Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) whose knowledge of transportation and aviation initiatives in Illinois is not only extensive but most impressive.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6327) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank Chairman Rangel and Chairman Oberstar for their tireless efforts in trying to seek a long-term funding solution for our Nation's aviation programs. Last year, I was honored to chair a hearing in the Select Revenue Measure Subcommittee where we heard from all sides on this issue, including the chairman and ranking member of the Transportation Committee and Aviation Subcommittee. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the Hill have not been able to secure an agreement, and that's really why we're here today to provide some additional time for negotiations. H.R. 6327 extends the financing and spending authority for the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. The trust fund taxes and spending authority are scheduled to expire on June 30, 2008. H.R. 6327 extends these dates at current rates for 3 months through September 30, 2008. Previous legislation extending these taxes were unanimously reported out of the Ways and Means Committee with bipartisan support. The substitute amendment makes one change from the bill as introduced. It deletes section 5 which would have transferred $8 billion to the Highway Trust Fund. This provision would prevent cuts in highway programs next year. CBO has informed us that it would have no budgetary impact. While that provision enjoys significant bipartisan support, a number of Republican Members have indicated strong opposition. It is imperative that we enact the FAA provisions this month. To ensure that we have the necessary two-thirds support to pass this bill today, we decided to remove the highway language. This bill will keep the Airport and Airway Trust Fund taxes and operations in place until a long-term FAA reauthorization act is signed into law. The bill also includes a number of authorizing provisions under the jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which worked with Ways and Means to develop the legislation. The most important of these is the Airport Improvement Program, or AIP. This program funds grants for projects throughout the country. Many of our airports rely on this program to help finance critical modernization and expansion efforts. The bill would extend the AIP for another 3 months. The other authorizing provisions are also 3-month extensions. Mr. Speaker, this is a temporary extension of an essential funding mechanism for our aviation programs, and I urge its adoption. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6327.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman Murphy and thank Congressman Shuster, as well as Jim Oberstar, a long time friend here, for offering the support to this proposal that it deserves. Establishing a New Haven-Hartford-Springfield commuter line would do much to improve the transportation needs of the Northeast Corridor. In addition to contributing to the national effort to reduce carbon emissions, this commuter line would greatly promote economic development for the cities and towns along the line. Union Station, with the help of Mr. Oberstar's committee, is now underway and great work we expect to happen there in Springfield. Mr. Chairman, Connecticut has already dedicated funding for the commuter line and is in the predevelopment phase. And today, the Massachusetts House is expected to approve a $1.3 billion transportation bill authorizing $90 million for the commuter developing road transportation line from New Haven to Springfield. A New Haven to Springfield line would also allow for more connections to existing Amtrak routes as well as other planned commuter rails, such as a Boston to Springfield line, which would further extend economic benefits to the region. Due to improved service, Amtrak ridership has increased in the past few years, and commuters want this progress to continue, particularly in light of gas prices. The Murphy amendment will help maintain this progress and promote this much-needed commuter line. The benefits of incorporating new commuter lines with Amtrak is undeniable and worth the investments. Commuter rail service would help other industrial cities like Springfield to better connect with regional economies and offer a smarter and cleaner transportation option. Thanks to the individuals who have stood with us today, and I hope the Murphy amendment will be successful.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is pro-environment, it's business friendly, and it's paid for. I don't know how anybody on the other side can mention the words ``alternative minimum tax'' with a straight face. They had sufficient opportunity in the last session of the Congress to vote for a responsible alternative minimum tax repeal. I know. I authored the legislation. They all voted against it. I want to thank Charlie Rangel today for his hard work. There are a number of business and individual tax incentives that lapsed in January of this year. There was urgency to getting it done, and we did precisely that. In my home State of Massachusetts this means that 94,000 teachers will get a deduction for out-of-pocket expenses for classroom supplies. It means that a thousand businesses in Massachusetts will get some credit for the millions they spend on research here in the United States. Without this bill 121,000 families in Massachusetts cannot take deduction for college tuition expenses. This bill provides significant and real tax relief to millions of families nationwide and for some very low income families it will provide a new benefit. There are 111,000 children in Massachusetts whose families will get a higher tax credit because of this bill. There are an additional 32,000 children and families in Massachusetts who are currently shut out of the child tax credit because of the threshold for earnings that must exceed rises each year for inflation. They're simply too poor for the tax credit. This bill lowers the threshold so that these working families can benefit from the child tax credit just like other families. These are well-crafted positions, and we don't have time to mention them all. But I want to tell you in the 20 years I have been in this House, this is one of the best pieces of legislation that I have been associated with. It provides tax relief, but at the same time it's pro- environment. I hope that Members of this House on both sides will support this legislation.