Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased that the House Republican leadership has finally seen fit to appoint conferees to resolve the foreign sales corporation or extraterritorial income issue that the World Trade Organization found to be an illegal export subsidy. I note that the appointment of conferees today comes more than 2 months after the Senate appointed their conferees. This delay by the House Republican leadership has only resulted in more trade sanctions on many of our industries. Today I am offering a motion to instruct that I believe should be the framework for the conference report. First, the motion to instruct offers a requirement that House conferees include an effective rate reduction for U.S. businesses manufacturing or producing goods in the United States. This benefit for U.S. producers is the appropriate replacement for today's export benefit which was enjoyed by U.S. manufacturers and producers. The replacement benefit should also apply to U.S. manufacturers and producers. This motion requires that all businesses, including farmers, farm cooperatives, subchapter S corporations, and other unincorporated small businesses should enjoy the benefit of the new rate reduction. I have never understood the opposition of the House Republican leadership to permitting small businesses to be eligible for the new benefit. I have always agreed with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), chairman of the Committee on Small Business, in his insistence that small businesses be eligible. This motion also requires that businesses that are purely domestic receive the largest benefit, as included in the Senate amendment. We should reward companies for keeping their operations in the United States. This motion also requires the inclusion of Senate provisions to ensure that companies do not receive benefits for income attributable to cost savings from purchasing cheap imported parts or outsourcing labor. Again, I do not understand why the Republican House bill encouraged outsourcing of parts and labor offshore. Second, this motion requires that the conference report not further increase tax incentives for companies to move operations offshore. We have had ample opportunity in this House for the better part of 3 years to do something about an issue that I think causes great concern to the American taxpayer and to the American worker. Our current tax laws already provide incentives for companies to invest and move operations offshore. There is no reason to provide additional tax benefits that could result in further U.S. job losses. The Bermuda issue has never been debated vigorously in this House, and we should take that up perhaps as a separate issue down the road; but we sure could include it with this motion to instruct. We should be focused on increasing incentives for U.S. jobs, not incentives to create jobs overseas. Third, this motion requires that the conference report be revenue neutral. We already are experiencing deficits of historic size, and there is no reason to further increase the deficit in this legislation. I would remind the consuming audience today that what began as a $4.5 billion problem now looks as though it will have a $130 billion solution. In making this bill revenue neutral, the motion also requires the House conferees to take the following specific actions: First, the House conferees shall include the Senate provisions preventing corporations to avoid U.S. tax by merely reincorporating in a tax haven overseas. I have yet to meet anybody who believes that Tyco is a Bermuda-based company. I have never understood why House Republican leaders insist on defending companies that move to tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of tax, particularly at a time when we are engaged in combat overseas. Patriotism should never take a back seat to profits. Second, the House shall include the Senate provisions addressing corporate tax avoidance transactions, including provisions targeting tax avoidance transactions utilized by the Enron Corporation. At one time we were prepared to give them, as we repealed the corporate alternative minimum tax, a $250 million tax break. These transactions are purely paper transactions that have no purpose other than tax avoidance. The House has resisted action in this area for years, permitting corporations to continue to avoid their responsibilities. It is time to close and stop those transactions. Third, the House conferees should be instructed to drop the House provision that authorizes private collection of Federal tax liabilities. We debated that issue years ago in the Committee on Ways and Means, and I thought that the evidence that was presented would have offered substantial support for the position as outlined in our motion to instruct. Finally, this motion requires that the conference meet in open session and file its report before the House leaves for the elections. There is no reason that this issue should have taken so long to resolve. The bill that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and many of us introduced last year provided that it was possible to have a prompt bipartisan solution to the World Trade Organization decision. Instead, it has been decided to use this issue to provide more tax benefits overseas. Essentially, it has been recommended that a tax increase on U.S. producers fund a tax decrease for offshore operations of U.S. multinationals. It is that decision and the decision to use this bill for narrowly targeted tax benefits that have caused trade sanctions to be imposed on some of our industries. This motion to instruct essentially rejects those decisions and provides a reasonable framework for properly completing the conference on this bill. I also would suggest that this motion to instruct urges the House to instruct the conferees on behalf of U.S. workers. It is pretty simple. We provide benefits to manufacturers, particularly small businesses. We do not provide more tax incentives to move jobs overseas. And our legislation is revenue neutral. