Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for yielding me this time. I say to the gentleman from Oregon here, I think there is a fundamental difference in the philosophy of these two parties, and it is highlighted once again this evening. We care about the entire American family. What we mean by community is a place where nobody is to be abandoned and nobody is to be left behind. But let me give my colleagues a quote to follow up on what the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said, where the majority leader offered another callous comment about the unemployed. But let me offer a comment from another prominent member of the Republican leadership as he said, as he often is, worked up about this or that, hey, this is not a welfare program. Talk about callousness? Talk about indifference? We are going to vote in the wee hours of this morning to give a massive tax cut to people who, to their everlasting credit, have not even asked for it. Those are members of the American family. It has sent shudders through Wall Street what they are about to do. And every one of the Members on this side of the aisle will march in, head down, and do what they are told once again. There are millions of Americans who are struggling today, millions of them. And I want to vote to help the people in Oregon. They deserve it, just like the people on the East Coast. Do my colleagues know what we call that in our democracy? The national principle. We come to the assistance of parts of this country who need it. Let me give the Members some economic facts, and they are pretty bleak. U.S. unemployment, a 9-year high. It was 4.1 percent when the President took office. Now it is 6 percent. The number of discouraged workers, and I suspect a lot of them live in the gentleman from Oregon's congressional district, who are not even looking for a job any longer are at a 20-year high, 2.3 million jobs lost since 2001. One point seven million jobs have been lost since the $1.3 trillion 2001 tax cuts took effect. Do we have in this institution amnesia? We were told this was a jobs bill last year, and I am telling the Members watch, 2 o'clock in the morning, head down, they will all vote for it again. And do the Members know what? Not one of them even asked a question. That is the embarrassing part about it. Seventy-three thousand jobs lost per month. Mr. Speaker, vote for the Democratic alternative on the motion to recommit. Give those people in Oregon an opportunity. Call them members of the American family.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today, along with my colleagues Representatives Capuano, Delahunt, Frank and Markey, legislation to clarify that the employees of a political subdivision of a State shall not lose their exemption from the hospital insurance (HI) tax by reason of consolidation of the subdivision with the State. This issue has arisen because in 1997 Massachusetts abolished county government in the State, assumed those few functions that counties had performed, and made certain county officials employees of the State. Specifically, the law provided that the sheriff and the sheriff's personnel ``shall be transferred to the commonwealth with no impairment of employment rights held immediately before the transfer date, without interruption of service, without impairment of seniority, retirement or other rights of employees, without reduction in compensation or salary grade and without change in union representation.'' However, the issue of whether or not these consolidated employees were required to pay the Medicare portion of the FICA tax needed to be clarified. Federal law creates an exemption from this tax for state and local employees who were employed on or before March 31, 1986, and who continue to be employed with that employer. The law is written so it is clear that consolidations between local entities, and consolidations between State agencies, do not negate the grandfather rule. However, the issue of a consolidation between a political subdivision and a State is not directly addressed and I doubt it was considered during the drafting of the federal law. The Internal Revenue Service has taken the position that a State, and a political subdivision of a state, are separate employers for purposes of payment of the Medicare tax and therefore any grandfathered employees merged in a consolidation between a State and a political subdivision lose the benefit of the grandfather rule, even if such employees perform substantially the same work. In a Sixth Circuit Court case, Board of Education of Muhlenberg Co. v. United States, the Court ruled on this general issue in terms of a consolidation of boards of education in Kentucky. The plaintiffs in this case argued that the consolidation of school districts did not create a new employer or terminate the employment of any teacher, and the Court agreed that Congress did not intend that exempt employees who have not been separated from previously excluded employment should lose their grandfather and be forced to pay the HI tax. While this case did not go to the issue of the consolidation between a State and a political subdivision, the logic indicates that this issue matters less than the overarching issue of whether the employees continue in the same or essentially the same positions. In Massachusetts this is clearly the case. