Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the chairman said that this is one of the oddest motions to instruct that he has come across, but let me say I think that everybody would agree the most peculiar moment we have had in the last few years was the prescription drug bill. If you want to talk about a peculiarity that will be with all of us forever and how that was done at 4 o'clock in the morning, now that is peculiar. That is odd. What we are offering here is a sensible solution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we all know that perhaps more important than anything else we do here, we set and we establish priorities. Our motion to instruct sets forth the priorities that I believe should be followed in the conference on this legislation. The priorities of the Republican majority are clear: Large tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthiest in our society, while slashing initiatives that protect the most vulnerable in our society. Even in normal times, these priorities would be wrong, but these are not normal times. America is currently involved in two wars, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. These are the first wars in our country's history where only those in the military and the poor are being asked to sacrifice. Hurricane Katrina forced America to see poverty and its consequences. And let me compliment former President Jimmy Carter for his remarks yesterday at Mrs. King's funeral when he spoke of that very issue. The administration has converted surpluses into an enormous budget deficit, but has done nothing to prepare programs like Social Security and Medicare for the future other than to threaten privatization. The most significant fiscal turnaround in the history of America has occurred on the watch of the Republican majority here in the Congress. What I think is interesting, and I say this with great confidence, during these past few years we have almost doubled defense spending, we are fighting two wars, we have created a Department of Homeland Security, we have witnessed the national principle play out during Hurricane Katrina, and we have done all of this with six tax cuts. There is not anybody who is watching at home tonight in America who could run their personal lives on that basis. They could never hope to balance the ledger of trying to raise a family if they attempted to copy the model utilized by this Congress. Our motion to instruct sets forth different priorities. First, it instructs the House conferees to follow the Senate bill and extend alternative minimum tax relief. Now, I must say that during my time as being one of the leaders here, it even was acknowledged by one of my friends on the other side, in the area of alternative minimum tax, that seldom have I had any issue in my time where I spoke of an issue more earnestly, received more congratulations from Members of both parties, and seen less extensive action than in the area of alternative minimum tax. This should be one of our first priorities. Without an extension of this relief, over 17 million Americans will face a tax increase in 2006, and the size of that tax increase could be as large as $3,640. Many middle-income families, largely married couples with children, simply are going to face higher taxes. That should be the priorities that we entertain. Second, our motion to instruct would require the House conferees to drop any extension of the tax benefits for dividend and capital gains. Those benefits do not terminate until the end of 2008, so there is time to extend these benefits in the future if it is to be determined that they are appropriate as we seek balance in the ledger. Almost half of those benefits would be enjoyed by the wealthiest one-fifth of one percent of individuals, or better understood as individuals with annual incomes over $1 million. Third, our motion requires the House conferees to develop a conference report with the view to not further increasing the Federal deficit. The administration projects a Federal deficit of over $400 billion for this fiscal year. By the way, we have been told for the last 5 years that those numbers were going to come down substantially. The administration is proposing large deductions in education and health programs using the large deficit as an excuse, the very deficit they have created by their actions. Many of us on both sides of the aisle will oppose those misguided spending reductions. And once we get to the real battle here in the coming year over Medicare and Medicaid, my suspicion is that they will see all the action that Social Security saw in the past year. Further tax cuts for the superwealthy would jeopardize the remaining safety net for our children, for the disabled, and for other vulnerable individuals in the future. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would have an open conference where the views of all parties might be expressed. After all, that ought to be one of the cornerstones of our democracy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. One thing I agree with the previous speaker on, that the American people are going more in the hole; and when they feel what is happening to student aid and cutbacks in scholarship money because of the Republican majority, they are going to know what being in the hole is really about. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ 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. Mr. Speaker, there were 22 million jobs created during the Clinton years. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