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to recognize the town of Sutton, MA on the occasion of its 300th anniversary. I am honored to represent Sutton and to have had the opportunity to help it celebrate this important milestone by participating in the Anniversary Parade on September 12, 2004. Located in the beautiful Blackstone River Valley in central Massachusetts, it retains the rolling farmlands and wooded hills for which it has long been known, which it is committed to preserving as part of the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor. The Heritage Corridor and the Purgatory Chasm State Reservation, also located in Sutton, offer visitors a way to explore the natural beauty of Massachusetts. Sutton's rich history began when the town was chartered in 1704. It was first settled in 1716 by the intrepid families of Benjamin Marsh, Elisha Johnson and Nathaniel Johnson, who braved the harsh winter of 1716-1717 in log cabins, which were sometimes entirely covered by the deep snows. These three families laid the groundwork for what is now a thriving community of more than eight thousand. Today, tourists who come to the five villages of Sutton can visit the Eight Lots Schoolhouse, built in the 1780s, see blacksmithing demonstrations in the M.M. Sherman Blacksmith Shop, and enjoy local candies and produce. They can also explore the history of the region through a trip to the Sutton Museum. The rich culture and history of Sutton make it a wonderful addition to any region, and I am proud to represent it in the United States Congress. Once again, I would like to congratulate the town on its 300th anniversary and to say job well done to all the organizers who made the commemoration of this momentous occasion such a great success.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). He does a terrific job with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) on a bipartisan basis to ensure that every opinion is heard on the Subcommittee on Trade over at the Committee on Ways and Means. I think oftentimes that is why we have the final product that we do. Let me use this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to explain why I will be voting in favor of this bilateral free trade agreement between the United States and Morocco, even though there are several aspects of the agreement that trouble me. My chief disappointment with the agreement is that, once again, the administration refused to specifically require our trading partner to abide by the five most basic internationally recognized labor standards. The International Labor Organization has identified those principles as the right to associate and bargain collectively, and prohibitions on forced labor, discrimination and child labor. Instead of assuring these minimal protections for foreign workers, our recent trade agreements have imposed a different standard. They require our partners to enforce whatever labor laws exist in that particular country, regardless of how lax those laws might be. While I strongly believe that this is the wrong negotiating tack as a general matter, in the specific case of Morocco, the country's labor laws more than surpass international minimum standards; and by all accounts, it appears that the government is making a genuine and conscientious effort to work with unions, workers, and employers to bolster its worker protections even further, including the right to strike. The labor provisions of this agreement are not perfect, but they represent a workable starting point. Although this agreement is not what I would ideally like to see, it represents an important first step. Fundamentally, I believe that the U.S. can improve its international standing and its national security by expanding trade and strengthening its relationships with moderate Muslim countries. Unfortunately, more and more Muslim voices are calling for boycotts of the United States and its products. That makes it all the more critical for us to reach out to those who are eager to form a partnership with us. Over the long term, I believe that agreements with nations such as Morocco are mutually beneficial from an economic standpoint. They also represent an opportunity to help mend international relations that have endured a great deal of strain over the last several years. Mr. Speaker, this agreement could be better. Certainly I would have negotiated it differently, but it will pave the way for progress in a region that is critically important to the United States, and so it does have my support.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have been here for 16 years, and I have never been involved in an issue where people congratulated me more for bringing it forward and did less about it than the alternative minimum tax issue.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a friendly observation?

