Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time is left.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman you cannot fix this on a long- term basis without doing something about the tax cuts that the gentleman was heralding a couple of minutes ago. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, a quick reminder to the previous speaker. More than half of the promised benefits last week of the marriage tax penalty are taken back under alternative minimum tax. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am just curious, and I would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) or perhaps the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), since this was never aired in the committee, this proposal has not been brought up in front of the committee, will the author of this proposal, will he be taking his picture with the Committee on Ways and Means later on at 2 o'clock? Will we have him there for the photograph for history and posterity? I was just wondering, since we now have nonmembers of the committee bringing these proposals forward. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, anytime that we can ask those companies that have moved to Bermuda to avoid paying American taxes with 134,000 troops in Iraq to pay their share, I am happy to have my fingerprints on that issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) is a good friend of mine. He is a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and he really is a very decent guy, but he is really wrong in what he said earlier. To suggest that these tax cuts and this mania that we have witnessed now for tax cuts for the last 3 years has not had a substantial impact on the size of Federal deficit is to really put our heads in the sand. Let me remind Members of this House we are now fighting two wars with three tax cuts, and the mathematics are there for everybody to see. An announcement this morning by Secretary Rumsfeld that 135,000 troops now are going to stay in Iraq for an extended tour of duty, well into the year 2005, and let us be honest with the American people, they are there for 2006 and 2007 and maybe through 2010. That is the reality that we confront. We are going to a $500 billion deficit this year after coming out of the Clinton years when we not only balanced the budget but projected surpluses for years to come. I want to remind ``all is well'' that this proposal from the gentleman from Connecticut today has never even been vetted in the Committee on Ways and Means. Maybe I am mistaken, but I believe after having served in that committee for 12 years that the Committee on Ways and Means has a responsibility for tax revenue issues. So this is being brought to us by an individual who is not on the committee and indeed it has not been aired in the committee. There has been no public hearing on the proposal that we are going to vote on in an hour. So we find ourselves having this debate about alternative minimum tax. And I want to say something. I think my hands are clean on this issue. I have heard them say that the Democrats put this in place in the reform of the Tax Act of 1986. That may well be the case, but let me tell the Members something. I am in favor of repealing it. I think there ought to be some intellectual honesty as it relates to AMT. It has outlived its usefulness. It has outlived its purpose, and now middle-income taxpayers are now being asked to carry its burden. We have a game of kind of hocus-pocus here. The Republicans stand up and say, well, we are going to give AMT relief. They are not giving AMT to the number of people they could and should be giving AMT relief to, largely because it does not square with the tax cuts that the administration has proposed, and once again Republicans in this House go along with very few questions asked about any issue. The administration says it is so, they just go along with it, no questions asked, even if the evidence a few weeks, months, years later turns a contrary conclusion. Let me speak specifically, if I can, to this issue as it relates to this debate today. The alternative minimum tax was originally designed to make sure that everyone paid their fair share. Who among us can argue with that? The second notion of the proposal that we have offered today is that we want to grant some relief to the burden that the Republican Party has put on middle-income tax earners. If they, in fact, take advantage of certain credits in the Tax Code and they have a lot of children, they are penalized by their proposal. Do the Members know why? It is very simple, because the philosophy of the majority in of this body is that the only people in America that ought to have tax relief are the wealthy. And to the credit of the wealthy 3 years ago, they were not even asking for tax relief. They wanted to pay down the debt, and public opinion polling concludes, once again, they still think that paying down the deficits are a far better use of taxpayer money than giving tax relief to even those who might benefit most from it. They promised that they were going to do something about tax reform as it relates to AMT. But what they did not tell them was that they are going to give them tax relief on one hand and then if they sit down to do their tax forms, they are going to take it away from them if they have four or five children. If people desire to use the HOPE credit, they are going to take it away from them. If they try to take advantage of the child credit, they are going to take it away from them. So they give it to them on one hand and they take it back on the other. So in the end, there really is no tax relief as it relates to alternative minimum tax. I want the Members to listen to this. Half, half of the promised benefits that we voted on last week under the marriage penalty bill, we were told we were going to provide relief to those folks as well, they are taken back to the Treasury by alternative minimum tax. I