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

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, it is okay every once in a while if the Sheriff of Nottingham does not win. Addressing the issue of alternative minimum tax ought to be the priority here. Speaking to those 19 million Americans who are going to get caught in this again is where we ought to be. Once again, Katrina; two wars; doubling defense spending; the creation of Homeland Security; and although the President did not mention it the other night, he has planned a trip to Mars for NASA. The point is very simple. We cannot continue going down this road of shaving revenue all the time for the strongest among us. It always has to be more for the powerful, more for the strongest. And on the point that was raised by the gentleman from Michigan about job growth, this has been, by the 5-year standard, anemic job growth. It is the weakest performance in 70 years. Twenty-two million jobs were created during the Clinton years.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, as the consumer listens to this debate, one of the things I believe that they want to understand is that the advocates of this legislation, they are the ones that, just a year ago, were trying to privatize the Social Security system. They wanted to privatize the Social Security system. That should not be dismissed. So this bill is now shuttled to the floor, barely a word of consideration in the Ways and Means Committee, and the Republicans on the Rules Committee would not grant us the opportunity to offer an alternative. Pensions, like Social Security, should be sacred between the employer and the employee. There are few things that matter more than long-term security and a guaranteed pension. Now, let me give you the schedule of the Ways and Means Committee. We found days to discuss a free trade agreement with Bahrain, days to hear testimony about Bahrain, a country with 700,000 people. And then we took months and months and months, as they attempted to privatize Social Security. We spent a disproportionate amount of time, after the American people said, and the Wall Street Journal poll today, by the way, indicates quite clearly how they felt about their privatization plan of Social Security. Boy, is that clear. I will bet you on the other side everybody has read that poll by now. That was a terrible idea, and this is a terrible idea. So where do we find ourselves? This legislation will do more harm than it will do good. The Committee on Investment of Employee Benefit Assets, a group that represents chief investment officers from the larger corporations in the country, recently conducted their own survey and concluded that if this were to pass, 60 percent of those employers would either freeze or terminate their pension plans. Everybody knows the most robust debate in America next year is going to take place over retirement security. Reject this legislation.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I just heard the gentleman from Wisconsin talk about job creation. He singled out one month. 22 million jobs created during the Clinton years. 22 million. Economic growth has been paltry and everybody knows it. In addition to which he talked about the deficit--with a straight face. They have rolled up the national deficit, $2.2 trillion we are in the hole. On their time this has happened. Let me say this and I think it is very important to point out, Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority now says, as they did yesterday with a straight face, incidentally, well, the Democrats did not do anything about the alternative minimum tax when they were in the majority. In 1994, and I hope that anybody who is listening to this will write this number down, when the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives there were approximately 200,000 people paying AMT, 200,000 people. Next year 19.3 million people are kicked into AMT. I would like to think, as the gentleman from New York has indicated, that I have had some consistency on the issue of alternative minimum tax, not only in the committee, but here on the House floor. We did a big nothing yesterday about AMT and everybody knows it. 19.3 million people next year are kicked into AMT. But the House of Representatives had time to repeal the estate tax and now to address the dividend and capital gains tax, but they really never have time to do anything about AMT. And the reason they do not have time to do anything about AMT is pretty simple, it goes to middle income Americans to bear that burden. So if we do not have time here to do something for the wealthy, we really do not have time to do anything. We are rich and we are not going to take it anymore. We watch these numbers as they are presented to us. The Republican party, at one time, stood for anti-Communism and balanced budgets. Well, Communism is gone and the deficits have really soared, all from a party that preaches fiscal discipline. They have rolled those deficits up for one reason, after, by the way, robbing the Social Security trust fund to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest. In this institution we hear, well, the Social Security trust fund is going broke. It is going broke because they took $2 trillion out of it in tax cuts during the next 10 years. There is no pressure to do what we have to do today. They are contributing to the national deficit, contributing to the debt, all under the guise of paying for tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. Lastly, I defy anybody here to not acknowledge this static. The dividend relief bill that we are entertaining here overwhelmingly 53 percent of that benefit goes to people who made more than $1 million last year. That is where we find ourselves now.