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I think everybody in this institution knows the high personal regard in which we hold the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), and we certainly regret that he is moving on to other things. That applause there was singular. Mr. Speaker, there is another issue that draws us to this floor today, and I have heard the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) is a good enough guy. He said a couple of times today, he said, Well, this is not a silver bullet. Well, when I was a kid, if my father was witnessing something that he thought was particularly outrageous or he was looking at some sort of a question that he thought lacked proper definition, he would say, Well, at least Jesse James had the honor to wear a mask. And when I hear these folks on the other side come to the floor today and talk about simplification, it is outrageous. Let me remind Members of this body that in 1994 the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means said emphatically he was going to ``pull the Tax Code up by its roots.'' Then, of course, the charade was perpetrated on the rest of the committee when others said, Well, not to be outdone, we are going to drive a stake through the heart of the Tax Code. And then another one said, Well, we are going to have a long funeral procession for the Tax Code. Well, to those of you who filled out your own tax forms in the last round, that Tax Code is more complicated than ever. There has been no effort to simplify that Tax Code, but we know there is an election that is going to take place 15 weeks from yesterday, so we are going to be on the side of tax simplification. I would submit to you today that this is the easiest thing in this body that could be done with Democrats and Republicans to simplify the Tax Code. But the rhetoric does not fit public policy, because we have got to get people psyched up and convince them in this short span that we are going to simplify the Tax Code. We will be back next year, and we will not simplify the Tax Code because once again it is inconsistent with the rhetoric, as opposed to the policy that is necessary. Let me talk today about something we could do to really simplify the Tax Code. While I am disappointed with the context of the bill, simply because I think it could have been expanded in an effort to achieve simplification, we examine the four provisions that are put to us today. So we are going to clarify how to classify people who were born on January 1. Then the second section is going to replace the phrase ``head of household'' with a phrase that says ``single head of household'' throughout the Tax Code. The third provision is going to instruct the IRS to make the EZ available to more people; but my colleagues know what, the IRS already has the authority to do that. That could be done short of what we are undertaking at this moment. The final provision deletes some parts of the Tax Code that no longer has any legal effect. My goodness, I can feel the heartland of America today, boy, the satisfaction they must feel that we are taking up this major piece of legislation that, in the end, really does very little for them. It is easy to talk about tax simplification, and we all know it is very difficult to accomplish; but for the last three Congresses, I have offered a tax simplification bill that would include a paid-for repeal of alternative minimum tax. If this body is serious about making it easier for Americans to file their taxes, there is no better place to start. The alternative minimum tax was designed to prevent the very wealthiest Americans from overusing certain tax benefits to avoid most of their tax burden. Today, we all know it does not accomplish that goal any longer. Today, it ensnares millions of ordinary middle-class taxpayers, and I spoke to the American Manufacturing Association last night, and they were enraged by what has happened, and by the way, they generally support the other party. By the end of this decade, the AMT will apply to over 30 million taxpayers, including more than three-quarters of taxpayers with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000. In fact, unless we change the tax laws, in 2005, married couples with four children will be subject to the alternative minimum tax as soon as their incomes reach $58,500. What used to be a class tax has now become a mass tax. Now, I understand the reasons for the original imposition of AMT, but it no longer makes any sense. It no longer solves the problem that it was supposed to correct. It, in fact, creates a new problem. It doubles the amount of work that millions of Americans have to do to determine how much they owe. Because of the AMT, these taxpayers have to fill out two tax forms. The process has become so complex that it now takes an average middle- class family 19 hours to fill out their tax forms. That is 7\1/2\ hours longer than it took in 1994 when they were going to pull the Tax Code up by its roots or drive a stake through the heart of the Tax Code. The American people could be hardly more clear on the message they are sending to all of us. They need help navigating this process. It has become much too complicated. Sixty percent of the individuals hire a professional today to prepare their taxes, an increase of 50 percent from 1994 when they were going to drive a stake through the heart of the Tax Code, when they were going to have a long funeral procession for the Tax Code, when they were going to pull the Tax Code up by its roots. If my colleagues really want to do something in this institution, we do not have to talk about tax increases or tax cuts. What we could do is talk about tax simplification. Work with me on this AMT proposal that I have had. It could be done in a bipartisan manner. I wish the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) was staying because we have had success working on bills in a bipartisan manner, the two of us; and I regret his departure precisely because of that, and I believe that we could still do a tax simplification in the next session of this Congress without a great deal of difficulty.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Across this country every day mayors void contracts.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is no question. This is about the failure of Congress.