canadian attending the International Y.M.C.A. Training School remembered Duck on a Rock, a game from his youth. Taking a soccer ball and a peach basket, James Naismith developed the game of basketball in 1891, quite possible the most popular indoor sport. The Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame draws more than 250,000 visitors a year to its Springfield shrine to the game. A number of people prominent in show business and the arts are natives of the city. During the 1920s and 30s, Broadway and radio star Julia Sanderson was a popular performer. The classic movie musicals ``Born to Dance'' and ``Broadway Melody of 1940'' feature another Springfield native Eleanor Powell. The beautiful and athletic dancer was a star at MGM. She was married to actor Glenn Ford for a number of years and by the end of her life she turned her energies to religion. Lawrence O'Brien, Kennedy family supporter, postmaster general, head of the Democratic Party and commissioner of the National Basketball Association, was another well known Springfield resident. His father had a tavern where the MassMutual Center now stands and he received his law degree from Western New England College. Perhaps the most interesting favorite daughter is June Foray, whose family left their home on Orange Street and traveled to California where she eventually became one of the most highly regarded voice actresses in animation providing the voice for Rocky in ``Rocky and Bullwinkle,'' Granny in the Tweety cartoons and many other characters. Students at the former Classical High School could still find evidence of that school's most controversial graduate, Dr. Timothy Leary. His name could be seen carved into at least one desk. Leary was one of the prominent leaders of the counter culture in the 1960s who urged people to ``turn on, tune in and drop out.'' Springfield's most beloved native was Theodore Geisel better known to generations of American as Dr. Seuss. The author and illustrator took inspiration from the city of his birth from the names of streets--``And to Think that I Saw it on Mulberry Street''--to his father's position as superintendent of the city's parks--``If I Ran the Zoo.'' The Dr. Seuss National Memorial Sculpture Garden at the Springfield Museum complex pays tribute to the innovative storyteller. Springfield's latest burst of national publicity came in 2007 with a contest that asked fans of ``The Simpsons'' to pick the Springfield that is actually home to the best known dysfunctional family. Although Springfield Mass., didn't win in a surprising upset to Springfield, Vt., the producers of the animated series and film knew better. They had prepared a special poster before the contest's final results that declared the movie was filmed in Springfield, Mass. A community of rich diversity and history, Springfield today is the home of national companies, three colleges and a law school. It was named the fourth ``greenest'' city in the nation and was recognized as one of the greatest centers of small business and entrepeurneurship in the country. Its best days are not behind it.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic resolution. Last week on the floor of the House, the Republican leader, Eric Cantor, asked a very important question. He asked, How did we get here? So I took the challenge. I went back and have carefully chronicled a series of vote steps and quotes from Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, John Kasich and others who argued against the Clinton plan for balancing the budget. Remember when Clinton left office, the clock in Times Square had been turned off. Alan Greenspan said, you're paying down the debt too quickly. We've had five balanced budgets since 1969; four of them came with Bill Clinton. The prescription that was offered on January 20 of the Bush inauguration was massive tax cuts and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. And our Republican friends ask, How did we get here? I am very optimistic about engaging in this conversation now and as we get to the debt ceiling. When Clinton walked out on January 19, 2001, 22 million jobs had been created. Economic growth averaged 4 percent per quarter. It was the greatest period of economic prosperity in the history of America. And our friends on the other side of the aisle want to turn the clock back on that reality.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the yearlong celebration of the town of Monson, Massachusetts' 250th anniversary. The town was founded by a small group of residents from Brimfield, Massachusetts, who petitioned for a town of their own. The first town meeting of Monson was held in 1760. When it was founded, Monson was a center for manufacturing in Massachusetts, with an abundance of mills powered by the water found in the nearby hills. Today, Monson is known primarily for their involvement in the arts, especially the theater and festivals. To honor this historic occasion, the town of Monson held a yearlong celebration with different events held by members of the Monson Steering Committee and several non-profit organizations located in the town. This yearlong celebration of the town's anniversary began in April 2010, and will conclude on April 9, 2011. The inaugural event of the festival was a bonfire held at Veterans Field. Throughout the year there were family events and festivals, including the annual Summerfest held on the 4th of July, and the family ice cream social and concert sponsored