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me time. The chairman did raise a rhetorical question. Let me give a rhetorical answer. We are all so desperate here after these 10 years of Republican rule to do something about AMT we are prepared to vote for any procedure that comes before this institution just to hopefully move it along. Remember, when the Republicans took control, 200,000 people were paying AMT. Next year 19.3 million people will be paying alternative minimum tax.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for offering this motion to recommit today. The Rangel motion to recommit is about two things: truth in budgeting and truth in borrowing. In almost 14 years now on the Ways and Means Committee, we have spoken of addressing the alternative minimum tax issue. There has been a lot of talk and not a lot of action. And you are going to hear in a couple of seconds, well, yesterday, we took up the Alternative Minimum Tax. What we did yesterday was a procedural maneuver that allowed everybody to cover themselves, but will have very little reality as it addresses alternative minimum tax. The gentleman from New York's motion to recommit goes right to the heart of the matter. You can, in a few minutes, cast a vote on really doing something about alternative minimum tax. Now, the next thing we are going to hear today is this: The Democrats were in charge for 40 years and did not address the alternative minimum tax issue. In 1994, a couple of 100,000 people paid alternative minimum tax in America. On January 1, that number kicks up, next year, to 19 million people who will begin to pay alternative minimum tax. Mr. Rangel's proposal addresses this issue, and we pay for it, as I indicated at the outset of my remarks, honestly. The dividends and capital gains proposal does not even expire until the year 2008. And yet, we are doing that instead of doing alternative minimum tax. Now, this Congress had time, in the last 5 years, to repeal a series of taxes on the American people, all, by the way, for upper income groups. We certainly had plenty of time to repeal the estate tax. We had time to address dividends and capital gains. But we did not have time to address alternative minimum tax other than with Band-Aid approaches. Today, you have a chance to do something. Mr. Rangel's proposal lacks complexity. You can, in the next couple of minutes, choose between fixing AMT or extending dividends and capital gains cuts for the wealthiest among us. And by the way, when we hear the other side say that these cuts to middle income people for dividends and capital gains, the dividend proposal that they have ought to be understood in this light. More than 50 percent, I believe, 53 or 54 percent of their dividend proposal, goes to people who made more than $1 million last year. Alternative minimum tax is a middle class issue across this country and we can do something about it. Embrace Mr. Rangel's proposal. Give him a positive vote on AMT. But most importantly, give those 19.3 million Americans next year some much needed relief in alternative minimum tax.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I am happy to participate.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for allocating the time. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) made some comments at the outset talking about in his time on the Ways and Means Committee he has seen the committee try to address the issue of alternative minimum tax. But what is really interesting is he has only been there a short period of time. For some of us who have been there for a long time, this is the annual request we make of the majority. Now, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) for his good and sincere words. But there is a reality here, as we look at alternative minimum tax, and the reality is this: during the last 5 years, we have had time to repeal the estate tax. We have had time to not only address the dividend issue and capital gains, but in the next few days, we are going to take up the issue of extending them for another 5 years. Now, Congress has had time during these 5 years to do all of this. We have cut taxes for the wealthiest among us, millionaires who have received annual breaks totaling well over hundreds of thousands of dollars. But then when it comes time to address alternative minimum tax, we do it in what is known as the Stealth Tax Relief Act. And you know what, Mr. Speaker? That is the right term, the Stealth Tax Relief Act, because stealth is what this issue is all about. There is no reality addressed to what Congress is going to do in the next hour or so when it passes this bill. Is there anybody here in the Congress who is not in favor of this? I am not aware of anybody. We are all going to vote for this, and then reality is going to settle in. And the reality is that this really does not mean very much. And, in fact, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and I are going to be back here next year, and we are going to be having this conversation. And the majority is going to say something like, well, the minority had years to do something about this. Who has been in charge of this institution for more than a decade? The problem is this does not square, the alternative minimum tax because it gives tax relief to middle-income Americans, it does not square with the overarching agenda here, and that is to take care of the strongest among us. That is to take care of people who really are minimally touched by alternative minimum tax. They address this issue, as they do year after year, with a Band-Aid, with a Band-Aid. This issue, alternative minimum tax, requires major surgery. In fact, if they do not do something about it shortly, it is going to require a surgical air strike. That is how serious it has become. And my friends on the other side will say to me when we leave this Chamber, great job. You did a great job of calling attention to this issue. And then I am going to say to them, well, when are we going to do something about it? And they will say to me, next year.