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the Congress to enact this legislation to clarify that local employees do not lose the benefit of the grandfather rule merely because they have been consolidated with a State govermnent.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation, along with four of my colleagues from Massachusetts, Representatives Capuano, Delahunt, Frank and Markey, to alter the federal tax treatment of real property tax reduction vouchers received by senior citizens for volunteer work. Approximately 42 towns in Massachusetts have implemented a program to ease the problem senior citizens, who live on fixed incomes, face due to rising property taxes. These towns have allowed senior citizens to perform volunteer work for their town in exchange for a voucher that reduces their property tax by up to $500. Specifically, my legislation would exclude from gross income vouchers issued by a government unit to offset real property taxes, and received by eligible senior citizens of 65 years of age, in exchange for volunteer work. The legislation also exempts these vouchers from employment taxes. Mr. Speaker, this legislation enhances an important and creative program being implemented in many towns in Massachusetts. We devote a lot of effort around here to help make sure retirement does not sink senior citizens deep into poverty, and that they have basic health services. This very modest proposal takes a small step in helping seniors remain in their homes despite rising property taxes. A step, I hope, we can take this year.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation today with my colleagues Representatives Capuano, Delahunt and Markey, to allow an exclusion from gross income of stipends received by persons over the age of 60 for volunteer services performed under a qualified State program. The Elder Services Corps in the State of Massachusetts was created in 1973. It is composed of individuals at least 60 years of age and allows volunteers to assist in meeting the needs of the elderly population of the Commonwealth. Individuals enroll for 1 year at a time, and are required to volunteer 18 hours per week or 72 hours per month, and receive a stipend of $130 a month. The program is 100 percent State funded. Mr. Speaker, I see no reason why the modest income received for this volunteer service should be subject to tax, especially employment taxes. I hope Congress will act on this legislation this year, and provide an additional incentive for an expansion of this program in Massachusetts, and its adoption by other States.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). Mr. Speaker, let me stand in opposition today to this Republican deficit plan and remind my colleagues of the warning that is often cited about not learned from the mistakes of history. Let us talk about the wise reflections today of David Stockman, who essentially said that what was proposed 20 years ago was fiscal folly and suggested in his memoirs that not only was it irresponsible, it represented a threat to the long term fiscal stability of this Nation. He concluded that more debt would be rolled up than all of the debts accumulated by Reagan's 39 predecessors. And after leaving as Reagan's Budget Director he said, ``We were not headed toward a brave new world as I had thought in February. We were not headed toward a vindication of the President's half-revolution, as Don Regan and the supply-siders fatuously insisted in November. Where we were headed was toward fiscal catastrophe.'' These tax cuts are geared and aimed towards the wealthiest of Americans. Again, the argument in this Chamber essentially is this: It is okay today to have a huge deficit after this economy soared when we repaired that philosophy just a few years ago. Fiscal catastrophe indeed, Mr. Speaker, that is where we are headed.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing ``The Individual Tax Simplification Act of 2003,'' and I invite all my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this legislation, which is identical to legislation I filed last Congress. The tax code seems to get more and more complex each year, despite calls for simplification. Recently, the Joint Tax Committee determined that taxpayers are increasingly relying on paid return preparers, up 27 percent over a decade. Over the same period, the reliance on computer software has jumped from 16 percent of returns filed to 46 percent. Tax code complexity leads not only to taxpayer frustration and confusion, but also increased costs. Tax code complexity also leads to difficulties for the IRS in administering our tax laws fairly and consistently. The