by the Friends of the Keep Museum. Families also enjoyed the picnic held at Flynt Park. Other outdoor activities included a walk/run sponsored by the Peaked Mountain Committee and a motorcycle hill climb sponsored by the Quaboag Riders & Monson Lions Club. There were many cultural events as well, such as the Monson Arts Council's craft fair, the Monson Bellmen Antique Fire Apparatus Club and Museum's open house, and the Monson Rotary Club's concert at Dave Grieve Park. A quilt show was held in which 50 Monson quilters donated a block to make a commemorative 250th anniversary quilt. This quilt will be on display continually in various buildings in the town. The concluding event of this festival will be the Monson 250th Gala Ball with the theme of ``Remembering Monson.'' The ball will have a continuous slide show of all the old and new businesses and homes in Monson, as well as a display of Monson's non-profit organizations. The town of Monson has been an important part of Massachusetts since well before the United States was founded. While this quintessential New England town is a place where families have lived for generations, Monson has also grown into a dynamic center for arts, culture and a thriving workplace. On its 250th anniversary, I am honored to represent the town of Monson and I look forward to celebrating many more anniversaries.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. I thank Mr. Levin for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, this provision came over from the Senate. As Mr. Levin has correctly noted, Members on this side of the aisle have already cast a vote to repeal this measure. The difficulty that's in front of us today is the manner in which this has been presented to all of us. Now, we are going to hear a lot of conflicting opinions today about the new taxes in this bill. Like everybody else here in this Chamber, I am opposed to raising taxes on the middle class. Hardly is that a leap of faith into unchartered waters. We all share that common belief. But the problem with the provision that's offered today is the disguised nature of raising taxes on the middle class. Let's get to the heart of this bill. It repeals a new reporting requirement on small businesses. This provision expanded a type of reporting that already goes on where businesses report to the Internal Revenue Service on large payments sent to contractors. This type of third-party reporting is meant to ensure those contractors report honestly to the IRS on the income they earn. A reminder, it is estimated that there is up to $300 billion a year of unreported income in the United States. And before we get to some of the cuts that have been proposed in this institution, we ought to be focusing our attention on how we might collect that unreported and underreported income that is such an important part of the underground economy in the United States. You would think that that opportunity would avail itself based upon the mindless process that took place here a couple of weeks ago where we began with a series of 2-minute votes over 2 days to cut very important initiatives that the American people have come to rely on. And I would suggest to my friends on the other side of the aisle that they take note of that Wall Street Journal poll this morning as to what these cuts mean and how they are going down with the American people. In our committee markup, there was a great deal of discussion about the burden on small businesses that this new reporting requirement imposes, and I think that for the most part we are all in agreement that the burden here may well outweigh the benefit. But let's not ignore what we have found out about tax evasion at our markup. I asked Tom Barthold from the Joint Committee on Taxation about his estimate that the reporting requirement would raise $22 billion in revenue. Now, Tom Barthold is not a Democrat; he is not a Republican. He is an economist who likes to give unjaded information to those of us who then implement policy. I asked him how much of this was tax evasion, contractors underreporting income and how much was the penalties on those innocent third parties who got tripped up on the rules. He told us that almost all of it was due to tax avoidance, tax evasion. So without any hearings or debate about how to best capture that $22 billion, we eliminated this reporting requirement and would raise taxes on middle-income families. I want to urge my friends on the other side, before we travel down this path of cutting very important initiatives for the American family--and I can't wait till we have the first vote in this institution up or down on Social Security to see if the rhetoric really matches the reality. Then I am hopeful that if we move to the discussion and debate on Medicare, we will see if the rhetoric matches the reality. But I would hope that before we move on this mindless trail of these proposed cuts that have taken place over the last 3 weeks, that we might consider what to do about the whole notion of tax evasion. I hope that those on the other side of the aisle would join me in my efforts to ferret out tax abuse.

