Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 125th Anniversary of the Sisters of St. Joseph. I would like to share some local history as provided by the Springfield Diocese. The Sisters of St. Joseph of Springfield were founded in 1883 following a request by the pastor of St. Patrick's in Chicopee Falls. He needed help starting a parish school and so seven sisters from the New York Congregation moved to the Springfield Area. The small community grew slowly but steadily while educating poor immigrant children in central and western Massachusetts and Rhode Island. By the mid 1960s, the ranks of the Springfield Congregation swelled to over one thousand women. The group had founded or staffed sixty schools and had established the Elms College. Following the Second Vatican Council, the Sisters restructured their community life. Many moved out of convents and into small houses and apartments in local towns and cities. Their ministries expanded as well. No longer limited to schools, the Sisters worked in prisons, parishes, homeless shelters and other social services. In the mid 1970s, the Sisters of St. Joseph of Fall River merged with the Springfield Congregation. In 2001, the Sisters of St. Joseph of Rutland, Vermont joined the community which also covers Worcester, the Berkshires, Rhode Island and even Louisiana and Uganda. Today, the Springfield Congregation of about 300 Sisters continues to serve the people of God through a variety of Ministries. Today we salute the Sisters of St. Joseph for 125 years of ministry as educations, pastoral ministers, innovators, evangelizers and social justice ministers. We thank the Sisters for their loving service to our communities. The Sisters of Saint Joseph have provided quality, values- based Catholic education to countless students and we are grateful for their immeasurable impact.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge Martin J. and Eleanor R. Kearney for being named the Irish Couple of the Year by the John Boyle O'Reilly Club in Springfield, Massachusetts. They were awarded this deserved title on February 7, 2009 for their support and contributions to the club. The couple has been active with the club for over fifty years. Both have helped with fundraisers and dances. Eleanor is an avid baker for the club and Martin was a strong supporter of the new building fund. A reception dinner was held in their honor on March 1, 2009. Martin was born in the Great Blaskett Islands in Dingle, County Kerry, Ireland on December 31, 1926. Eleanor is a life-long Springfield resident who was born on December 17, 1932. Martin came to America in 1951 where he soon met Eleanor. In 1953, they were married in Saint Thomas Aquinas Church in Springfield. Martin became a member of the John Boyle O'Reilly Club in 1953 and now both Martin and Eleanor are life members. The John Boyle O'Reilly Club was founded in 1880. The club consists of dedicated Irish and Irish-Americans whose goal is to preserve and promote their Irish heritage. The club's motto is culture, family and tradition. Since March 1970, the club has been located on 33 Progress Avenue in Springfield, Massachusetts. Today, the club is very active in their community, awarding the John Boyle O'Reilly Scholarship every year to college-bound students.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Let me first commend the conferees for putting this legislation together and then to remind our friends on the other side that the operative word here today is ``necessary.'' That is the most important word as we move this legislation forward today, ``necessary.'' Mr. Rangel did a good job negotiating the tax title to provide hundreds of billions of dollars in immediate fiscal stimulus, starting with The Making Work Pay credit, which will cut taxes for 95 percent of all taxpayers, including 2 million families in Massachusetts. Working families will also benefit from improvements in the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit, and a new higher education tax credit. Businesses across the country will benefit from bonus depreciation allowance and small business expensing provisions, as well as relief for small and medium-sized businesses with net operating losses. Incidentally, I pushed for a larger number there, as the other side knows. And State and local government will see substantial relief for infrastructure and other critical needs through the Recovery Zone bonds and Build America bonds. As a former mayor, I was happy to lead and take the lead on changes to the bond rules that will allow cities and towns to borrow at lower costs at a time when credit is tight. The compromise also includes AMT protection for 26 million American families--70,000 families in my district alone. Now, we're going to hear criticism from some that this legislation is too much, it's too little; it's too fast or it's too slow. By definition, by definition, fiscal stimulus means spending. And with an economy as great as ours, it needs to be significant. We did move at a very quick pace, and we needed to. There are 10,000 families a day in America slipping into foreclosure. That's 10,000 families a day. Clearly, the policies of the last 8 years did not work, and we need a change. I hope support for this legislation will move today.