simplification bill that I have re-introduced will eliminate hundreds of lines from tax forms, schedules and worksheets. I believe that it is possible and preferable to accomplish simplification in a revenue neutral manner, and without moving money between economic income groups. While some may argue that there is no constituency for simplification, I would say that is certainly changing. One survey found that two-thirds of taxpayers said the federal tax system is too complicated, up from barely 50 percent five years ago. The Individual Tax Simplification Act has three parts. The first is based on legislation I introduced in the last three Congresses regarding nonrefundable personal credits. The second part simplifies the taxation of capital gains. The third part repeals two hidden marginal tax rates on high-income individuals, and repeals the individual minimum tax. Title I--Simplification Relating to Nonrefundable Personal Credits In recent years, much tax relief has been given to taxpayers in the form of nonrefundable credits, like the education credits. These credits are not usable against the alternative minimum tax. That means that more and more individuals will lose all or part of these credits, and will have to fill out the extremely complicated Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) form. Congress has recognized this problem by enacting a short-term waiver of this exclusion. Congress has also permanently taken the child credit and the adoption credit out of the AMT. Now is the time to finish the job. The other problem with nonrefundable credits is that the phase-out provisions vary from credit to credit, causing unnecessary complexity. In addition, the same additional dollar of income can result in a reduction in more than one nonrefundable credit. It is fundamentally wrong to promise the American public tax relief, then take all or part of it away in a backhanded manner. This fundamentally flawed policy, enacted in 1997, will get worse each and every year as more American families find themselves to be AMT taxpayers simply because of the impact of inflation, or because of their desire to take advantage of the tax relief we have promised them. Not only that, this situation has gotten much worse since the passage of the 2001 tax cuts. This bill addresses both concerns. First, it permanently waives the minimum tax limitations on all nonrefundable credits. Second, the bill creates a single phase-out range for the adoption credit, the child credit, and the education credits, replacing the current three phase- out ranges. Title II--Simplification of Capital Gains Tax The second title of this bill substantially simplifies taxation of capital gains. Under current law, there are five different tax rates for long-term capital gains, and a complicated, 40-line tax form that must be endured. Moreover, this part of the tax code is already scheduled to get worse because additional rates will take affect under current law in 2006. The solution is clear. Replace this jumble of rates and forms with a simple 38 percent exclusion. Not only will this result in tremendous simplification, but more than 97 percent of individuals would be eligible for modest capital gains tax reductions. Title III--Repeal of Certain Hidden Marginal Rate Increases, and of the Individual Minimum Tax The third title of the bill repeals the hidden marginal rate increases in current law, and repeals the individual minimum tax. For many taxpayers, discovery of the Personal Exemptions Phaseout (PEP) and the ``Pease,'' which limits itemized deductions, can be both confusing and disappointing. Under current law, itemized deductions are gradually reduced by 3 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) above approximately $139,000, or by 80 percent of the otherwise allowable itemized deductions for individuals exceeding $139,000 AGI, whichever is lower. This is known as the Pease provision. In addition, personal exemptions are gradually phased out for incomes between approximately $139,000 and $262,000. This is known as the PEP. If we did not hide the effect of these provisions of current law, more people would know that these provisions result in hidden marginal rate increases. Current law has a hidden marginal rate increase, which gets worse as families grow larger. The 2001 tax cuts as enacted provide for gradual phase-out of both of these limitations in 2006, but then the repeal is subject to a sunset. This bill would immediately eliminate both. The second part of this title is a complete repeal of the individual AMT. The original intent of the AMT was to make sure that wealthy individuals did not overuse certain tax benefits and unfairly reduce their tax burden. Unfortunately, it no longer accomplishes that goal. Since the AMT is not adjusted for inflation, more and more middle income taxpayers are falling into the AMT. In fact, a recent Tax Policy Center report showed that by the end of the decade, the AMT will hit 97 percent of all families with two children