Mr. NEAL. I have been on this issue for a career of what to do about American companies that change their address so that they become a citizen of Bermuda to avoid American income taxes, while there are hundreds of thousands of American soldiers overseas, why our VA hospitals are going to be necessary for the 31,000 that have been wounded in honorable service to this country, and why, before we propose the cuts that we have proposed, we are not after tax evasion the way that we should be. That ought to be something that men and women of good will in this institution all ought to be able to agree upon.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentlelady. When you consider how rhetoric doesn't square up with reality in this institution, the gentleman from Iowa started by saying this is the greatest threat to personal liberty in history. Well, we have some young people here today, and I guess he thinks that Plessy vs. Ferguson and Dred Scott and Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, that those didn't represent a threat to personal liberty. Now, President Bush said that the best way to get health care, for those who were outside the mainstream, was very simple. You could go to an emergency room. That is not health care. That treats the issue in front of the individual. It denies preventive care. It doesn't offer assistance to women who are in need of additional health care. This proposal that we passed was modest, and it was market driven. It kept the private sector alive and it put in place basic protections for the American consumer. I wish that we could have a separate vote on the individual proposals that we included in that bill, and I guarantee you we wouldn't be talking about death panels; we would be talking about the idea of extending health care benefits to all members of the American family, including the 51 million who find themselves outside of the mainstream. Just think of it today. This is more of a threat to liberty than Plessy vs. Ferguson and Dred Scott and Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered today which wold repeal the historic health care reform bill. With passage of the new law last year, American families can take back the control of their health care. The law bars insurance companies from discriminating coverage based upon pre-existing conditions, health status and gender. The law caps the out-of-pocket health care expenses that have bankrupted many American families. The law allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable insurance from competitive marketplaces. And--the law contains the cost of health care while reducing the deficit by $138 billion over the next 10 years. We solved the dilemma so many Americans families face on a child's 22nd birthday by extending dependent benefits until age 26. I am an ardent supporter of Social Security and Medicare. The new law filled the Medicare prescription donut hole and provided new wellness and preventive benefits seniors. We made history last year with this new law. And yet, today, this amendment seeks to undo all of this progress, all of these achievements, all of these new protections and benefits for Americans. I have visited the world-class hospitals of Massachusetts and spoken with the administrators, doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals. Massachusetts is way-ahead of the rest of the country in requiring health insurance coverage for almost all of our citizens. And I can tell you the state is better for it. The hospitals are better for it. I urge opposition.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to celebrate the 100th birthday of Sr. Ellen Leddy of Holyoke, Massachusetts. Below is a brief biography of Sr. Leddy and a history of her accomplishments. Sr. Ellen Leddy, the historian of the Sisters of Providence Congregation, is the daughter of the late Edmund and Margaret (Golden) Leddy. She entered the SPs from Harvard, MA. Formerly Sister Marie de Lourdes, she served as the SPs' historical librarian in Horan Library at Providence Mother House, Holyoke, from 1982 until its closure in 1999. She was also an invaluable consultant for Seeds of Hope: The History of the Sisters of Providence, published in 1999. She first ministered for 22 years as a registered medical technologist in laboratories at Mercy Hospital, Springfield, Providence Hospital, Holyoke, and St. Luke's Hospital, Pittsfield. She then served as local superior for Sisters attending Boston College and followed that service with nine years as director of formation for the Community's newest members. She entered the social service and pastoral counseling fields in the late 1960s, first serving at the Municipal Home and Holyoke Day Nursery, and then at Mount Saint Vincent Nursing Home, all in Holyoke. Additional ministries included service as sacristan at Mount Saint Vincent Nursing Home, and both assistant coordinator and coordinator at Providence Mother House. She also served as a Minister of the Eucharist and Mount Saint Vincent Nursing Home and Blessed Sacrament Church, also in Holyoke. Sister Ellen attended schools in Harvard, graduated from Mount St. Joseph Academy in Brighton and attended Fitchburg Normal School. She holds a master of arts degree in religious education from Providence College in Rhode Island and a master of education and bachelor of science in education degrees from Boston College. She is a former member of the Catholic Theology Society, the Society of Catholic College Teachers of Sacred Doctrine, the Social Workers of Nursing Homes and Hospitals Organization in Massachusetts, and Community Workers Association of Holyoke. She is only the second Sister of Providence of record to reach her 80th Jubilee, and lives an active lifestyle at Providence Place in Holyoke.