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz) for 2 minutes.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, just briefly in reference to my friend Mr. Reynolds' comments, the constraints that we are operating on today, as he criticizes them, are entirely legitimate; but they are institutional problems, as opposed to just the will of the majority. I was asking a Member of the minority last evening, ``Is it possible to be an aggrieved Member of the majority?'' In these instances I think you can be an aggrieved Member of the majority. But I want to emphasize a very important point: This legislation received overwhelming support from the minority in the committee, and I think based upon news accounts this morning that there was some conflict in two major dailies as to whether or not the administration would, in fact, veto this legislation, but I can't overstate enough this simple point: There was ample opportunity for the minority to participate in the debate at the Ways and Means Committee; and, in fact, they succeeded in amending the legislation that has come to the floor today, and every voice was heard. Mr. Speaker, with that I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I must tell you I swore to myself I was going to resist what I'm about to say until I heard the term ``bailout.'' The minute I heard the term ``bailout,'' I thought to myself the speed with which the Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury came to the aid of Bear Stearns in a 48-hour period. And to use that same example of making it an analogy here is striking. With that, I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, let me see what I can do to lift the spirits of the gentleman from New York, my friend, Mr. Reynolds. In fact, I think what is sad is that you are leaving us, that you're retiring. And I was searching hard to figure out the meaning of that acronym, based upon the fact that the Ways and Means Committee took this legislation up, and I want to reiterate, for the fourth time today, 12 of the 17 Republicans on the committee voted for the very bill that they are now all saying they are going to oppose. Forgive me. That is sad. How can you come to the floor and argue against the proposal that you voted for in the committee when you agree with just about every part of the bill? That's what's before us here. We have heard these arguments, and they have all said, we support most of what's in the bill, but they are prepared because of an institutional constraint with the Senate to vote against the legislation that they favor. In my home State of Massachusetts, it's sixth in the Nation in foreclosure activity. In Springfield, the largest community in my district, 300 homes have been foreclosed this year and over 2,000 mortgages will reset to higher interest rates by the end of next year. In response to the worsening housing crisis, Massachusetts this month initiated a new law that extends the foreclosure moratorium from 30 to 90 days. Other States are taking similar action, but, like Massachusetts, they need help from Congress. Reports seem to suggest that the housing slide won't turn around until 2010. These tax provisions we are considering today for families and communities will help turn it around, I hope, much sooner. It certainly will help our economy and markets in general. The President's housing proposals really haven't worked. It's time for the Congress to act. We are often accused of having a short memory, but I think all Members in this chamber remember the recent government- backed bailout of Bear Stearns, yes, the bailout of that mom-and-pop operation called Bear Stearns. If we can, with great urgency and enthusiasm, come to the aid of Wall Street, we have no excuse not to help the people who reside on Main Street. I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I do offer some acknowledgement of the constraints that we find ourselves within today on the House floor, and I think there's some accuracy as to what Mr. McCrery had to say. However, there is another very important point, and that is, that the issues were vetted at the committee level and there was ample opportunity and a full and vigorous debate ensued in the Ways and Means Committee in which every opinion was welcomed. With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking Mr. Frank. In the 30 years that I've known him, I've yet to meet anybody who has done a better job of mastering the most arcane detail of complicated housing policy. In fact, in some measure, we're here today because of the energy that he's brought to the task at hand. Mr. Speaker, I also rise today in support of this housing assistance tax package which has been reported by the Ways and Means Committee. I want to thank Chairman Rangel for his leadership on this very important national issue. There is little doubt that the sagging housing industry, now at historic lows, has been a drag on our national economy. This legislation would stimulate that industry and help families who have been caught up in this struggling economy. This legislation provides tax credits for first-time homebuyers, and it boosts credits for construction of affordable housing. It allows families to deduct property taxes who couldn't do so before. It increases mortgage revenue bonds and it allows the States to refinance troubled subprime loans. This assistance is targeted to those who need it most. It will also help bring economic stability to our communities. And these provisions are revenue neutral, I emphasize ``revenue neutral,'' using a provision from the President's own budget to pay for much of the cost. Mr. Speaker, this bill has been endorsed by the Home Builders, the Realtors and State Housing Administrators. It passed with the support of 12 Republican members of the Ways and Means Committee, including