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there are two things to remember: Bermuda is not part of the WTO; and, secondly, President Bush said he would never check with another country before deciding about American national security. Mr. Chairman, I want to say something to the gentleman who spoke a moment ago about the ``beating on your chest'' about this issue. I have brought this issue up now in the Committee on Ways and Means consistently for 3 years. We cannot even get a vote on it. This is not an appropriations issue in the end; this is really a tax issue. The gentleman from Virginia said a moment ago there are no employees from Accenture in Bermuda. That is the point. That is precisely the point. It is merely a post office box rented for $27,000. Does anybody believe that Tyco is a Bermuda-based company? Why are we here today debating this issue? Joint Tax has said, and listen to this carefully, $5 billion would come to the American Treasury if we would simply send these folks their tax bill. I want to ask Members of this body today this question as you vote: What would the IRS do to you next Monday if you renounced your citizenship and said you were really a citizen of Bermuda? This is not an argument about patriotism. This is an argument about that woman on Wall Street who said, ``Maybe it is time that patriotism took a back seat to profits.'' Tell that to the moms and dads of 134,000 kids in Iraq, 20,000 kids in Afghanistan, troops committed to Haiti and Bosnia as well. And these people do not want to pay their corporate taxes? They are protected by these men and women, these soldiers who serve honorably and with distinction every day. You know what this argument is about, because the American people know what this argument is about, it is about money. That is all it is about, money. Then the argument becomes, well, let us give those who left, went to Bermuda, moved money to the Cayman Islands, and Luxembourg, let us give them a permanent advantage competitively over those who have chosen to stay, like Stanley Works in Connecticut, and ask them to compete in a bidding process where one side does not have to worry about corporate taxes. This is indeed an argument about patriotism, and it is an argument about the fact that these companies do not have, and I repeat, do not have employees in Bermuda. They have instead a post office box. $27,000 is what it costs to open a post office box in Bermuda and avoid millions in U.S. taxes. It is indeed about money. We ought to have the backbone here to stand up and say, once and for all, very simply, like the American people who send their sons and daughters off to war, either you are in or you are out. That is what this argument is about. It is not about the WTO and the bidding process. Bermuda is not in the WTO. But I know this: when the sun sets on this argument today, the Committee on Ways and Means still will not take this issue up. And I would say this to the people that are on the other side on this issue, put this question in front of this body in an open, fair vote with an opportunity for all of us to express ourselves, and I will tell you what: I will eat the piece of paper it is on if we do not get 350 votes to end this practice. And you know it, and you stop it from coming to the floor time and again. You can do something about this today with a small start and then do something about it permanently. When I hear these folks say this is not about patriotism, tell that to the moms and dads of those kids who are over in Afghanistan and Iraq that these companies do not want to pay their corporate taxes to support them and give them the best equipment they need.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) was the mayor of Alexandria, Virginia. Did the gentleman ever void a contract that had been competitively bid?

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. How about when they were not all legitimately considered?

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor today to pay tribute to Dr. Frederick S. Conlin, Jr., DDS. Dr. Frederick S. Colin, Jr., DDS will retire this June from both politics and his practice in dentistry after more than 30 years. Dr. Conlin has had a general practice in dentistry for 38 years in West Springfield, MA, and has been a model citizen in our city. He held many honors in both of these fields, including being elected to the Valley District Dental Society as Vice President for 2 years. Dr. Conlin graduated from the College of Holy Cross with an A.B. degree in 1953. He later attended the American International College for Post Graduate studies from 1958 to 1959. Frederick Conlin received his DDS from the New Jersey College of Medicine and Dentistry in 1963. Conlin has also served in the Armed Forces for his country. From 1954 until 1956 Dr. Conlin proudly served as a 1st Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps. However, Lieutenant Conlin has also given to his country through his participation in local politics, having held many elected positions in his local community. Dr. Conlin was elected as a Town Meeting Member for 25 years. He was also elected to the Park and Recreation Commission and the Board of Selectman both for 6 years respectively. He was also chosen to be on the Board of Health for 5 years. Dr. Conlin served as Vice President of the City Council for 3 years. In addition to being elected to numerous organizations by his peers, Dr. Conlin also has volunteered to donate his time and talents to a plethora of other boards and organizations; including, the Town Government Study committee for 15 years, the American Legion Post 207 for 15 years, the Ramapogue Historical Society for 6 years, and served on the Board of Directors of the Friends of Seniors for 4 years. He also was a co-founder and member of the St. Patrick's Day Parade Committee for 10 years, and served on the West Springfield Veterans Council for 2 years. Always staying involved in politics, Dr. Conlin served 30 years on the Republican Town Committee. Dr. Conlin is a citizen of Springfield that we are extremely proud of and we wish him nothing but the best in his retirement. Dr. Conlin has been a member of St. Thomas Church for 50 years. He has been blessed with his wife the former Barbara Crowley for 26 years, and has one son, Rick, who currently attends Temple University School of Medicine. We wish you the best of luck and good health, Dr. Conlin.