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. During the course of the campaign, we heard that this was going to be repeal and replace. What we have in front of us is simply repeal, because there has never been a credible alternative offered for replace. This legislation is modeled after a modest, market-driven proposal offered by that left-winger, Mitt Romney; that left-wing advocate, Bob Dole; and, yes, that champion of liberal causes, Richard Nixon. This is an amalgamation of a series of proposals offered over many years. But what do we hear? The usual scare tactics: ``ObamaCare''--16 years ago, it was ``ClintonCare''--``government takeover,'' ``socialism,'' and the best one of all, ``death panels.'' People wonder why the language here is so charged, why it is so incendiary. It is because of the lexicon it has chosen for the purpose of scaring the American people. As President Bush said, If you need health care, go to the emergency room. Remember what this proposal does: It removes 57 million people with preexisting conditions from insurance. It eliminates provisions for 2.4 million young adults to maintain health care on their parents' coverage until they are 26. This bill would allow a return to discrimination toward a woman based on higher premiums if she has had breast cancer or perhaps even if she has been a victim of domestic violence or had a child. This bill that is proposed by our friends on the other side would get rid of a lifetime cap on out-of-pocket expenses. Why is that important? I dare them to challenge the following statistic: Half the bankruptcies in America are health care related. People lose their jobs. They lose their homes. They lose everything because they get sick. I hope we oppose this repeal measure or at least until we hear a replace proposal.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentleman. Madam Chair, I am standing in opposition to this proposal. When we debated the middle income tax cut a few weeks ago, I spoke in favor of a tax system that we might design for the future, a progressive system with substantial tax relief for working families, and, in our own Democratic caucus, suggested that the number $250,000 was too low; that if we raised that ceiling to $500,000, we could take care of every S corporation, we could take care of every small business person who at the end of the month uses their credit card. That was rejected. But I still thought that was a reasonable compromise. Now, when my friend Mr. Camp spoke a couple of minutes ago, he delineated the clearest position of the two parties when he said he was upset that we were not paying for the extension of unemployment benefits. For years they borrowed the money for Iraq, they borrowed the money for Afghanistan, and, I challenge anybody on the other side tonight to dispute this point, they borrowed the money for the Bush tax cuts as well. That is what we are discussing here. Now, the reason that I stand in opposition to this proposal tonight-- because there are many good provisions in this bill, including alternative minimum tax, and I do wish the Build America Bonds program was in here--this represents a serious threat to the solvency of the Social Security system. We will never return that number down the road. And you mark my words tonight, what they will argue down the road is the Social Security system has been weakened, proving that you need private accounts. Their fingerprints will be all over it. They will suggest this proves the theory of the benefit of a private account. So we borrowed the money for Iraq. And when I said to President Bush in 2001 in the Oval Office, ``Mr. President, modest tax cuts for middle income Americans,'' it was rejected. And that is why we are in the condition that we are in today financially.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. I thank the chairman. Madam Speaker, this legislation has already passed the House. It really was a bipartisan achievement this year, and much of the good work that went into this legislation has been years in coming. More than 100 years ago, the first mutual fund was started in Boston, Massachusetts. Mutual funds have been a way for the ``everyman'' to invest in the market with benefits of pooling and diversification. Today, more than 50 million households invest through mutual funds with a median household income of $80,000. More than 50 percent of 401(k) plan assets were invested in mutual funds at the end of 2009. H.R. 4337 was introduced last year by Mr. Rangel and me to modernize the tax laws regarding regulated investment companies, better known as mutual funds. The tax rules that relate to mutual funds date back more than 50 years, and although these rules have been updated from time to time, it has been over 20 years since the rules were last revisited. The bill before us today would make several changes to the Tax Code to address outdated provisions, such as rules that relate to preferential dividends, rules that require mutual funds to send separate annual dividend designation notices to shareholders, and rules that prevent mutual funds from earning income from commodities. In June, my subcommittee, the Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee, reviewed this legislation with a panel of experts who expressed support for the changes. Simply put, the subcommittee held a hearing, and there was broad support on the Democratic side and on the Republican side for the accomplishment that sits in front of us. I am pleased to support this modified legislation, which is also revenue neutral. The Ways and Means Committee has a responsibility to review our tax rules from time to time and to remove the deadwood and update where necessary. This bill accomplishes that to the benefit of the investors, taxpayers, and mutual fund companies. I urge its adoption. I thank the chairman for yielding to me, and I thank our friends on the other side for their endorsement of this legislation as well.