earning between $75,000 and $100,000. This is not what was intended, especially when you consider that what pushes taxpayers into the AMT now, more often than not, are state and local income and property taxes, personal exemptions, and the nonrefundable credits. The National Taxpayer Advocate has called for the repeal of the AMT, finding that the AMT calculation adds another 12 hours of preparation time for a taxpayer. Certainly, this is not what Congress was trying to accomplish when the AMT was passed. My suggestion is to repeal it for individuals, and substitute a simple tax on adjusted gross income. The current hidden tax is dropped, and is paid for with an explicit tax on the same individuals. They get simplification, and we convert a deceptive practice into an open one. This bill gives the Secretary of the Treasury the ability to set the rate so that this bill would be revenue neutral over ten years. The threshold amount, chosen to mimic the reality of current law, would be $120,000, and $150,000 in the cases of a joint return. Conclusion This bill provides fairly dramatic simplification of the individual tax system. It eliminates up to 200 lines on tax forms, schedules and worksheets. It is basically revenue neutral, so it can be accomplished during a year when there is no budget surplus to fund tax cuts. It does not attempt to shift money between income groups. The general philosophy behind the bill is that those who benefit from tax simplification of the current code should offset any revenue loss involved. With only one-third of individuals actually willing to fill out their own forms, it is time for Congress to act. Unfortunately, the reality is that no one wants to pay for simplification no matter how much they support the goal. Here is my suggestion. I am introducing this legislation to continue the discussion I began during the 106th Congress. I am pleased that this Administration has talked about the need for tax simplification. I am also pleased that since I began this effort, the Joint Committee on Taxation and other Members of Congress have joined the debate. I look forward to working with all interested parties in this simplification effort.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor the 50th anniversary of WWLP-TV22, which on March 17, 1953 became the first station to broadcast on the air in Western Massachusetts. As an NBC affiliate, WWLP is a leader in broadcasting, news, and ratings in Western Massachusetts. In 2003, the station was recognized by the Massachusetts/Rhode Island Associated Press as having the Best TV Newscast, the Best Sportscast, and the Best Public Affairs Program. Also, the station hosts the longest running high school program in the country, ``As Schools Match Wits.'' WWLP's history of public service programming includes the live broadcast of the Gubernatorial Democratic Debate, which originated in the new, all digital studio, in Chicopee. The corporate owners of WWLP, the LIN Television Corporation, opened the Northeast Operations Center out of the Chicopee office to accommodate five television stations being controlled out of a single, state of the art facility. WWLP continues to provide quality service to the community through their innovative Skylink program, which utilizes mobile satellite technology to broadcast live from anywhere within driving distance. Additionally, WWLP has a back up generator on Provin Mountain, and a UPS system and back up generator in Chicopee. Therefore, the back up systems will provide uninterrupted service to the viewers even in the event of a power outage at the transmitter or studio location. As the station celebrates its 50th anniversary, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to their continuous service to the community. WWLP is the only weekday morning news at 5 am, and the only weekend morning newscast in the area. Through the 31 hours of weekly news broadcasting and live Doppler radar updates, WWLP is a leader in news coverage.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor the 5th anniversary of NEWS40, which is currently serving Franklin, Hampden, and Hampshire counties in Massachusetts. NEWS40 originally aired on April 14, 1953 on Channel 55 as an affiliate of CBS and Dumont Television Networks. However, in 1956 the station was reallocated to Channel 40, and in 1959 changed affiliations to join the ABC network. The Guy Gannett Publishing Company of Maine purchased the radio portion of the network in 1979, which necessitated new call letters for the television station. After an in-house contest, WHYN-TV became WGGB-TV, named after the publishing company. In April of 1999, the Sinclair Broadcast Group of Baltimore, MD purchased NEWS40 and facilitated the use of a digital transmitter while on the air. Despite a variety of administrative changes throughout its history, NEWS40 remains a dominant leader in local news. Located in the heart of Springfield, MA, NEWS40 sets the standard in entertainment, news, and community involvement. It is