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be here to support this motion to go to conference on the Recovery bill. It has been some time since we have had an actual conference on a tax bill. The purpose of conferences is to work out differences between the chambers and that give-and-take will usually result in a better bill. I commend Chairman Rangel for crafting a responsible tax title that will deliver substantial relief in tough economic times. This means 95 percent of all taxpayers will see tax cuts through the Making Work Pay credit, including 2 million families in Massachusetts. Working families will also benefit from improvements to the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit, and a new higher education tax credit. Businesses across the country will benefit from bonus depreciation and small business expensing provisions, as well as relief for those businesses with net operating losses. And state and local governments will see substantial relief for infrastructure needs through greater bond authority and lowering the costs to borrow. The Senate has worked its will and made a number of changes to our House bill, which our conferees should give due consideration. Twenty- six million families will be protected from the AMT under the Senate bill, and that is a provision I am hopeful we can include here. It is something we will enact this year, no doubt. But sooner is better than later. However, some of the spending cuts, especially for education and higher education, could eliminate the possibility for many of our schools, colleges, and universities to pull out of this economic slump, where credit is tight and borrowing prohibitively expensive. I am very optimistic and have great confidence in our conferees to craft a recovery package that lifts our economy out of the mire. As the President has directed, time is of the essence. So I urge my colleagues to support this motion.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I stand in opposition to the Camp amendment that is being offered at the moment. While you might hear that the Republican amendment today includes a 2-year patch for the AMT, let me tell you that this patch results in zero taxpayers being helped. I repeat, zero taxpayers being helped. I think the Republican minority would agree that I have earned a Ph.D. on AMT during my time in the House. I asked the Joint Committee on Taxation--for the viewing audience, they are not Republicans. They are not Democrats. They're professionals. I asked them to analyze the Republican amendment and tell me how many taxpayers would pay AMT under current law without any patch and under my friend Mr. Camp's amendment. Oddly enough, there will be 26 million families paying AMT this year with or without the Camp amendment and 28 million families paying AMT next year with or without the Camp amendment. That is because this patch falls far short of what would be needed to protect the middle class from the take-back effect of the AMT. Now this budgetary trick was used in 2001 to mask the true cost of the Bush tax cuts. Without the AMT patch, middle-income taxpayers lost two-thirds of their promised Bush tax cuts to AMT, again, Joint Committee on Taxation. And the same thing will happen under Mr. Camp's amendment. If Mr. Camp's amendment is enacted, middle-income families, including 49,000 in my friend's, Mr. Camp's, district will not see the lower 5 percent rate or the 10 percent rate that he promises. Twenty-six million families will pay higher taxes this year under the Camp proposal because of alternative minimum tax. We will enact a patch this year so that those 26 million families will be protected from higher taxes. I guaranty you that. In fact, the Senate has already added it to their stimulus bill. But let's not fool ourselves today by voting for an AMT fig leaf and even steeper rate cuts which will leave the middle-income worker holding the bag. I urge opposition to the Republican amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Oregon, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, who really does know something about infrastructure and environmental undertakings, Mr. Blumenauer, for 2 minutes.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins), a new member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. As a member of a very small alumni association here called former mayors, let me assure the gentleman from California that mayors will know how to get this money out the door as the President has prescribed. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to recognize the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, for 4 minutes.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman from Michigan is prepared to close.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I yield to Mr. Levin, I want to challenge something that the gentleman from Texas has said. I want everybody to remember what it was like on January 19, 2001, when I hear the Republicans complaining about debt and deficits. We were looking at a $5.7 trillion surplus. The debt had come down and the deficits had been eliminated. Now their argument is--frankly, a stale one, but they cling to it-- that tax cuts pay for themselves as we look at now a debt of almost $10 trillion. And I hear these protestations of what this legislation will do after they were in control of two branches of government, two Chambers of the House, and the Presidency, and they rolled up these extraordinary deficits and debts. Reminder. The war in Iraq, which is going to cost almost $2 trillion before it comes to conclusion. And they pontificate on this House floor about the debt? With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Bush tax cuts don't expire until 2010. There will be sufficient opportunity for us to discuss many of the issues raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin. We will have plenty of time to discuss those.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I'd like to recognize the gentleman for an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize at this time the gentleman from New Jersey, a valuable member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Pascrell, for 2 minutes.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would remind all that for 6 years we tried the prescription that was offered by the minority leader and his party, the slowest economic growth that America has had since World War II. With that, I would like to recognize the gentleman from North Dakota, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Pomeroy, for 2 minutes.