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I want to disagree sharply with the point that our colleague, Mr. Brady, just made; America needs to have this conversation. We need to have a conversation as to how we got ourselves into the mess that we find ourselves in today, and part of that conversation is the discussion and debate over whether to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. That is the difference of opinion that we are debating right now. Now, our friends on the other side are going to tell us that this has a big impact on small business, despite what the IRS says. And I have even offered a proposal that would address the 3 percent issue, moving down the road. But let's listen to one small business owner, Beri Fox, the president of Marble King, the last remaining American manufacturer of marbles. She thinks we have lost our marbles. When asked whether the way to economic recovery was tax cuts for the wealthy, Ms. Fox simply replied, ``Absolutely not.'' America has paid the price for theology, the theology that tax cuts pay for themselves. They inherited a near perfect economy 10 years ago: record job growth; deficits eliminated; the debt being paid down, and Alan Greenspan warned us we were paying down the debt too quickly. This argument today is about fairness--fairness and what type of tax system we want to create. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center analyzed the Bush proposal at different income levels. They found that next year, for someone earning more than $1 million, he or she can look forward to an average tax cut of $128,832 if we extend these tax cuts for the wealthy. They found next year someone making $7 million can look forward to a $400,000 tax cut if we leave the Bush proposals in place. This is a question of how we treat the working families of America. This is a question of not cementing into law a tax system with skewed benefits. I urge support for this middle class tax cut.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, this Democrat will tell you what we intend to do. We have heard a lot of conflicting opinions during the past week about whether to extend the tax cuts for those at the top of the ladder. It is difficult to break through the clutter. But what is clear in this basic argument is it's about fairness and the type of tax system that we want to create. A recent analysis shows at various income levels both the cumulative benefit of tax cuts and the 2011 benefit, if we extend the tax cuts to everyone. Since 2004, those earning $10,000 have received $335 in total tax benefits. And next year they can look forward to an additional $5 if we extend the Bush tax cuts. Now, for someone earning more than $7 million, we will note that they have enjoyed more than $2 million in tax benefits since 2004. And next year they can look forward to $339,000 in tax cuts if we extend the tax cut system that President Bush offered as-is. Five dollars versus $339,000? It's a basic question of fairness. The tax code should treat working families better.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is about supporting American manufacturing jobs, plain and simple. The Peterson Institute suggests that this would increase American exports by $100 to $150 billion a year. The Ways and Means Committee held three hearings on this issue which confirmed that China is deliberately intervening in currency markets to continue its unfair advantage over American manufacturers and workers. The committee reported out a bipartisan bill with important changes to make it fully consistent with WTO rules. In short, this bill allows currency manipulation to be considered in trade remedy cases. It is consistent with a free market solution to enabling fair trade. Lawrence Lindsey, who was President George W. Bush's own economic adviser, said, ``The Chinese clearly undervalue their exchange rate. It is the Chinese Government, not markets and not Americans, who are shaping how much is bought and from whom.'' This bill is not a solution to all the challenges relating to U.S.-China trade, but it is a significant and much-needed trade remedy tool to help American business and workers compete. New initiatives such as this are needed in response to negotiations that time and again have been stymied in both Democratic and Republican administrations. This is a good step in the right direction.