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor today to pay tribute to Dr. Frederick S. Conlin, Jr., DDS. Dr. Frederick S. Conlin, Jr., DDS will retire this June from both politics and his practice in dentistry after more than 30 years. Dr. Conlin has had a general practice in dentistry for 38 years in West Springfield, MA, and has been a model citizen in our city. He held many honors in both of these fields, including being elected to the Valley District Dental Society as Vice President for 2 years. Dr. Conlin graduated from the College of Holy Cross with an A.B. degree in 1953. He later attended the American International College for Post Graduate studies from 1958 to 1959. Frederick Conlin received his DDS from the New Jersey College of Medicine and Dentistry in 1963. Conlin has also served in the armed forces for his country. From 1954 until 1956 Dr. Conlin proudly served as a 1st Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps. However, Lieutenant Conlin has also given to his country through his participation in local politics, having held many elected positions in his local community. Dr. Conlin was elected as a Town Meeting Member for 25 years. He was also elected to the Park and Recreation Commission and the Board of Selectman both for 6 years respectively. He was also chosen to be on the Board of Health for 5 years. Dr. Conlin served as Vice President of the City Council for 3 years. In addition to being elected to numerous organizations by his peers, Dr. Conlin also has volunteered to donate his time and talents to a plethora of other boards and organizations; including, the Town Government Study committee for 15 years, the American Legion Post 207 for 15 years, the Ramapogue Historical Society for 6 years, and served on the Board of Directors of the Friends of Seniors for 4 years. He also was a co- founder and member of the St. Patrick's Day Parade Committee for 10 years, and served on the West Springfield Veterans Council for 2 years. Always staying involved in politics, Dr. Conlin served 30 years on the Republican Town Committee. Dr. Conlin is a citizen of Springfield that we are extremely proud of and we wish him nothing but the best in his retirement. Dr. Conlin has been a member of St. Thomas Church for 50 years. He has been blessed with his wife the former Barbara Crowley for 26 years, and has one son, Rick, who currently attends Temple University School of Medicine. We wish you the best of luck and good health Dr. Conlin.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is my esteemed privilege to note the exceptional achievement of eco/Springfield, LLC, Agawam, Massachusetts as the recipient of the highest honor bestowed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to small worksites, the approval as a Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program (SHARP) participant in the consultation program. Currently fewer than 750 worksites in the country share this honor of SHARP recognition. SHARP is a program created to provide incentives and support to smaller business owners who meet and exceed the OSHA standards, eco/ Springfield, LLC is a strong example of such a business. With the recognition in this OSHA consultation program comes several services at no additional cost to the business owner. These services include recognizing hazards in the workplace, providing a written report that summarizes the findings of this analysis, assisting in developing and maintaining an effective safety and health program, and offering training and education to the employer and employees at the worksite. I am very proud of all my constituents in this workforce for their tremendous efforts in working with the Massachusetts Consultation Program to receive this honor. Once again, congratulations to all of the men and women who work hard each day at the eco/Springfield, LLC, in Agawam, Massachusetts.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, remember that old commercial, when E.F. Hutton talks, people listen? Well, I hope no one on Wall Street is listening today, and I certainly hope that Alan Greenspan is not listening or watching because this Republican budget is $8 trillion of debt. Yes, Members heard me correctly. If this budget passes for the third time in as many years on a Republican rule, we are not bringing down the national debt. What we did so successfully under the years of Clinton and Rubin, we are undoing during this administration's time. No, our vote today increases yet again the debt of this Nation. How we could have gone from $5 trillion in budget surpluses under Clinton-Rubin to $8 trillion in debt ought to be shocking to all. Surpluses as far as the eye could see, we were suggesting just a few years ago. Today, $2 trillion in revenue cuts; and now 4 years later, surpluses are but a memory, and we have debt as far as the eye can see. Well, here is the simple strategy: we will have two wars with three tax cuts. A billion dollars a week for Iraq, do not worry about it, we need a tax cut. A billion dollars a month in Afghanistan. Do not worry about it. We need a tax cut. Troops to Haiti? Let us have a tax cut. That is government by declaration. Things are always getting better even though we do not see any evidence of that. And then we hear from the party that built its base in American history on fiscal responsibility, increased spending and cut taxes. The evidence is there for all to see. Then we are told on this floor that they inherited a recession. Everybody in America knows they inherited the best economy in the history of America, all due, I believe, to what at that time was bipartisan relationships in this House. They are nonexistent now. These Members on the other side come to the floor day after day and insist on tax cuts while fighting two wars at the same time.