the home of hits such as Nightline, 20/20, N.Y.P.D. Blue, and The Practice, as well as quality children programming. Moreover, NEWS40 is an essential participant in local community events. NEWS40 was among the earliest stations to carry the Muscular Dystrophy telethon, and has been televising the event for 35 years. Also, the station collects over 10,000 coats to distribute throughout the winter for the ``Coats for Kids'' campaign, and collaborates with the Salvation Army to provide Thanksgiving meals for over 600 families. As an active partner with Head Start, the station is a vehicle to collect toys, clothing, and housewares from viewers for the ``All I Want for Christmas'' campaign. The station's annual contribution to the community demonstrates the essential role of NEWS40 in the greater Springfield area. As the station celebrates its 50th anniversary I would like to commend their continuous role in the community. From the days of live news broadcasts to the beginning of the digital transmitter, NEWS40 is truly coverage you can count on to be an active and essential member of the community.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to the legislation that is in front of us for a variety of reasons, but I want to speak specifically to a couple of issues in the tax portion of this bill that I think ought to raise the concern of every Member of this body. Earlier today, Mr. Chairman, this House voted for a resolution drafted by the majority which calls for an end to tax loopholes, and not 1 hour later did the House begin consideration of an energy bill which cements into law a $4 billion tax loophole. Now, I know this might sound strange this far after April Fool's Day, but sadly it is true. The bill we are considering today will protect all corporate expatriates who have already left. And for the viewers, understand these are corporations who have moved offshore for the purpose of avoiding American corporate taxes at the very same time that 400,000 men and women in uniform are in Iraq. But let us, for a couple of moments here, discuss who these privileged few corporate expatriates are, why they are being protected in this bill, and what this means for America's energy sector. If Tyco, who left New Hampshire for Bermuda, paid the $400 million a year in U.S. taxes it now avoids through the Bermuda loophole, we could easily afford all of the new section 45 wind energy and other related credits called for in this bill. If Ingersoll-Rand, who left New Jersey for Bermuda, paid the $40 million a year in U.S. taxes it now avoids, we could easily afford the new credit for energy efficiency improvements for existing homes called for in this bill. If Cooper Industries, who left Texas for Bermuda, paid the $55 million a year in taxes it now avoids, in 1 year we could pay for an entire decade of business and nonbusiness-qualifying fuel cell tax credits called for in this bill. That is not enough? Well, if Weatherford, who left Texas for Bermuda, paid the $40 million a year in U.S. taxes it now avoids by the Bermuda loophole, we could easily pay for the new electric and clean fuel vehicle tax credits called for in this bill. Furthermore, if the loophole was closed today, rather than permanently granting special protection as this bill does, we could fund almost all of the conservation items in this bill. And yet, because we are not, we will be dipping into Social Security and Medicare to fund these broadly supported energy conservation incentives. Here is the frustration that the minority feels in this House. Last year, I filed a bill to close the loophole that allows U.S. corporations to set up phony shell headquarters in Bermuda and thereby avoid paying U.S. income taxes. For a whole year that bill has languished, thwarted by the Republican leadership, that refuses to allow a floor debate on closing the Bermuda tax loophole. Mr. Chairman, the American taxpayer deserves better. We are moving into the final weekend when average Americans are going to sort and move through a host of pieces of paper and receipts as they attempt to put together their tax obligation, and yet we cannot take the time over 12 months to close this Bermuda tax loophole. I have repeatedly said on this House floor that we should bring this legislation to the floor; that there will be more than 300 votes for this legislation in this House of Representatives. It will sail through here. People will break their wrists trying to get to these small voting devices on the back of the seats so that they can vote ``yes'' on this provision to close that Bermuda tax loophole, which saves $4 billion as estimated by the Joint Tax Committee. We can do much better, Mr. Chairman. Let us close the Bermuda tax loophole. And I urge my colleagues here, because of this loophole, to vote down this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this is more this evening about amnesia or cranking out a press release for April 15. When you listen to these folks, they talk about changing the Tax