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4337) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify certain rules applicable to regulated investment companies, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. NEAL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Madam Speaker, we held a hearing on this bill. It is well received by the investors; it is well received by the mutual fund companies, and it certainly received no negative commentary in the House. Why cannot we just come to this floor and speak to the issue at hand? I worked hard on this piece of legislation with Mr. Tiberi for a long period of time. This is the legislation that's in front of this Congress at this particular time. It was well met because it was fully vetted in the committee with sufficient opportunity for any- and everyone to comment on it. This is a product that we should be proud of. For the first time in two decades, we are modernizing issues that relate to the industry that many, if not millions, of Americans come to depend upon for retirement. I don't understand why there would be any additional argument made on any other piece of legislation that was being considered when, in fact, this is the matter that's before us at this particular time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Madam Speaker, more than 100 years ago, the first U.S. mutual fund was started in Boston. Mutual funds have been a way of life for ``everyman'' to invest in the market, with the benefits of pooling and diversification. Indeed, it invites the term ``mutualization.'' Today, more than 50 million households invest through mutual funds with a median household income of $80,000. More than 50 percent of 401(k) plan assets were invested in mutual funds at the end of 2009. H.R. 4337 was introduced last year by Mr. Rangel and me to modernize the tax laws regarding regulated investment companies, better known as mutual funds. A technical explanation and revenue table for this bill may be found on the Joint Tax Web site, www.jct.gov. The tax rules that relate to mutual funds date back more than a half century. Although these rules have been updated from time to time, it has been over 20 years since they were last revisited. The bill before us today would make several changes to the Tax Code to address outdated provisions, such as rules that relate to preferential dividends and rules that require mutual funds to send separate annual dividend designation notices to shareholders and rules that prevent mutual funds from earning income from commodities. In June, my subcommittee, the Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee, reviewed this legislation with a panel of experts who expressed support for these changes. Today, I am pleased to be joined by my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), in bringing this bill to the floor with a few technical changes and revenue offsets from within the industry. The Ways and Means Committee has the responsibility to review our tax rules from time to time, remove the dead wood, and update where necessary. This bill accomplishes that to the benefit of investors, taxpayers, and mutual fund companies. I urge its adoption. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I stand in support of this small business jobs bill. There is no cute title for this bill. It's simply about small businesses and jobs. It injects funding into small businesses in two ways. First it does through the creation of a $30 billion lending fund for community banks. Many have complained that while community banks have money, they aren't positioned to lend. This fund makes favorable repayment rates contingent upon lending to small business. Second, the bill provides $12 billion in enhanced tax benefits for small businesses, which will encourage hiring and investment. It will allow small businesses to carry back the general business credits for 5 years, and they will provide cash in hand today rather than sitting on the credits that they eventually cannot claim. All of this will allow small businesses which may be on the fence about committing new funds, new investments, upgrades in equipment, or retaining or rehiring workers to spend the funds necessary to get back to work. This is a very decent, reasonable piece of legislation. We ought to embrace it. It will have ripple effects throughout our economy.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, it did not take a lot of courage for the Republican leader in the Senate to announce his tax cut plan last week, which would cost about $4 trillion. Handing out tax cuts is not a tough business. Oddly enough, while he ensured that those households with incomes of more than $1 million would get a tax cut of $104,000 next year, he forgot about the households of working poor people who count on the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit. Why? Because the GOP plan extends the estate tax cuts but doesn't extend improvements to the tax credits for low-income working families, which the Congress passed last year. In Massachusetts alone, 210,000 families will lose some or all of the child credit under the Republican plan and 167,000 Massachusetts families will lose all or some of the earned income tax credit. I urge our Republican friends here to reject this plan from their Senate leader and to stand up for working families.