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will recall, in committee I offered a substitute fully paid for and the majority rejected it on a party-line vote.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today authorizing the National Park Service to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on behalf of Springfield Technical Community College. Over 30 years ago, in 1974, my predecessor, Congressman Edward Boland, and Senator Edward Kennedy were successful in creating the Springfield Armory National Historic Site. This legislation set in motion three decades of cooperation between the National Park Service, which manages the Armory Museum, and Springfield Technical Community College. The Park Service and the college are neighbors that together occupy the National Historic Site. Let me tell you a little bit about this site. The Springfield Armory was the first national armory in the United States. In fact, the armory was founded in 1777, when the site was selected as the location for laboratory specializing in the development, production and storage of guns and powder during the American Revolution. Following the American Revolutionary War, in 1794, Congress officially established the Springfield Armory. George Washington visited the site, which was also the site of Shay's Rebellion. Physically, the Armory abuts Springfield's historic State Street, the city's main east-west thoroughfare, which was Ben Franklin's famed mail route. For much of the 19th century, the Springfield Armory developed, manufactured and supplied most of the small arms used by the United States armed services. The Springfield Armory National Historic Site has a rich heritage that is an integral part of our nation's history. In 1968, the Armory was deactivated as a military installation and in 1974, Congress established the National Historic Site. The National Park Service has operated the Armory Museum on these grounds, and it houses the most outstanding and historically significant arms collection in the country. The future and fate of both the Armory Museum and Springfield Technical Community College are inextricably linked. Many of the historic buildings on the site are actually located on the college's property, not on National Park Service land, although a visitor to the campus would not be able to tell where NPS property ends and college property begins. This land outside the portion of the site administered by NPS is known as the ``Preservation Control Area.'' These college- owned buildings are subject to strict architectural and preservation rules. Many of these historic buildings owned by the college must be preserved and maintained pursuant to standards defined by the Secretary of the Interior. But these historic buildings are in a state of great disrepair and the college cannot easily move to maintain and preserve them absent the full participation of the Park Service. Not only does this deterioration of the facilities hurt the college, but also undermines the attractiveness of the National Park Service area, including the Armory Museum. My legislation seeks to recognize and update the partnership that has existed over these many years between the Park Service and the college by authorizing the Park Service to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Commonwealth. It allows for the National Park Service to provide financial assistance to the College for the purpose of maintaining, preserving, renovating and rehabilitating the many historic structures within the Springfield Armory National Historic Site. The Park Service frequently enters into such cooperative agreements where the object of the agreement is of direct benefit to the Park Service and its mission, or for other public purposes. If these great historic buildings on the site can be renovated with the assistance of the Park Service, it will bring forward a more vibrant and attractive Historic Site and Museum. The Park Service and the college will be able to partner on many joint educational ventures that utilize these revitalized historic facilities. The Springfield Armory National Historic Site is a treasure to the city of Springfield, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and to the Nation. The site is in desperate need of renovation, and enactment of this legislation is the first step towards ensuring the preservation of a site, which has played so vital a role in America's history.