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, before I speak specifically to the issue here, let me offer an opinion just briefly based upon what the gentleman from Florida just said. We have got to pay for this war in Iraq. There ought to be some truth to what we do here. After this election, regardless of who is selected as the next President, it is going to cost another $100 billion at least. That will be pushed off until after the election. So last year it was $60 billion. Earlier this year it was $87 billion. Now as part of the rollout, it is $25 billion. We all know that number is too low. $1 billion a week for Iraq and now more than $1 billion a month for Afghanistan. 135,000 troops in Iraq. They need equipment. We are going to have to increase that base at some point. The answer here is this: we are going to fight two wars with three tax cuts, and the markets are reflecting it. I appreciate the analogy that was drawn by the gentleman about raising prices, but we are engaged in two wars across the ocean. The Republican Party in American history used to take fiscal prudence as the cornerstone of their existence. Today they take the position that we can cut taxes time and again because at some point we are not going to have to pay. We are going to have to pay for these two wars, and rather than taking the response that we have in this institution week after week of just simply saying we are going to have another tax cut, there ought to be some truth to what it is that we attempt to do here. In addition, it is an honor to be on the Committee on Ways and Means in this institution. It is really an honor. Why can these bills not come to the committee to be vetted the way they are supposed to be? Why are these bills brought to the floor around one of the prestigious committees in the Congress? I ask the appropriators who are watching in their offices now what they would do if legislation was brought to the floor that had not been vetted in their subcommittees or that had not been brought to the floor and discussed in the full committee before being brought to the floor in this institution for a vote. They would reject it. They would be up in arms. In addition, the other phenomenon that we have witnessed here, Mr. Speaker, which is equally troubling, is that Members who do not even belong to the committee are now brought to the floor for this instantaneous solution to help them through the election cycle. That is not the way that committee is supposed to be run. The people on both sides are well regarded by other Members of this institution, and yet we move right around the process. The substitute bills that have been offered by the Democratic minority in this House have been fiscally responsible. We would ask that these opportunities be put in place for us to discuss these bills in the committee where they are supposed to be discussed. That is what the Committee on Ways and Means does. And yet they are brought to the floor so that we can get ourselves through the next election cycle. It is an ill considered way to bring legislation to this floor, but most importantly, given the financial realities of Iraq and Afghanistan, it is irresponsible to do what we are doing now week after week. I would remind people even with this legislation that is on the floor today, very simply, one third of the people through the clawback provisions of the Alternative Minimum Tax will not see any tax relief despite what they are saying today. We have got to deal with that alternative minimum tax issue; and the tax cuts they put in place week after week now, without a lot of thought incidentally, do not speak to the heart of the issue of Alternative Minimum Tax. It costs $600 billion to fix. Let us fix that and give middle-income taxpayers the relief that they need.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for yielding me this time. One of the problems here in having a dialogue is that sometimes the facts do not square with the dialogue. Now, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) is one of the better people in this House; a good Member of the Congress and a very nice guy to work with. But where is the sympathy for those companies that stayed here? What about those companies that pay their taxes every day? What about those who did not attempt to escape in the dark of night to Bermuda for the purpose of avoiding American corporate taxes? Where is the sympathy for them? Their competitors can go offshore with a phony post office box for $27,000 a year, and then they avoid any share of the burden that the rest of the American taxpayers face for financing small things like Social Security and Medicare and paying for this war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would like to put this issue in front of those 134,000 troops in Iraq for a vote and see where we go on that issue. We hear about these companies that have been gone for 30 or 40 years. Let us get something straight, Tyco has been gone since 1997, Ma and Pa Tyco, that avoid paying $400 million a year in corporate taxes. Tell that to the parents of those men and women and wives and husbands of those