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Madam Speaker, I rise to offer legislation to create additional savings opportunities for workers who do not have access to qualified retirement plans through their employers. I am pleased to be joined by several of my colleagues in offering ``The Automatic IRA Act of 2010,'' which will increase retirement savings for millions of workers. This proposal is based on one contained in the President's budget. Over the years, Congress has improved incentives for employer-based retirement and pension plans by providing more flexibility, increasing the limits, and lessening the administrative burdens. Still, about one in four employees who have access to these successful retirement vehicles do not take advantage of them. What is a much more difficult group to reach, though, are the estimated 75 million workers who do not have access to these employer- based plans. GAO estimates that half the private sector workforce has no access to an employer-provided retirement plan. That is why today, we are filing legislation to create automatic payroll deposit Individual Retirement Accounts, or Auto IRAs, for workers who do not have access to employer-provided qualified pension plans. Our bill would require employers to automatically enroll employees in an Auto IRA unless the employee opts out. These are ``set it and forget it'' payroll deposit accounts. Recent research from Fidelity showed that only one in 10 workers eligible for automatic enrollment in employer- provided plans proactively opted out of the plan. The non-partisan Retirement Security Project has estimated that the Auto IRA proposal could raise net national savings by nearly $8 billion annually. This is especially important for younger and low-income workers, as GAO projects that under current law, 37 percent of all workers will retire with zero plan savings, and of young and low-income workers, 63 percent will have no plan savings at retirement. According to a ``retirement ready'' study from the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) released last month, 64 percent of workers earning less than $30,000 a year will run out of money within 10 years of retirement. And this problem exists even among large employers with qualified plans. A recent study by Hewitt projecting the retirement needs of 2.1 million employees of 84 large employers finds that the baseline case for full- career contributing employees will only meet about 85 percent of their predicted retirement needs at age 65. We are, of course, sensitive to any increased burden on small businesses, so the bill provides for a temporary tax credit for employers with less than 100 employees in order to offset the up-front administrative cost of establishing this program. Only employers with at least 10 employees, which have been in business for at least two years, would be covered by the bill. Further, the bill does not mandate any matching contributions by employers or any fiduciary responsibility for the management of the accounts. It is our sincere hope that once employers start participating, they will decide to convert these arrangements to the broader 401(k) plans. The IRA contribution limits are much lower than the 401(k) limits, so business owners may see incentives to switch to the bigger plans. Employers have the option of choosing a private sector manager for the Auto IRAs, while allowing each employee the right to transfer, or simply allowing the employee to designate the provider at the outset. As a default, employers may also send these contributions to the Treasury Department for the purchase of newly created Retirement Bonds, or R-bonds. Employer-provided retirement plans are highly popular among workers, and in a 2009 survey for AARP, by two to one, respondents said employers should be required to provide a retirement savings plan for their employees. This bill merely requires the employer to set up the mechanism for employees to save on their own. The automatic enrollment feature is not new. It builds upon the success of 401(k) auto-enrollment, promoted by the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Many of the workers who will benefit from our bill will likely be moderate to lower-income workers. GAO recently studied the impact of auto-enrollment on workers savings levels and found that universal access to retirement savings with automatic enrollment would result in 91 percent of all workers, and 84 percent of low-income workers, with accumulated defined contribution savings at retirement. EBRI's ``retirement ready'' study found positive benefits already from auto-enrollment and auto-escalation of contributions in 401(k) plans, particularly for those aged 56 to 62 years old who have a 47 percent chance of not having enough money at retirement, down from a 60 percent chance just seven years ago. The Auto IRA proposal, which was jointly developed by Brookings Institution and Heritage Foundation scholars, has garnered widespread support, including AARP and the Minority Business Roundtable, and has been endorsed in editorials around the country. Of the 75 million American workers who have no access to an employer plan, over 40 million work for employers of at least 10 employees. And, only 10 percent of these workers actually seek out their own IRAs or other retirement savings vehicles. The Auto IRA bill that we are proposing will reach this critical group of workers and hopefully help them start on the road to retirement security. We urge our colleagues to join us in supporting ``The Automatic IRA Act of 2010.''