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for the gallant fight that he has put up all year on these issues as well. Let us, me, say something tonight that we ought to start this debate with. For everybody who is watching, for the Members that are here in this Chamber, as you listen to this debate, these are the people who began the year with what we all thought to be the worst idea of this Congress, and that was the argument to privatize Social Security. Now that is the context in which we have moved to the next round of their proposals. Nobody who is watching should kid themselves tonight. This is about a tax cut for the wealthy, dividend and capital gains. I defy anybody on the other side to challenge the following statement: Half of this proposal tonight with tax reconciliation included, half of the dividend and capital gains cuts will go to people who make more than $1 million a year. Now, we brought that up the other night at the Ways and Means Committee. That was not a fact that was challenged. That was accepted as part of the debate. So we are going to talk about dividends and capital gains cuts at this moment, and then I want to draw attention to those 148,000 men and women in Iraq who serve us with honor and distinction every single day. You know what their reward was? Two months ago, the Humvees arrived. The body armor is starting to arrive. But you know what? Only in this Congress, with this Republican leadership, could they declare there is a crisis in Social Security after they have ripped $1.3 trillion out of the budget. The answer to not having Humvees, not having body armor: let us have another capital gains cut; let us have a dividend cut. The title of this Congress is, we are rich and we are not going to take it anymore. Everything we do here is for the strongest, most powerful. I asked the other night at the committee, does anybody ever read the gospel of Matthew? To clothe the naked, to feed the poor and to provide dividends and capital gains relief to the rich? Because that is where we are going with this debate. This is about what is happening to the middle class tonight. They are going to cut student loan opportunities. The Senate is going to cut Medicare. Medicaid comes up before you know it. All of this is being done so they can shoe-horn a rigid, intransigent ideology. There is no flexibility with the modern Republican Party. Everything they do is to satisfy a constituent group in America called the wealthy. Every step they take is to reinforce the separation of class along budgetary lines. Vote down this proposal tonight and stand up for those men and women in Iraq and get them the equipment that they need.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for allocating this time to me. We began this session with an idea and a plan that would privatize Social Security. I thought that was the worst idea that we would encounter. But now that that argument is at last behind us, now we can see the reality of the President's budget process. This proposal that we are about to entertain on Thursday is a fiscal disaster. It not only forces painful cuts to programs that serve regular people; it awards large new tax cuts to people who already are the most privileged in our society. When President Clinton left office, the country was running a $236 billion surplus. We were on track to have a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10 years. Now, let me tell you what that would have done. That would have allowed us to fix Social Security, to fix Medicare, to pay down the debt, and to provide modest tax cuts for middle-income Americans. Instead, we have cut taxes five times while we are fighting two wars. And what is the result? Well, a month and a half ago to 2 months ago, the Humvees just arrived in Iraq. The body armor has just begun to arrive in Iraq. For those men and women who serve us honorably every single day in the American military, the equipment is just starting to arrive. But what do we have time to do here? Let us cut Medicare. Let us chop Medicaid. Let us go after student loans. Let us cut back on home heating oil for the most vulnerable among us in the Northeast; and, with a straight face, let us cut taxes by $70 billion over the next couple of weeks. Think of this Congress, what it did with the Clinton surplus: $5.6 trillion of surplus projected over 10 years, and this Congress cuts taxes and yanks $1.3 trillion out of the budget and then declares Social Security has a problem after they have taken that money away. You hear from the Members of this body on the other side of the aisle about supply-side economics. I do not know any primary supply-side economists left who are accepted in the academy. Nobody buys that argument any more based upon the budget deficits the Nation is running. We were on a sterling course of fiscal responsibility in this body. Just when people said it could not be done, we got it done. We balanced the budget, projected large-term surpluses, and we had this grand opportunity to take on some of the issues we would all like to address. But what has happened now? Is there anybody here who believes that we are not going to need a lot more money for Iraq? A lot more money for Afghanistan? Those dollars are going to be necessary. The same institution that voted to send us there, this Congress, I hope will not dare to cut back on what these men and women need. But I can tell you this: the budget they have put in front of us takes us precisely there. You cannot have it both ways, and we have learned that the hard way. But I will say this about the majority in this body, they will keep going. Most conventional political figures see a stop sign and they stop. Not here, they will keep going. Cut programs for the neediest and cut taxes for the strongest. I am reminded of Matthew when he said it is our goal and our job to clothe the naked and to feed the poor; and the Republicans here would add, and to take care of the wealthy and to take care of the strong.