Code. They have now been in charge since 1994. We are no closer to changing the Tax Code today than we were in 1994. But we were told we were going to pull the Tax Code up by its roots, we were going to drive a stake into the heart of the Tax Code, we were all going to a long funeral procession for the Tax Code. Well, this resolution today is like their commitment to term limits: You hope that the public is not watching, and you change your position on the issue. We have an opportunity to do something real about the Tax Code, and we could do it tomorrow, and everybody on the other side knows it, because I share their late-stated interest in closing tax loopholes. I filed a bill last year that would close the most egregious tax loophole that confronts the American people, and that is for those U.S. corporations who claim their headquarters are really in Bermuda so they can avoid paying U.S. income taxes. Well, my bill has languished for a whole year despite the fact we have had 186 signatures last year on a discharge petition, 125 bipartisan signatures this year on the bill, and they do not seem to think that there is any speed with which they can act. Let me give a few names tonight. Here are some of the corporate expatriates who are taking advantage of the Bermuda loophole: Tyco, they avoid paying $400 million a year in U.S. taxes; Ingersoll-Rand, $40 million a year in U.S. taxes, and by the way, walk outside and see the machinery that says Ingersoll-Rand on it, where they win contracts with the Federal Government while our troops are overseas in Iraq, and they will not pay their fair share of income taxes while they win these contracts; Cooper Industries, $55 million a year in U.S. taxes they avoid. How about Weatherford, $40 million a year in U.S. taxes? The Joint Tax Committee scored my proposal. We save $4 billion over 10 years if they would enact an opportunity to close the Bermuda tax loophole. We hear the majority tonight that is concerned about a code that is riddled with decades of loopholes, but we cannot close this one? We are going to vote tomorrow on an energy bill which cleverly includes a protection for a loophole. I mentioned earlier there are many who exploit this $4 billion loophole, but in fact, tomorrow, in that energy bill, they are going to grandfather a whole element that is left, and they think they are doing it in the disguise of tax reform. The Treasury Department estimates that $70 billion a year in taxable income remains untaxed in offshore accounts. Sound familiar? Of course, this is what I and 125 Members of this body think we should be addressing. But instead we get a meaningless resolution and a bill to cement the loophole into law on the same day. Oddly enough, one of those expatriates, by the way, and listen to this one, listen to this one, they currently hold a $50 million contract with the IRS to help the IRS collect taxes from the rest of us. Mr. Speaker, the American taxpayer deserves better. There is no reason on Earth why that Bermuda tax bill is not on this floor in front of the American people for an up-or-down vote. I would suggest this to you tonight: If they put that bill on the floor, there will be a rampage to get to the well to vote for this measure, and there will be at least 300 votes in this House if the Republican leadership would let the bill come up. Close the Bermuda tax loophole.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, today in Northampton, Massachusetts, they are having problems funding a homeless shelter for veterans. As we watched the morning headline and the evening newscast, we are struck by the brave commitment of our men and women on the borders of Iraq and perhaps, as I speak, within the borders of Iraq as they prepare for an all-out invasion of Iraq. At a moment like this when we are watching this commitment, it is important to think of the significant and personal sacrifices these brave men and women are making. But at the same time that we are creating hundreds of thousands of new veterans through their distinguished service, the Congress today debates a Republican budget that mandates cuts in veterans programs. I talk to these folks at the Northampton VA, I meet with them regularly, and they point out there simply is less money every year in the VA for honoring the commitment we made to our soldiers. I know that the Republicans today through another manager's amendment, only because when they went back to their membership, the membership said to them, ``what are you thinking of,'' that they have added in this amendment a few more dollars in an attempt to ameliorate some of their cuts. But the compelling truth is that this nominal increase will quickly be overcome by more than 2 percent in annual cuts in the years following. According to the Congressional Budget Office, their spending on veterans' health care and benefits is not enough to maintain purchasing power, which simply means real cuts in veterans programs. As the National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans said of this budget being proposed by the majority Republican Party in this Congress, ``This budget dishonors the service of millions of service- connected disabled veterans, including combat-disabled veterans, and seriously erodes the Nation's commitment to care for its defenders.'' Stand strong today for the Democratic proposal. Honor the commitment we made to our veterans and vote down this Republican budget proposal. House of Representatives, Committee on the Budget, Washington, DC, March 20, 2003. American Legion Declares Spratt Budget ``Better Approach'' Dear Colleague: The Republican budget that will be considered on the floor today cuts discretionary funding for veterans health care below the level needed to maintain purchasing power at the 2003 level by a total of $14.2 billion over ten years. Their budget also directs the Veterans' Affairs Committee to cut $14.6 billion from mandatory benefit payments to veterans, including compensation for service-connected disabilities, burial benefits, and veterans education benefits. Unlike the Republican budget, the Democratic alternative rejects any cuts to veterans' benefits over the next ten years. And it addresses the rising demand for veterans health care by funding veterans' health programs, including medical research and construction, at $2 billion above the level needed to maintain purchasing power at the 2003 level over the next ten years. For 2004, the Democratic budget provides $633 million more for veterans programs than the Republican plan, and it provides $30.3 billion more for veterans than the House Republican budget over ten years. The American Legion calls the Democratic alternative ``a much better approach toward reaching a balanced budget''. The four groups--Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars--that assess the needs of veterans and the funding they believe is required to meet those needs, known as The Independent Budget, have reviewed the Republican plan and the Democratic alternative and have concluded that the Democratic alternative ``represents a solid step forward in meeting the very real needs of veterans''. I have attached these letters and ask that you give them your attention before you vote on the Budget Resolution today. Sincerely, John M. Spratt, Jr. Ranking Member.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor the 125th birthday of Hampden, Massachusetts, March 28, 2003. Hampden is located in the core of the 2nd district congressional district of Massachusetts. At the time of separation from Wilbraham in 1878, industries were becoming active in Hampden. There is evidence that Hampden could have well turned into one of the many New England factories or industrial towns. However, it underwent an agricultural period that ultimately resulted in the establishment of Hampden as a residential town. Throughout the course of Hampden's history many key points have characterized the town and helped it to retain the essence of its founders. Elizabeth Sessions, a prominent founding member of Hampden, is part of a four-generation legacy. The Sessions resided in Hampden from 1790-1933, and provided the present day town hall that is utilized by the town of Hampden. Also, the parents and siblings of Foster Fiercely, the Governor of Massachusetts, resided in the town of Hampden and made it a point to invite the residents to his inauguration. Additionally, in the early industrial days of Hampden, Edwin Marcus Chaffee (1806-1872), invented the mill and calender, which are used in the processing of Rubber. Andrew Jackson Davis became a multimillionaire copper king in Montana, but was born in Hampden during its industrial era. Another famous name to come out of Hampden is Thornton W. Burgess, an author of a variety of children's books. Furthermore, his home and land became part of the Audubon Society to preserve the legacy for future generations. In celebration of the 125th birthday of Hampden, Massachusetts, the Hampden Historical Society is hosting a dual celebration. the March 28, 2003 event is dedicated solely to the presentation of all Proclamations received and the original petitions presented from 1878. On Memorial Day, additional festivities are being held, which will consist of a parade and fan-style celebration. In closing, I would like to honor the 169 people, who in 1877 set aside differences with neighboring towns to finally petition, and ultimately create, what is now known as the town of Hampden.