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Social Security and Medicare Improved Burn Injury Treatment Access Act of 2009. This legislation provides a waiver of the 24-month waiting period now required before an uninsured individual becomes eligible for Medicare coverage for disabling burn injuries, as well as the five- month waiting period for Social Security disability benefits. Each year an estimated 500,000 people are treated for burn injuries. Of these 500,000 injuries, about 40,000 require hospitalization. Fire and burn deaths average about 4,000 per year. Burn care is highly specialized. While there are thousands of trauma centers in the United States, there are only 125 burn centers with a total burn-bed capacity of just over 1,800. These specialized burn centers treat about 25,000 patients annually, or on average, 200 admissions per year for each center. U.S. hospitals without burn centers treat the remaining patients and average less than three burn admissions per year. Medical care for serious burn injuries is very expensive, which places a great financial strain on burn centers, about 40 percent of whose patients are uninsured. Because of these financial challenges, burn centers in Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Iowa and South Carolina have closed in just the past two years. This is occurring at a time when the Federal Government is asking burn centers to expand their capacity to deal with mass casualty scenarios. The Departments of Health and Human Services and Homeland Security have included burn centers in the Critical Benchmark Surge Capacity Criteria in the funding continuation requirements for State plans administered through the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). HSS, in conjunction with the American Burn Association, has created a real-time, web-based burn bed capacity system in the national emergency preparedness center and funded Advanced Burn Life Support (ABLS) and clinical, on-site burn nurse training for 200 public health service nurses as a reserve capacity for potential mass burn casualty incidents, as well as supporting more than 20 ABLS courses with over 600 first-responders in 10 key areas of the country. The 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, DC, and major accidents like the Rhode Island nightclub fire and North Carolina chemical plant explosions demonstrate the substantial number of burn injuries that can result from such events. Over one-third of those hospitalized in New York on 9/11 had severe burn injuries. The Department of Homeland Security has recognized that there would be mass burn casualties in terrorist acts, and there is a need for appropriate preparedness activities. For example, if the United States should suffer further terrorist attacks using explosions, incendiary devices or chemical weapons, most victims would suffer severe burn injuries. Even a relatively modest number of burn injuries can consume large segments of the Nation's burn bed capacity. For example, the victims of the Rhode Island nightclub fire absorbed the burn bed capacity of most of the northern East Coast of the United States. Mass burn casualties that reach into the hundreds or thousands would strain the system to the breaking point. It is clear that burn centers are a national resource and a critical link to public health emergency preparedness. Medicare coverage for serious, disabling burn injuries would enable these burn centers to remain financially viable and preserve an essential component of our public health emergency infrastructure. This legislation follows an approach already taken with respect to End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease), both of which result in waivers of the 24- month waiting period for Medicare eligibility. While these 2 diseases tend to be progressive in nature, the very initial phase of a serious burn injury is when things are most acute. This legislation is similar to H.R. 685, which I introduced in the 110th Congress, except for the inclusion of some important cost containment provisions. No one with either public or private insurance at the time of their burn injury will be eligible for the 24-month waiver. Nor will State public insurance programs be permitted to restrict coverage for burn patients so as to place the burden solely on Medicare. The legislation also requires that the individual's disability status be reevaluated at least once every 3 years to ensure that those patients who have fully recovered from their burn injuries will not be able to stay on Medicare indefinitely. Providing immediate Medicare coverage for uninsured patients suffering serious, disabling burn injuries is fully justified and a necessary step. Although not all hospitalized burn injuries would qualify as ``disabling'' and thus result in immediate Medicare coverage, this legislation is about providing coverage for the many uninsured patients suffering from serious burn injuries and ensuring the survival of a vital national resource that already is in jeopardy, a situation we cannot accept as we seek to prepare the nation to deal with potential mass casualty terrorist events.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 350th Anniversary of Hadley, Massachusetts. I would like to share some local history as provided by the Hadley guide into the official record. Hadley was founded by a dissenting Connecticut congregation under the leadership of Re. John Russell in 1659. As an agricultural community on the east bank of the Connecticut River, John Pynchon purchased the site of the new settlement from the Indians on behalf of the settlers. The first settlers laid out this area, formerly known as the Norwottuck Meadow, as the center of the new settlement before their arrival, with the Town Common, referred to as ``the Broad Street,'' as the central feature. The common measured 20 rods wide and one mile long, with the Connecticut River defining both ends, and was reportedly based on the original plan of Wethersfield, Connecticut. Eight-acre home lots were ranged along both sides of the common, with farmlands behind. In 1675-76, during King Philip's War, to guard against Indian attacks, a palisade that ran far enough behind the houses to include most of the barns and farm buildings enclosed the street and common. One such attack occurred on June 12 of 1676. Legend has it that the town was saved from destruction when, at a critical moment, one William Goffe showed up in the midst of the townspeople, warned them of the danger, and led the town in fending off the assault, disappearing shortly afterward. Goffe, later known as ``The Angel of Hadley,'' became the subject of many legends. Though the years, the common remained the focus of town