have offered time and again, Mr. Speaker, a couple of very easy proposals in this body. Let us get rid of AMT. Let us scale back the size of the tax cuts the administration offered. Let us pay down the deficit. Let us pay for these two wars. Let us fix Social Security. Let us fix Medicare, as American people clearly desire. And let us give tax relief to middle-income Americans, particularly from alternative minimum tax. I hope in the next few minutes as we engage this debate, we will have a chance to put the magnifying glass on the proposal that is before us today. And I have got to tell the Members, as a member of the oldest committee in this House, a committee that I believe is so desirable to sit on, a committee whose history is so profound as it relates to this Republic, they did not even have enough regard for the Committee on Ways and Means to hold a hearing on this proposal in the committee. This is the introduction to their proposal today on the House floor. Nobody has seen it until about an hour and a half ago. So let us engage this debate. Let us have an opportunity to draw some attention to what it is that they are saying but, most importantly, to what it is that they are doing. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I remind the Republican Members a year ago in the Committee on Ways and Means they had a chance to vote for my AMT bill, which would have done exactly some of the things we are proposing to do today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill was summed up perfectly by my friend the gentleman from Illinois when he said that this bill was introduced last week. So the bill was introduced last week and now it is on the floor this week, a complicated tax bill? I think the oldest committee in the Congress, the Committee on Ways and Means, would have had an opportunity to digest the details of this legislation, but this must be some new mechanism that we have developed here whereby on a very important tax matter the legislation is introduced last week and it is on the floor today for discussion without incidentally having gone through the committee, which for people like myself happen to believe that this is the basis of the Congress, sending legislation through the committee so it might be vetted properly and there might be an opportunity for people to examine the details of the legislation before it is brought to the floor. Let me speak specifically to the tax cut mania that we are hearing in this institution. What is striking about this proposal, Mr. Speaker, is that, I want to remind people, we have 130,000 troops in Iraq who are serving with honor and distinction every single day. We have 12,000 more troops in Afghanistan who likewise are serving this country admirably day in and day out. So here is the strategy in the modern Congress. We are simultaneously fighting two wars with three tax cuts. One of the things that I am most proud of during my time on the Committee on Ways and Means is that we were able to put together the details that balanced the budget of the United States for the first time, I believe, in about 3\1/2\ decades, and then we projected surpluses where we may well have had the opportunity to repair Social Security, to repair Medicare, to spend some money on education and to have done the things that we all desire in terms of improving our environment. But the strategy afoot today in the modern Congress is you introduce the bill last week, and then you bring it to the floor for a debate without even going through the committee process. So two wars, three tax cuts, $500 billion in deficit, and there is no vetting of this process in front of our committees? Let me speak specifically, if I can, to the proposal of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). Let me tell the gentleman, I know people like the Hallihans. Here is the problem with this proposal: What we give to them with this hand, the alternative minimum tax takes away with the other hand. For a family who already has discovered a couple of weeks ago how ferocious the alternative minimum tax can be, they are going to discover that with the headlines of marriage penalty relief that there is a take-back provision. So we are going to give them the benefit today of what we deem to be or call marriage penalty relief, and, guess what, Mr. Speaker? The Hallihans are about to discover that if they are a married couple with two children who make $72,000 a year, they are not going to get any relief in this proposal because of the alternative minimum tax. Now, I along with others have been talking about the problem of the alternative minimum tax for the last few years around here. I said recently seldom have I ever been part of any issue in the 16 years in which I have had the honor to serve here where people said to me, keep up the good work, we appreciate what you are doing on both sides of the aisle, and then we do not do anything about it. So let me go back to the Hallihans for a second, because I expect that they are going to know about alternative minimum tax very quickly. If they have two children and they take the standard deduction with income of $72,000 a year, let me repeat, they are not going to get any tax relief with this proposal. Part of the problem is AMT, and part of the problem happens to be the President's tax cut proposals. I am going to go back to what I said at the beginning. How can we be fighting two wars with three tax cuts? That is what we ought to be discussing and deliberating here. We passed $87 billion for the war in Iraq, that on top of $60 billion, and everybody in this institution knows that after the election we are going to need more money for the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war. Where are we going to go to get it? I do not know any businessman or businesswoman in America that could hope to run their company the way that we are undertaking tax cut legislation in the modern Congress. Then on top of that, we stand at the microphones and tell people, you are going to get relief under this proposal, and more relief under this provision. Then they get their tax bill; and they discover not only is there not any more relief, but, because of alternative minimum tax, they are going to pay more. There are two issues that we should all be able to agree on in this Congress: tax simplification, there ought to be an appetite here for getting it done; and the second part of this issue, we should be fixing permanently the alternative minimum tax. That is what we should be doing. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) earlier spoke of the need for tax relief, and other speakers on the other side have offered different proposals suggesting that we should proceed down this road of tax cuts regardless of whether or not we are going to need this money for Iraq and for Afghanistan. Now, let me go back to the point that I raised earlier in this debate, and I hope people are listening. Without batting an eye in this institution, we borrowed $87.5 billion for the war in Iraq. Now, the only reason we did not hear the real cost of the war in Iraq is because people would have reacted very differently. Everybody in this institution today, the people that are watching, the people that are here as guests, they know you are going to need more money for Iraq and Afghanistan. Tens of billions of dollars more will be needed for Iraq and Afghanistan. For years Democrats were accused of being the party of fiscal irresponsibility even though we set the Nation on the right course in the mid-nineties with record surpluses, record economic growth, unparalleled prosperity, and we demonstrated you could balance the budget and still fix Social Security and Medicare. Today we are, and I want people to listen to this carefully, we are borrowing the money for this tax proposal before us today, borrowing the money and sending the bill to our children. We are fighting two wars. For the first time in our history we are having tax cuts at the same time that we are fighting two wars. We watch the red ink everywhere, $500 billion this year in deficit, and the answer here is let us add more to it. The President comes forward with a proposal to finance the war in Iraq, which I voted for because I thought those soldiers needed the best equipment and best supplies we could provide them with, but we borrowed the money to do it. And the answer today is, let us borrow money for tax cuts to pay for these proposals. And then people like myself who have been talking about alternative minimum tax for years here were told, well, do not worry because we are just going to do this in a couple of weeks. We are going to fix the alternative minimum tax in a couple of weeks. The alternative minimum tax problem is going to cost $500 billion to $600 billion to fix. We will not fix it in 2 or 3 weeks here. Everybody knows it. We will have the tax cut of the week in an effort to massage the numbers. Let me give you another specific quick example of what we seek. The AMT problem reaches in to more families based upon the more kids you have. So the families who take the standard deduction and have four kids with incomes of $64,000, they are not getting any benefit from this proposal today because what they are offering them on one hand, they are taking away on the other. So they suggest we will give you marriage penalty relief, and then the IRS is going to say, aha, take those deductions for those children, take the HOPE credit, and let us tell you what is going to come of it. What is going to come of it is you are bumped into alternative minimum tax and you will be hit with a bigger bill than you originally would have had. Now, let me offer some of my political DNA on this issue as a Democrat. I have proposed getting rid, outright, of alternative minimum tax. Just repealing it. That would force this institution and the other body to speak specifically to the issue of the tax cuts that we have seen here, reckless disregard for the future of this Nation's financial security. We are going to need that money for the international commitment that we have made in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the war on terror. We will need to fix Social Security. We will need to fix Medicare for generations to come. That is not irresponsible to have used those surpluses during the Clinton-Rubin years to pay for the basic requests of the American people. This is not an issue that is 20 years off. The baby boomers begin to retire in 2011. We are going to need the resources for that. And to the question that was referenced earlier, the suggestion that we are proposing a $206 billion tax increase, we are going to need $300 billion for the war in Iraq. I will remind this body, General Shinseki said, You need tens of thousands of more troops. He got fired for his wisdom. Lawrence Lindsey, by the way, the architect of the President's economic policies, said 200- to $300 million. He got fired because he had the audacity to suggest the truth to our respective bodies. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a contrast between the two parties. To suggest that this is not about paying for Iraq and Afghanistan is ridiculous. Of course it is. We are borrowing the money to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan: $87 billion. Of course this is entirely relevant. Also, I do not believe that the Committee on Ways and Means brought this issue up. Maybe I was not there that day. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, there are 10 million people, married households who are going to get no benefits from this proposal; 3 million more are only going to get part of the benefits. That means we are denying 13 million married households a benefit that is being promised to them today because of alternative minimum tax. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), who was elected on the same day as I was. I would point out he is a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, which generally is in a position to take up these sorts of issues.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I first introduced legislation to repeal the individual alternative minimum tax on April 14, 1999, and have been warning about the dangers of letting this problem fester ever since. While the broad problem has since become better known (albeit not addressed in any meaningful way), little attention has been paid to the plethora of nagging problems caused by the neglect of the Bush Administration of this issue--problems I have addressed one at a time in additional legislation over the years. The latest example of the cost of this Administration's neglect is the impact the alternative minimum tax is having, and will have, on private activity bonds; as discussed in an insightful analysis by John Buckley (Minority Chief Tax Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means) published in BNA's The Daily Tax Report March 1st. As a leader, along with Rep. Amo Houghton, in expanding the use of private activity bonds for low and moderate income housing, I am particularly sensitive to the adverse affect the AMT is having on the market for housing bonds. The failure of the Bush Administration to address the issue of the AMT meaningfully means that the number of families subject to the minimum tax is skyrocketing. Without further action by Congress, 78.6 percent of families with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000, and 95 percent of all families with incomes between $100,000 and $500,000, will pay the minimum tax in the future. While the impact of the alternative minimum tax has become widely known, few recognize its impact on private activity bonds. Approximately 75 percent of all tax- exempt bonds are held directly or indirectly by individual investors. These investors generally have annual incomes that in the future will, as indicated above, almost guarantee that they will pay the alternative minimum tax. As a result, the individual market for tax-exempt private activity bonds is quickly eroding and could disappear entirely in the future. Already the financial markets have begun to recognize this serious problem. Not only have some mutual funds reportedly announced their intention of not investing in bonds subject to the AMT, but higher interest rates are being offered in connection with these bonds. In 2000, private activity bonds were issued at average interest rates of about 104 percent of the rate offered on tax-exempt general obligation bonds, presumably reflecting slightly greater risk. In 2003, the average interest rate had increased on tax-exempt bonds to about 110 percent of the rate offered on tax-exempt general obligation bonds. Some will argue that this is a problem that can wait for another day since the number of individuals subject to the minimum tax will explode only in the future. They are wrong. Tax-exempt bonds quite often are issued for terms as long as 30 years. The fact that an exemption may have value today but not in five years, will affect the interest rate at which those obligations are currently being issued. Mr. Speaker, this country is now being forced to face the consequences of the Bush tax cut agenda. The deficit has exploded while the Administration swats at flies in non-defense discretionary spending, the value of our currency is declining as investors both here and abroad lose faith in our fiscal policies, and the International Monetary Fund recently criticized the fiscal policies of the Bush Administration in terms that previously had been used only in the context of developing nations. We are again seeing growing income inequalities as the wages paid to average workers stagnate and jobs flee the country. These are some of the economic issues that divide the two parties in Congress, and we can and will vigorously debate them in the future. However, I believe that we should attempt to take action on a bipartisan basis to limit the adverse and unintended impacts of the alternative minimum tax. The bill I am introducing today, along with my colleague from New York Steve Israel, simply removes tax-exempt interest on private activity bonds from the individual alternative minimum tax. While failure to act would mean that Congress does not place as much emphasis on providing decent housing for the less fortunate as it seems to, I am confident that that is not the case. However, I am worried that this problem, as other problems involving the minimum tax, will simply be band aided over until that mythical time in the future when we tackle the AMT problem as a whole.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, let me give the gentleman a fact since he raised it today, and that is that the chairman's budget does nothing about the Alternative Minimum Tax. That is a fact that we ought to be concerned about here. You can yell about it, you can speak softly about it, but it is a fact. The President's budget calls for a 1-year patch fix to the AMT. They at the White House prefer to study the issue once again. We ought to take a test around here on issues that we are asked to study and then find out if we will ever bring them up again. The Bush tax cut of the past 3 years have exacerbated, emphasis on the word ``exacerbated,'' the Alternative Minimum Tax problem, where many middle-income taxpayers are going to see their tax cuts go back to the Treasury by round trip, courtesy of Alternative Minimum Tax. Alternative Minimum Tax no longer affects the highest-income taxpayers; it falls mainly on middle-income taxpayers. If the Bush tax cuts are made permanent, 97 percent of the taxpayers, and listen to this, with two or more children with income between $75- and $100,000 will be affected by Alternative Minimum Tax. Let me give a quote from Forbes magazine that is an item that Democrats always like to bring up, ``Largely as a result of tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, the Alternative Minimum Tax is now poised to devour the middle class in America.'' Our inability to fund important programs in education, health care, homeland security, veterans and environment, which most citizens, by the way, support, is the result of reckless tax policy which favors the most wealthy Americans while burdening our children and grandchildren with debt. We borrowed the money to pay for tax cuts for high-income Americans. If the President and Congress saw the need to create a Department of Homeland Security, why are we cutting first responder funding by $648 million? Cuts to port security? Did my Republican colleagues already forget the sacrifices and courage of firefighters, police and other first responders on 9/11? The President and the Republican leadership in this institution helped to create our current fiscal difficulties, and I might emphasize, nonexistent job growth. What are they going to do to fix it? It takes a bit more creativity than tax cuts for the rich to address this problem. Let us put the best thoughts of Democrats and Republicans in this institution together and fix the Alternative Minimum Tax. It is threatening tens of thousands, if not millions, of Americans in coming years. And when people after April 15 find out about Alternative Minimum Tax and the inability, or I should say, the attitude of this institution in not dealing with it, there is going to be seething anger across the country.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. That may well be. I do not dispute the inception. I do not dispute the philosophy of Alternative Minimum Tax as proposed. What I do dispute is, you have been in charge for 10 years, opportunity to do something about it rather than talk about it.

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

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, while the House today takes up a budget resolution to fund important programs for education, national defense, health care, homeland security, environment and veterans, let me point out that there is another vote taking place today. That is the vote of the shareholders of the Tyco corporation. They are going to continue to shirk their responsibilities, apparently. In 1997, New Hampshire-based Tyco, International renounced its corporate citizenship and changed its mailing address to Bermuda to avoid paying $400 million in U.S. taxes. Today, shareholders will be asked to vote on a resolution that will change that. My hunch--it is going to fail. This is unfortunate for all Americans because they are being asked to make sacrifices during a wartime economy. We have 134,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq while Tyco, International and the Bermuda-based companies, all for the price of a $27,000 post office box they do not want to contribute, and the other side does not want to do anything about it. I am the sponsor of the Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act which would deny tax benefits to former American companies that reincorporate offshore simply to avoid paying the same taxes the rest of us do. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, we could save $4 billion just asking these folks to pay their fair share.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to congratulate the first all-female graduating class of the Picker Engineering School of Smith College. The Picker Program is committed to advancing opportunities for women in engineering. The engineering science program emphasizes an integrative teaching approach that will reinvent the standards of engineering and change the future. The Picker Engineering Program has reinvented the role of engineering and thus expanded the way in which engineering students view the world. The 20 young women in the graduating class of 2004 have been exposed to an interwoven study of humanities and engineering. The creators of the academic department have redefined the standard curricula of engineering by integrating liberal arts education with traditional scientific and mathematical principles. The Picker Engineering Program stresses the importance of serving humanity and the protection of natural resources. The importance placed on environmental sustainability and social responsibility has raised the standards needed for an engineering degree. The Picker Engineering School of Smith College will provide endless opportunities for students seeking an unparalleled education. It has already attracted a dedicated faculty and will continue to recruit superior staff and faculty. One of the highest percentages of women faculty, more than sixty percent, of any engineering programs in the country are employed by Smith College. The Picker program is a leading innovator in educating the next generation of engineers. While women account for 45 percent of the American workforce, merely 9 percent of engineering careers are held by females. Smith College is dedicated to eliminating barriers to women in engineering while promoting interdisciplinary study. I speak on behalf of the second district of Massachusetts and the entire State in congratulating Smith College and welcoming the Picker Engineering School and its students to western Massachusetts.