men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. We make it sound as though these companies are under great duress when they avoid paying corporate taxes. I would ask this for the listening audience today as well. What do you think the IRS would do to you on Monday if you got up and said as an individual that you were going to Bermuda for the purpose of denying American citizenship, but only for the real purpose of avoiding your share of taxes in America? That is what we are asking today. This is a decent proposal that is before us. All we are saying on our side is let us discuss how you pay for it. That is the important reminder for all of us. The Rangel substitute with flexible spending accounts is not only a popular employee benefit because it allows pretax dollars to be used for dependent care expenses or medical expenditures not covered by insurance, but in fact, except for the staff of this Republican-run House, most of the employees of the Federal Government have had the opportunity to indeed utilize FSAs. But today we could be debating whether FSAs might even be more flexible, allowing employees to roll over unused funds from one year to the next. But the leadership has decided that once again we are going to come to the aid of their favorite constituency, the healthy and the wealthy. We never have time in this institution to take up anything that might be of benefit to middle-income taxpayers, to the working poor of this country every day who do not have any health benefits; but we find plenty of time for the purpose of cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans. And let me just go back to this subject again, and I hope people are paying attention in this sense: we are now fighting two wars, and the answer of this Congress to two wars: three tax cuts. We are going to come in with a $25 billion request now because we all know what the real cost of that incursion into Iraq is going to be, not only in terms of human life but, just as importantly, in terms of the financial burden it will be to the American people. So we roll it out in small increments. We should begin to pay for some of these initiatives that come through this House. By the way, that used to be the historic position the Republican Party adopted. Today, it is borrow and spend. The Rangel substitute would allow workers to roll over their FSA money from one year to the next without any budget impact that is negative. But because this benefit costs money, the Rangel substitute would pay for it by closing down a loophole. All I ask is this, Mr. Speaker. If the position that I have adopted on these companies that go to Bermuda is so bad, why is it that almost 2\1/2\ years later the majority will not give me an up-or-down vote in this institution? Put this in front of the body here. Square it with those men and women in Iraq. Close down this Bermuda loophole, and let everybody pay what they are supposed to pay. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Rangel substitute. Flexible Spending Accounts have proven to be a popular employee benefit, allowing pre-tax collars to be used for dependent care expenses or medical expenditures not covered by insurance. In fact, except for the staff of this Republican-run House, most of the employees of the federal government have had the opportunity to utilize FSA's. Today, we could have been debating whether FSA's should be even more flexible--allowing employees to roll-over unused funds from one year to the next. However, the leadership has decided to instead to once again prop-up its favorite tax shelter for healthy workers. The Rangel substitute would allow workers to roll over FSA money from one year to the next and would do so without any negative budget impact. Because this tax benefit costs money, the Rangel substitute would pay for this worker benefit by closing the loophole allowing former American companies to move their headquarters offshore for tax avoidance. Corporate expatriation accounts for $5 billion in lost taxpayer revenue over the next decade. Today, we debate a substitute that shows us exactly what we could be doing with that money: providing greater employee benefits. Why should the workers of America be supporting corporate tax dodgers? Consider that in 1997, Tyco renounced its corporate citizenship and changed its mailing address to Bermuda to avoid paying nearly $400 million a year in U.S. taxes. While many in the House have expressed outrage since this loophole was first exposed two years ago, the Leadership has done nothing but cement the loophole with legislation protecting Tyco and those that have already left. Since I first filed the bipartisan Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act to end this tax subsidy, these corporate expatriates have enjoyed almost one billion dollars in U.S. federal government contracts annually, 70 percent of which are defense or homeland security related. Our colleagues in the Senate have passed as recently as yesterday legislation to close this loophole affecting those that are considering the island tax havens and those that are already exploiting this loophole. But in this Congress, we wait. For those that profess to care about the exploding budget deficit, for those that claim to hear Chairman Greenspan's warning about the harm this historical budget deficit is doing to our economy, you must at some point decide that bills that pile on more federal debt are wrong. I urge my colleagues to support the fiscally responsible Rangel substitute, which makes the corporate tax cheats and those that forsake America in a time of war pay for improving benefits for American workers.