life. The meetinghouse occupied a prominent site, animals were pastured on the open land, militia drills were held periodically, and Hadley's Liberty Pole was erected there during the Revolutionary War. Taverns at the north and south ends and at the center of the common served the needs of passengers on the ferry, stagecoach, and riverboat routes. By the 1670s, the town rapidly developed northward. The North Hadley Mill Pond, also known as Mill River, became the site of the Hopkins Corn Mill, and millers and farmers settled in Hopkins Meadow. The rent paid by mill workers to live here went to support the Hopkins School, which founded by Edward Hopkins of England, a former governor of Connecticut. Hadley has long been the subject of much folklore, especially when it came to witchcraft. The most notable ``witch'' in the town of Hadley was Mary Webster, who, although acquitted of ``familiarity with the devil'' in a Boston Court in 1683, was nonetheless hung, unsuccessfully, by young Hadley men in 1685. As the number of settlers south of Mount Holyoke grew, the desire for a local place of worship also grew. As an answer to the problems of settlers traveling many miles to church, the towns of Hatfield, Granby, South Hadley and Amherst formed from the sprawling town of Hadley. The town continued to grow as an agricultural town during the 1700s. While subsistence farming was most common during this time, the exporting of everything from produce to beef to furs grew. Most of the products were taken by flatboat down the Connecticut River and to the Boston area as well. It was around 1792 that broomcorn became the dominant crop in Hadley. So abundant was this crop that Hadley would come to be known as the Nation's broomcorn and broom manufacturing capital. Broom and brush making became a thriving industry here, exporting all across New York and New England, and as far as Ohio. Over time the soil that produced so much broomcorn slowly depleted. By 1840, tobacco would take its place as the major crop as well as seed onions and other vegetables. The Massachusetts Central Railroad crossed the northern half of the common in 1887, providing a faster way for Hadley farmers to ship their produce to market. The Connecticut Valley Street Railway lay out along Russell Street about 1900 made local travel to Northampton and Amherst easier. It was during the late 1800s that, because of labor shortages and a drop in land values, Hadley experienced somewhat of a decline in farming. It was also about this time that a large number of Irish and, later, Polish immigrants that were recruited from Ellis Island for labor purposes settled in Hadley. It was the Polish immigrants that are credited with saving Hadley's farmland as they worked the fine Hadley soil back into fertility. By 1920, asparagus became the popular crop in Hadley, soon making the town the asparagus capital of the world. Most recently, a shipment of Hadley asparagus from Alligator Brook Farm was shipped to former President Bush at the White House in July 2008 after the President had remarked how ``fabulous'' German asparagus was during his visit with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Once again, Hadley was able to claim its rightful title of ``The asparagus capital of the world.'' Today, in spite of commercial development along Route 9, Hadley remains largely agricultural and residential. It has the largest number of acres in agriculture in the Pioneer Valley, which includes crops of corn, potatoes, tobacco and scores of other vegetables. Malls and commercial businesses now lie along Russell Street on Route 9 to the east of the town's center. Hadley is a beautiful place to live. I am proud to represent this town which is rich with history and join with its citizens in celebrating Hadley's 350th Anniversary.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. First, let me thank Congressman Frank; he did a good job under very difficult circumstances, as did Mr. Rangel with the tax extenders that are part of this bill. This is imperfect legislation, like much legislation that comes to the floor of this House, but we need to pass it today. The national principle here is at stake. If there's a hurricane in Louisiana, we all come to the aid of the American family. If there's a forest fire in California, we all come to the aid of the American family. If there's a blizzard in New England, we all come to the aid of the American family. And that's precisely what this legislation does today. Next week, when people are having difficulty getting a car loan, trying to refinance their mortgage or looking at their 401(k) plan, we acknowledge that they are all members of the American family, and we attempt today to come to their aid. There is relief here for alternative minimum tax victims; 25 million people will benefit. Twelve thousand businesses are waiting for incentives for the R&D credit. Four million families and three million teachers are waiting for their deductions for education expenses. Thirteen million children in low-income families can finally claim the child tax credit. This is a piece of legislation that helps the American family.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding and I would like to ask him a question about the bill. It is my understanding that the bill is designed to give all banks, especially community banks, which are very important in central and western Massachusetts, and because they are heavily regulated don't have any problems, regardless of size or organizational structure, ordinary tax treatment for certain holdings of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac preferred stock. Banks, and in particular some State-chartered institutions, are allowed to hold such stock in passive investment vehicles where the bank is the majority investor under Federal law. I encourage the chairman to work with the Secretary of the Treasury to ensure that all institutions have access to this relief, if he agrees it is intended to have an expansive reach.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I thank the chairman.