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Melha Shrine Circus of Springfield. For 50 years the Melha Shriners have proudly presented this show as a great and historic form of family entertainment. The Shriners have done this for the past half of a century in order to raise money to fund their marching units and other community activities in western Massachusetts. These events are meant to maintain their visibility and presence in the community so that they can continue to support their main message about their hospital work. Beyond merely putting on a circus to entertain families across western Massachusetts, these philanthropists also always perform what they like to call ``The Community Service Show.'' For this event they donate all of the almost 5,000 tickets to the circus to various community service groups who deal with children, adults, and families in need of aid. By bringing a little extra light into the lives of people down on their luck the Melha Shriners simply show that they are willing to take the extra step to give back to the community in which they live and work without asking anything in return. It is a great honor to be able to rise today and commend this giving group of people from Springfield, Massachusetts. Their commitment to family entertainment and charity is admirable and sets an excellent example to others. This spring the Melha Shriners will go out with their circus tent. And this spring for the 50th year in a row, they will bring laughs to children, smiles to adults, and they will give back to the community as only they can do. I am proud to be a long-time supporter of the Melha Shriners, and so I wish you luck with the circus this year and hope for 50 more years of the Shriners.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Patrick Phelan, of Wilbraham & Monson Academy, on his selection as the 2003 Gatorade National High School Player of the Year in Boys Soccer. Out of the more than 300,000 young men across the country who play soccer, he was selected for this prestigious award based on athletics, academic achievement, and overall character. This selection, which has been given out for nineteen years in ten different sports, places him in the elite company of highly regarded athletes such as NFL co-MVP Peyton Manning, U.S. Olympic Gold Medallist Marion Jones, and basketball stars Lisa Leslie and LeBron James. Gatorade is not the first to sing the praises of Patrick Phelan, though. His coach, Gary Cook, refers to him as, ``the best player I have coached in my twenty eight years in high school.'' Beyond being an amazing player, Patrick is also an important leader on the team. According to Cook, ``everyday he trains with a purpose and he makes everyone around him better. He was a great captain and teammate.'' As a defender, Patrick scored six goals and was attributed with five assists this past season. Along with his on-field performance, the leadership he provided in his role as team captain helped elevate the team to a 12-1-2 regular season and a berth in the Class B New England Prep School Semi-Finals. Patrick does more than play soccer, though. Academically, he stands out with a grade point average of 3.74. At Wilbraham, he is a member of the Spanish Club. Additionally, he manages to give back to the community through his work with young children as the computer aid at Here We Grow Preschool. He has also figured out a way to include his soccer skills with his community service efforts as a volunteer at Top Soccer, which hosts clinics for disabled children. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to pay tribute to this young man attending Wilbraham & Monson Academy. Patrick Phelan's accomplishments transcend any single niche; he excels in athletics, scholarship, and community service. He has done many things to be proud of, and it is a great pleasure to see him recognized for his dedication and hard work. Patrick, congratulations on being selected as Gatorade's National High School Boys Soccer Player of the Year, and good luck in your future endeavors.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the contributions made by Mr. Jeremy Pava and Mrs. Ann Pava to the Jewish community. Over the courses of their lives, they have contributed greatly through both their service and generosity to the advancement of Jewish causes in New England. Ann sits on the boards of both the Association of Modern Orthodox Day Schools at Yeshiva University as well as the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance. She also serves as the President of the Jewish Federation of Greater Springfield in Massachusetts. In 1999 Ms. Pava received this same Federation's Young Leadership Award. Jeremy currently sits on the finance committee of the Heritage Academy and continues to serve as a trustee of the Harold Grinspoon Foundation, as he has done since its inception. In the past, he has been the president of Congregation Kodimoh and the campaign chair for the Young Men's Division of the Jewish Federation of Greater Springfield. In 1999 he received the Kodimoh Brotherhood Humanitarian Award. At present, he also is a managing partner at Aspen Square Management, a real estate investment company in West Springfield. Alone their actions are more than noteworthy, however, together they have given even more to the Jewish community. They are a founding family, and generous supporters, of the Hebrew High School of New England in West Hartford, which opened in 1996. Additionally, Ann was the founding President. HHNE is the only Jewish high school between New York and Boston, serving families from different observant backgrounds in Springfield, Hartford, and New Haven regardless of their financial situation. This school has grown significantly since its inception in 1996. This burgeoning school is now pushing the limits of its current location, thanks in no small part to the work of Mr. and Mrs. Pava. They have both contributed immensely to the school's vitality and growth. As a result, they are to be honored at the Hebrew High School's first Annual Scholarship Dinner. The proceeds will go towards a new building to house the school, so that it may continue to grow and serve more members of the Jewish community in New England. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to pay tribute to two extraordinary people from the Springfield area. Their work for HHNE, Jewish education, and the Springfield community is commendable, and the standard they set for public service is outstanding. People, such as the Pavas, are what make Springfield such a wonderful place to live, and I am personally glad to share this city with them.