my friend and the distinguished ranking member, Mr. McCrery. It is broadly supported, it's bipartisan in nature, and I am proud to bring it to this House today. There are but two changes to our amendment. One is a package of technical improvements from the Financial Services Committee to better coordinate the various housing tax and HUD programs. The other is--and I hope that everybody will listen to this suggestion--a provision approved by the Veterans Affairs Committee to extend from 90 days to 1 year the protection against foreclosure for servicemembers returning from active duty. I can't imagine that there is a voice in this body who would not be supportive of that initiative, the idea that in Afghanistan and/or in Iraq, that a servicemember who is doing all that's asked of him or her every day would find themselves facing mortgage foreclosure because of their military service. As chairman of the Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee, again I stand in strong support of the legislation that's before us today. It includes a number of improvements to the affordable housing program. Our subcommittee considered these provisions last summer. And at the urging of housing officials, developers, and advocates for low-income families, they have all been included in the Ways and Means amendment that we consider today. I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to yield to the gentleman from Vermont via Springfield, Massachusetts, one of the most distinguished families in Springfield, my friend, Mr. Welch, for 2 minutes.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the audience, including the Members that are on the floor, that this procedure was fully vetted in the Ways and Means Committee. It passed 35-5. That means we picked up 12 members of the minority who supported this legislation. With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Leader, most of us are institutionalists here, and we have great regard for this body, and I think we're all a bit discouraged when the regular order does not proceed, and my friend, the minority leader, spoke eloquently of what he feels to be a process that's been limited. But the concern that many of us have is that for 6 years at the Ways and Means Committee, the minority could not pass one amendment. Not one amendment passed in what should be the most deliberative committee in this House, and there were no protestations from the other side that were ever raised. In this instance here on the housing bill, there were two Republican amendments that were accepted. The vote was 30-5, I believe, or 35-5. So there was a process. Actually, people got to talk at the Ways and Means Committee who disagreed with the outcome of the bill, and I understand how the minority feels in this instance. But I wish that there had been some voices raised during those years about what was happening to shut down the process in the Ways and Means Committee, and Mr. McCrery has moved vigorously to change the tone, as Mr. Rangel has included him in everything at the committee level.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I would like to use this opportunity today to pay tribute to a great American who just recently and unexpectedly passed away. Donald Robinson worked in the Office of Naval Intelligence and as a Chief of Staff and Staff Director on Capitol Hill in his younger years, but he is perhaps remembered best as a mentor to the hundreds of young people who came to Washington, DC to pursue an internship on Capitol Hill or with the Federal Government. For 25 years, Donald L. Robinson worked with his wife, Sara Robinson, as a Director of the Boston University Washington Internship Program. Madam Speaker, I pay tribute to the contribution he and his wife Sara made to enrich the lives of young people in who came to Washington to try out public service. He will be missed greatly. I would like to take the opportunity to submit his obituary in the Congressional Record today and to thank him for assisting in launching many successful, meaningful careers. [May 2, 2008.] Donald L. ``Robbie'' Robinson, Ph.D., 71, Congressional Staffer; B.U. Political Science Professor Wellfleet.--Donald Louis ``Robbie'' Robinson, Ph.D., 71, a retired congressional staffer and political science professor at Boston University, died in his sleep at his home in Wellfleet, on Tuesday, April 29, 2008. Robbie is survived by his wife of 45 years, Sara Moore Robinson. He is also survived by his daughter, Moore, his son, Marshall, his daughter-in-law, Jennifer, and his granddaughter, Aila. Robbie was born in Ottawa, Ill., in 1936. In his youth, he was a talented trumpet player and tap dancer, who won numerous prizes. He received an academic scholarship to Northwestern University, from which he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1958, and a Master of Arts degree in 1959. While at Northwestern, he earned spending money playing trumpet in a dance band, and was a member of the Alpha Tau Omega fraternity. Robbie joined the Navy in the Officer Training Program, and moved to Washington, D.C., where he served in the Office of Naval Intelligence for 3\1/2\ years. During his tenure in the Navy, he began a doctoral program in International Relations at American University in Washington, D.C. He left the Navy in 1962 and received his Ph.D. in 1963. It was at a friend's Sunday brunch, over bagels, where he met his future wife, Sara Moore, a congressional staffer. The two fell in love and were married in 1962. They had two children, a son, Marshall, in 1969, and a daughter, Margaret ``Moore,'' born in 1971. Dr. Robinson worked as a congressional staffer for 13 years, before retiring on disability in 1976 after being diagnosed with Crohn's disease. He was then hired by Boston University to develop a Washington, D.C., Internship Program, which he ran for 25 years. In addition, he developed internship programs for Case Western Reserve and the University of Houston. He was appointed by President Bill Clinton to be a member of the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Dr. Robinson and his wife, an attorney, retired together and moved from Washington, D.C., to Wellfleet in 2001. Robbie