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. I want to applaud the work of my friend, Chairman Barney Frank, in negotiating this agreement on behalf of the House. Compared with the proposal of a week ago from the Bush administration, this agreement has much improved. I have already heard from a number of my constituents this morning who oppose the bill and I understand their opposition. I think it is clear that we are not done with this matter. There is more to do, and even under this bill, Congress will revisit the agreement in 5 years to determine whether the taxpayers are due some repayment from the industry saved by this bailout. At this time, though, it is important that we proceed forward with this limited authority, which is only provided with substantial oversight. It is an appropriate balance and that is why I will support the bill. But as I said, there is more to be done. John F. Kennedy said that victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan. It is true that no one has stepped forward to claim responsibility for the economic quandary we find ourselves in. But if we simply look back to the last time the financial services industry teetered on the brink of disaster, we can see roots that lead to the crisis we confront today. A decade ago, Long Term Capital Management, a billion-dollar hedge fund lost half its value due to sour derivative contracts and the Federal Reserve Chairman had to arrange a bailout. Complexity is the name of the game in the derivatives market, and that fact has not changed over the last decade. Derivatives are financial products with a value derived from an underlying asset, such as a stock or commodity. The accounting and tax rules regarding these products, though, are anything but clear and that part of the game has also not changed over the last decade. I am concerned about one section of the bill we are considering today which would grant the SEC authority to suspend mark-to-market accounting. This accounting rule requires companies to declare the market value of assets. With financial products, this may differ from the purchase price. Plus, the value might be hard to determine until the contract expires some time in the future. However, in valuing derivatives, I believe it is important that there be transparency in the market, and mark-to-market accounting is probably the closest to the actual value and is therefore, an essential tool for investors. Think of it this way: if someone asked you for a loan and their only asset is their house which could be sold for $100,000, would you care that they had paid $200,000 for it a year ago? Should we care about accounting rules for derivatives? Well, clearly yes. It would be easy to assume regulators are taking care of these issues, but recent events show us that is not the case. It would be easy for us to dismiss the threat of derivatives since only sophisticated investors hold them, but as Warren Buffet warned in 2002, ``Derivates are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal.'' In March, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures, which I chair, held a hearing on the taxation of derivatives. At that hearing, I referred to the threat of AIG directly as one reason our hearing was timely. AIG had just the week before devalued its holdings by $5 billion because of one complex derivative--the credit default swap. I asked the Treasury Department, which appeared before my subcommittee that day, what guidance we might expect on the appropriate tax treatment of credit default swaps, since in their absence, investors were free to choose whatever seemed most convenient. Treasury said it was still under review. Taxpayers and investors need clarity in the market with respect to these complex products. While some may blame mark-to-market accounting for the problems of individual companies, it merely exposed that these companies were holding worthless paper. And I believe news like that is better known earlier rather than later, and to all investors, not just insiders. The global market for derivatives exceeds $500 trillion in notional value, according to the Bank for International Settlements. Hedging risks via derivatives is a normal practice of businesses, but the ``Wild West'' trading in these products must be addressed by regulation and transparency. Of course, all businesses would prefer to choose whichever accounting method makes them look the most profitable to investors and the least profitable to the IRS. But we need consistent rules and a system of valuing businesses which is fair to investors, regulators, and the tax collector. A decade ago, I stood on the floor lamenting the near-crisis that Long Term Capital Management had created. I chastised Congress for ignoring the request of the regulator, CFTC, which had asked for more oversight over derivatives. Since then, we have seen Enron collapse and now our current crisis. Will things be different this time? I certainly hope that is the case. But changing the accounting rules mid-game, I believe, is a move in the wrong direction. I hope that the SEC will take the long view on this and study the issue before reversing any current accounting rules meant to provide greater transparency. In 1999, I filed legislation to strengthen the constructive ownership rules so that investors in a hedge fund via a derivative could not avoid current taxation on income earned. This legislation was directly aimed at Long Term Capital Management and based on legislation my colleague and friend Representative Barbara Kennelly had previously filed. In 2002, I filed legislation to end the game of corporations betting on their own stock via derivatives. The Tax Code does not allow corporations to claim gains or losses when trading in its own stock, but that provision can be avoided through derivative transactions. This year, I filed legislation to require current taxation on prepaid forward contracts, as investors had been taking the position that no taxation was appropriate until the end of the contract, which could be 30 years hence. I will continue my efforts to bring transparency to these products and to end the tax game on derivatives. Further, this bill affords us the opportunity to implement a regulatory structure that will result in a healthier market. On both fronts, I hope we will see action.