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to improve the retirement savings of hard-working union members. Specifically, members of the Inter-Local Pension Fund of the Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters do not have access to some of the same retirement provisions that other workers do. And I think it simply makes no sense. The Fund, formed in 1950, is a 501(c)(18) pension trust that provides benefits to 12,500 active and 20,000 retired union members. Sixty-eight local affiliated unions participate in the Fund, and benefits are financed entirely by employee contributions and the earnings thereon. Section 501(c)(18) provides a tax exemption for a pension trust created before June 25, 1959 and funded solely by employee contributions. Further, the pension plan of which the trust is part must satisfy certain nondiscrimination tests. The Fund appears to be the sole remaining section 501(c)(18) pension trust in existence. Madam Speaker, my legislation would simply apply the same cap to annual contributions to 501(c)(18) pension trusts that applies to annual elective deferrals in 401(k) plans. Those caps for workers in 401(k) plans are also adjusted for inflation. Without such parity the Fund's pension value will continue to decline. These workers deserve to be on equal ground as 401(k) participants. Additionally, the legislation makes available to the Fund the same exception from the debt-financed real property rules currently available to section 401 pension trusts allowing for better diversification of assets. In closing, Madam Speaker, these provisions will allow the Fund to better serve its union members and do so in sync with its tax exempt purpose of providing self-funded employee benefits. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To my friends on the other side, I do think it's instructive to have the discussion about Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. I think it's very helpful to America because we tried the Bush years, and the argument now is to return to the Bush years. Now, let me point out in this legislation, that Mr. Rangel and I worked to develop Build America Bonds. More than 800 cities and States have taken advantage of those bonds. In Massachusetts alone, we have issued $1 billion worth of Build America Bonds, and we saved $170 million in interest costs, which means that you can invest in education, health, and public safety. Mr. Frank and I worked to allow small banks to hold more municipal bonds by expanding the small issuer exception, thereby lowering the costs of these bonds. Now, to show you the success of bipartisanship, in the development of this legislation, Mr. Ryan and I worked to exempt private activity bonds from AMT, a pretty good piece of initiative. With that, 38 airports around the country, including Cleveland, Milwaukee and Houston, have taken advantage of that opportunity. Thousands of jobs have been created nationwide when the country really needs it. These bonds are also used for student loans, and protection from alternative minimum tax means lower rates on borrowers. In Massachusetts alone, 26,000 students will benefit. Now, Mr. Tiberi, a Republican, and I worked on the New Markets Tax Credit exemption from the alternative minimum tax. Since its inception, this program has generated over $15 billion of private sector investment in some of the poorest communities in America. I want to say that there are Republican Members of Congress who have communities who have taken advantage of the New Markets Tax Credit initiative. We have freed up investment in struggling neighborhoods, Mr. Speaker. With Build America Bonds, we have offered tremendous opportunities for local projects.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Madam Speaker, in December, and again in May, this House passed legislation to extend a set of expiring tax provisions providing billions of dollars in tax relief to millions of American families. That tax bill passed the House and has been stymied in the other body, where only two Republican Senators have stood up to their party's filibuster against these tax cuts. The $250 deduction for teachers is an important incentive for people who educate our children and buy classroom supplies out of their own pockets, but it has expired. Let me tell you who's suffering in the meantime: 124,000 teachers in Georgia cannot deduct $31 million in classroom supplies for our children; 26,000 teachers in Nevada cannot deduct $6.6 million in expenses; 113,000 teachers in North Carolina cannot deduct $28 million of classroom costs; and 314,000 teachers in Texas cannot deduct $81 million in expenses to educate our children. More than 3.5 million elementary and secondary teachers cannot deduct more than $908 million they will spend this year out of pocket. A better educated child means a better job down the road. This tax deduction benefiting our Nation's teachers has been forgotten and cast aside by the Senate Republicans. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to contact their Senators and tell them that the Tax Extenders bill means jobs.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, in December and again in May, this House passed legislation to extend a popular set of expiring tax provisions providing billions of dollars in relief to millions of American families. This tax bill passed the House and has been stymied in the other body where only two Republican Senators have stood up against their party's filibuster for these tax cuts. The State sales tax deduction has provided parity for families living in States without an income tax. Let me tell you who's suffering: 600,000 families in Tennessee cannot deduct $1.3 billion of State sales taxes; 2 million families in Florida cannot deduct $3 billion of State taxes; 2.2 million families in Texas cannot deduct $4 billion in State sales taxes. Nationwide, more than 12 million families cannot deduct $19.5 billion in State sales taxes. This deduction will spur purchases for cars, boats, and school supplies. But time is slipping away. We need to tell the other side to move these Senators on the tax extenders bill because it means jobs.