was deeply involved with the Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C., first at St. Stephen and the Incarnation, and then at St. Columba's Church, where he was a lay minister. After retirement, he was a lector, lay minister and administrator of the healing rite at St. Mary of the Harbor, Provincetown. At the time of his death, he was president of the Wellfleet Historical Society, treasurer of the Cape Cod Opera, the only nonsinging member of the board of the Outer Cape Chorale, a Freemason and a Shriner. Last year, he and his wife joined dear friends on a guided tour through the Baltic States and Russia. Robbie loved his family very much, and was delighted to meet his adored first grandchild, Aila, in January. Despite his history of chronic illness, his death came suddenly and unexpectedly, and is a great loss for all who knew him for his indomitable good cheer, his delight of conversation and his sheer enjoyment of life. He will be missed tremendously. A memorial celebration will be held on Saturday, May 17, 2008, at 3 p.m., at St. Mary of the Harbor in Provincetown. In lieu of flowers, donations may be sent to Wellfleet Historical Society (Please note: Attention Robbie Robinson Fund) at 266 Main St., Welifleet, MA 02667.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to enter into the Congressional Record today an article that was written by a constituent of mine, Thomas J. Carty, PhD, Associate Professor of History and American Studies at Springfield College in Springfield, MA. His article is entitled, The Risks and Rewards of the Pope's Visit to the U.S., and it outlines the history of the interaction of politics and religion as it related to papal visits in the past. I thought it was a pertinent piece in light of Pope Benedict's recent visit to Washington, DC and New York City. The Risks and Rewards of the Pope's Visit to the U.S. (By Thomas J. Carty) Pope Benedict XVI's meeting this week with a U.S. president during an election year demonstrates how Americans increasingly tolerate the confluence of religion and politics. While George Bush does not face the prospect of election this year, his meeting with Pope Benedict may affect the presidential campaign. Bush's policies have both delighted and disappointed the Pope. The president's opposition to legalized abortion and embryonic stem-cell research earned him praise by John Paul II, but this pope also critiqued Bush and his father for resorting excessively to war in Panama, the Persian Gulf, and Iraq. For Bush, this meeting offers an opportunity to burnish his legacy as a defender of traditional values. Bush can maximize benefit from this meeting by studying the successes and failures of Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. Johnson's 1965 decision to greet Pope Paul VI strained traditional diplomatic protocol because no pope had previously set foot in the United States. Prior to the pope's landing in New York in order to deliver a speech at the United Nations, therefore, Johnson arranged elaborate plans to avoid appearing biased in favor of the Catholic Church. The president agreed to wait in New York's Waldorf-Astoria hotel for Pope Paul VI to visit Johnson's suite so that the president could deny having initiated the unofficial summit. Johnson certainly hoped such appeals to the pope might have helped his standing among Catholics in an eventual run for reelection. Yet the pope's public criticisms of U.S. bombing in Southeast Asia contributed to Johnson's later decision to withdraw from the 1968 presidential campaign. By contrast, Pope John Paul II boosted Ronald Reagan's political popularity among Catholics and conservative non-Catholics in the 1980s. Although the U.S. Catholic bishops opposed the construction of nuclear weapons and criticized Reagan's movement to expand U.S. armaments, John Paul and Reagan shared an uncompromising anticommunism. Meeting with the pope allowed the president to deflect attention from the American Catholic hierarchy's opposition to his arms buildup. When Reagan appointed an official, full-time ambassador to the Vatican in 1984, the president had established a direct diplomatic line of communication with the pope, and subverted the American bishops. Reagan showed none of Johnson's protocol concerns when deciding to stay an extra night in Alaska to coordinate an informal meeting with the pope, whose plane arrived the next day, in May 1984, a year in which a majority of Catholics voted to help him win reelection. In the most analogous case with George Bush's position this year, Bill Clinton met with John Paul II in 1999 as a second term president unable to run again for reelection. Absent the Cold War, Clinton aggressively pursued common cause with Pope John Paul II in other areas. Due to Clinton's unapologetic support of legalized abortion and artificial contraception, the policies of this president clashed with the pope's absolute opposition to late-term, or ``partial birth'' abortions. Yet Clinton sought closer connections between U.S. and Vatican economic assistance programs while the Republican congress planned to curtail funding for foreign aid. The Catholic Church also endorsed Clinton's ambitions to provide government assistance to the poor and immigrants. These efforts may have helped Clinton obtain the meeting and photo opportunity with John Paul II at the same time as two Papal Knights in Congress (House Judiciary Committee Chairperson Henry J. Hyde and his legal counsel David P. Shippers) prepared the case for the president's eventual impeachment. Since George W. Bush cannot legally compete in the 2008 presidential election, Pope Benedict may have more to gain or lose than the president in this year's papal-presidential meeting. Some reports indicate that the pope will court controversy by highlighting abortion in this presidential election year visit to the United States. If so, many Americans will charge the pope with a partisan appeal which threatens America's recent tolerance for Catholicism and church-state cooperation. If Benedict addresses respect for immigrants and the poor, as well as the unborn, however, he can avoid the appearance of favoring one political party platform over another.