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is my esteemed privilege to honor the city of Northampton, MA, and its residents as they celebrate the 350th anniversary of its European settlement in 2004. This occasion presents a wonderful opportunity for this community rich in history to reflect on its achievements, to celebrate its quality of life, and to join in ensuring this legacy for future generations. Northampton was founded in 1654 on lands previously known as ``Nonotuck'' or ``Norwottuck.'' This fertile Connecticut River Valley has been inhabited for more than 10,000 years by native peoples who began their agricultural industry. The fur trade was later established in the 1630s, upon the arrival of the Europeans. Once beavers grew scarce, the Pocumtuck and Mohican leaders began transferring lands to pay off debts to traders. Northampton became an established trade and marketing center in the 18th century. Present day citizens of Northampton are proud to follow in the footsteps of an esteemed heritage. Famous Northampton native Jonathan Edwards sparked the religious revival of the Great Awakening in the 1740s with his enthused ministry. This historic city produced heroes such as General Seth Pomeroy of the Revolutionary War who was a delegate from Northampton to the First and Second Provincial Congresses, a major general in the Massachusetts Militia and fought at Bunker Hill. There was much economic unrest following the Revolutionary War that led to Daniel Shay leading his rebellion before the Constitutional Convention. Caleb Strong, who was a delegate to the Convention, became Massachusetts' first senator and an 11-term governor. The dawn of the 19th century welcomed new economic opportunities. The New Haven canal promised to be profitable, however, the beginning of the American Railroad system and the shareholders failure to recoup their investments prevented this from thriving. Northampton provided an enriching environment for many industries, including education, with the foundation of the Northampton Association of Education and Industry. This association combined a radical abolitionism with a communally owned and operated silk mill, including members such as Sojourner Truth, William Lloyd Garrison, and Frederick Douglas in its inner circle. Northampton continues to thrive in education. George Bancroft established the Round Hill School in 1823. Author George Washington Cable founded the Home Culture Clubs in 1884. The Hill Institute created one of the first kindergartens in the United States. The prestigious Smith College was founded here in 1871, and the North Hampton Law School claims such alumni as Franklin Pierce. Probably one of the most famous natives is former President Calvin Coolidge, who took office in 1923. Described by Jenny Lind as the ``paradise of America,'' she was one of many who were drawn to the beauty of Northampton. Other famous visitors over the centuries include famous poet Ralph Waldo Emerson, Marquis de La Fayette, and Henry James who chose Northampton as the setting of his first novel. Artist Thomas Cole captured its beauty in art and called the city ``picturesque.'' Also poet Sylvia Plath found inspiration in Northampton. Sylvester Graham, a diet and health food enthusiast, hails from Northampton as well and is the inventor of the Graham cracker. Also Lydia Maria Child, an abolitionist, poet and writer, was born in Medford in 1802. Northampton prides itself on its long and distinguished past, and its claim as one of the oldest cities in the United States. With such prominent and influential figures dotting its rich history, it is evident as to why Northampton is such a thriving and vivacious city today.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the time that is left. Mr. Speaker, we have had this debate now in this House for a long period of time. For Members on the majority side to say, well, this was a Democratic proposal in 1986 and then to conveniently forget or suggest that during their 10 years that they have not had sufficient opportunity, working, by the way, with a willing minority to fix the issue, really does not make a great deal of sense. This issue is hanging out there. It is waiting for a solution. There ought to be an opportunity in a bipartisan manner to fix it. I have said flatly I am in favor of repealing the alternative minimum tax. Let us get rid of it. There is a revenue gap to make up, $600 billion, that has to be found somewhere; but when we offer the suggestion, it goes nowhere, because it does not square, Mr. Speaker, with the tax cuts that the administration has offered and that the compliant Members of the majority have gone along with without ever, ever, ever asking a question. Forbes magazine has suggested that the tax cuts that the Republican majority and the administration have offered only make the alternative minimum tax issue worse for middle-income Americans. We have heard today a suggestion that issues of war in the Middle East and in Afghanistan are irrelevant to these discussions. How are we going to pay for the troops, 134,000 that are in Iraq and 12,000 that are in Afghanistan, and support this war effort? How are we going to pay for, first, the Defense budget that goes to $421 billion at the conclusion of this session, $41 billion for homeland security? They are off by $140 billion in their prescription drug bill proposal; and the answer is, to all of this, tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, we can fix the alternative minimum tax issue in a bipartisan manner. I am more than happy to offer my support to try to get that under way. Support the Democratic alternative today. It, in the end, is responsible tax policy, and show those people at Enron and show those people in Bermuda that they ought to pay like the rest of the American people.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Is the gentleman prepared to close?