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the John Boyle O'Reilly Club in Springfield, Massachusetts on the occasion of its 125th Anniversary. Since it was founded in 1880, the John Boyle O'Reilly Club has been the center of Irish culture in western Massachusetts. From music, language, dancing to sport, the Boyle has promoted and preserved the unique culture of Ireland for generations. On Saturday, November 5, 2005, two hundred members of the John Boyle O'Reilly Club will hold a banquet to celebrate this historic milestone. The Irish Ambassador to the United States of America will attend the ceremony to pay tribute to the enormous contribution the club has made to the local community. It will be a heartfelt and fitting celebration of culture, tradition and family. The Irish poet W. B. Yeats once wrote: ``Think where man's glory most begins and ends/and say my glory was I had such friends.'' That sentiment helps describe what the JBO means to many of its members. More than just a social club, the Boyle has become a familiar setting for every occasion on life's journey. For many families in the Pioneer Valley, it is a special place that has produced fond memories and lasting friendships. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to an important group of individuals associated with the John Boyle O'Reilly Club. President Mary Quinn, Vice-President Patrick Burns, Treasurer Joseph Walsh and Secretary Patricia Devine deserve particular recognition for their leadership during this anniversary year. The Board of Directors, which includes Patrick Reilly, Mary Kate O'Connor, Timothy Hurley, Matthew Dooney, Eric Levine and Stephen Lonergan should also be acknowledged for their dedication and commitment. And finally, I want to congratulate the members of the club who are directly responsible for its success and longevity. On their behalf, I would like to submit this history of the club, written by member Dan Shea, into the permanent Record of the United States Congress. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the 109th Congress to join me in recognizing the John Boyle O'Reilly Club on the occasion of its 125th Anniversary. Let us hope this local landmark continues to celebrate the culture of Ireland for at least another century. The John Boyle O'Reilly Club, 1880-2005, 125 Years of Culture, Tradition, and Family This year the John Boyle O'Reilly Club celebrates its 125th Anniversary. The John Boyle O'Reilly Club is Western Massachusetts' oldest continuous Irish-American organization. The Club was originally organized in 1880. It initially went by other names but subsequently took the name of the famous Irishman, John Boyle O'Reilly, shortly after his death in 1890. During this time period, various Irish organizations drilled and trained for when the time came to return to Ireland and fight for Irish freedom. The John Boyle O'Reilly Club was one of the hosts when Irish President Eamon Develara came to the United Sates in 1921 to seek funds for the newly proclaimed Irish Republic. The call to return to Ireland never came but the organization stayed and promoted the ideals of Irish freedom and Irish culture. The John Boyle O'Reilly Club has been housed in several locations through out the years. In the early 1900s the Club would have its meetings above Linehan's Saloon on Worthington Street. In 1933, the Club incorporated and received its corporate charter from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its liquor license from the city of Springfield. At that time the club was located at the old Poli building on Worthington Street. The club moved to Hampden Street in 1943. On Sundays, local Irish musicians would play live music on WBZA in the old Hotel Charles and then walk over to Hampden Street and play music for the rest of the day. The John Boyle O'Reilly Club moved the second floor of 1653 Main Street in 1955. In 1970, the John Boyle O'Reilly Club purchased the present building at 33 Progress Avenue in Springfield. The building was a mere shell of a structure when purchased. Many members volunteered labor and material to finish construction and to complete the interior. The John Boyle O'Reilly Club opened its doors on Progress Avenue in March of 1972. There have been several renovations over the years to make the surroundings more enjoyable for the members and guests of the John Boyle O'Reilly Club. Throughout the years, the John Boyle O'Reilly Club has held many dances, concerts, Celi, music lesson, Irish language lessons, bagpipe lessons, sessions, and benefits for many families who fell on hard times due to injury, illness or an unexpected death. The John Boyle O'Reilly Club continues its mission of being a home for Irish-American culture, whether it is Irish step dancing, music, the live broadcast of the Gaelic Football and Hurling Games from Ireland, or meeting with friends and family. It may be known as ``the Boyle,'' `` the JBO'' or simply ``the Club,'' but it still is a place for Irish- Americans of all ages to come and enjoy one of the finest Irish Clubs in New England. The John Boyle O'Reilly Club continues to look forward to being the home of Irish American culture and celebrations in the coming years. We look forward to the coming year and invite all of our members and friends to come and celebrate the 125 years of culture, tradition, and family with the John Boyle O'Reilly Club.