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, today I join with a number of concerned shareholders to encourage Tyco to come home to America. Formerly a resident of New Hampshire, Tyco renounced its U.S. corporate citizenship in 1997 and left for Bermuda. For many of these corporate expatriates, the sunny climate of Bermuda is not the main draw; it is the lacks regulatory structure and the low taxes that lure these former U.S. companies to island tax havens. For Tyco, it has meant the ability to avoid $400 million in U.S. taxes. Joint Tax has estimated that if all these corporate expatriates were to pay their Federal income taxes again, as legislation I have filed would require, listen to this, we would save $4 billion in tax revenue. Certainly, as we discuss the ``shared sacrifices'' during a wartime economy, should these corporations not contribute as well? We are sending our children, men and women off to Iraqi shores, and we are asking these corporate patriots to go to Bermuda? Today, Madam Speaker, I urge shareholders to approve proposal article number 7, despite the opposition of Tyco's management, and, Madam Speaker, I urge the Republican leadership to bring up my bill, the Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act, so we can tell all of these corporate expatriates, come home to America.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record today these remarks to honor the accomplishments and life of Munir H. Abbasy, M.D., who died in a single engine airplane crash that he was piloting on July 29, 2001. Dr. Abbasy graduated from Liaquat Medical College in Pakistan in 1969, and completed his internship at Cook County Hospital in Chicago. Abbasy followed his internship with a position as a general surgeon at Northwestern University Medical Center in Chicago, and a neurosurgical residency at the University of Pittsburgh. After moving to Massachusetts in 1976, Dr. Abbasy joined the Neurosurgical and Neurological Group Inc. in Springfield. Additionally, he was on the medical staff of the area hospitals, including Baystate Medical Center, Mercy Medical Center, and Holyoke Hospital. Abbasy served as the Chief of Neurosurgery at Mercy Medical Center from 1988-1993, and extended his services to Baystate Medical Center from 1993-2001. Also, Dr. Abbasy was the assistant clinical professor in the neurosurgery department at Tufts University. Dr. Abbasy was an established neurosurgeon who was commended on his extreme precision during surgery. Accordingly, Abbasy was the first neurosurgeon in Western Massachusetts to perform a ``Jannetta Procedure,'' which is a microvascular decompression of a cranial nerve for those who suffer from a tic douloureux and hemifacial spasm. Dr. Abbasy pioneered the practice of lumbar microdissectomies as an outpatient service at Baystate Medical Center in 1996, which reduced recovery time and created savings for the hospital. As a resident of Longmeadow, MA, Dr. Abbasy was extremely involved in his community. He was a member of the Hampden District Medical Society, the American Medical Association, the New England Neurological Society, the Pediatric Section of AANS/CNS, and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Furthermore, he was a director of the Longmeadow Montessori School. According to his colleagues, friends, and family, Dr. Abbasy was a remarkable, bright, and extremely dedicated surgeon. He brought passion to his practice and always wanted to better the institutions and process of healthcare. He is survived by his wife, the former Ann O'Connor, a son, Jamil, and a daughter, Shareen Abbasy. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Abbasy was a valued member of the community and an amazing individual. He served the medical community for 25 years and his work will be remembered and appreciated. He will be missed by all who had the opportunity to know him.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to enter into the Record today these remarks to acknowledge the accomplishments of Seamus Connolly. He is the Director of the Boston College Irish Studies Music, Song, and Dance Program. Mr. Connolly is an established Irish Fiddler and Gaelic musician, and his great success and technical precision in competitions in the '60s were extremely influential in setting a high standard of craft for today's players. Mr. Connolly first came to the United States in 1972 as a member of the first Comhaltas Ceoltoiri Eireann (CCE) tour. After immigrating to the United States in 1976, Mr. Connolly settled in Groton, Massachusetts, and entered into the realm of teaching to extend his knowledge of music at the request of Larry Reynolds, President of the local branch of CCE. His presence and committed teaching in Boston is influential throughout the East Coast, making it a badge of honor for the area's musicians to have a tune from Mr. Connolly, and his work with the Gaelic Roots Summer Program at Boston College makes the tradition accessible to an ever broadening circle. In 1993, Mr. Connolly began the Gaelic Roots Summer Program as an indoor festival, which has progressed into an array of workshops, exhibitions, classes, and a concert series. In addition to his teaching, Mr. Connolly is a recipient of the Irish Echo Traditional Artist of the Year Award for 2002, and a ten-time winner of the Irish National Championship. He has produced numerous recordings, and a 132- page book with more than 50 Irish tunes and collaborations with other artists. Mr. Connolly has had the honor of representing Ireland on three ``Masters of the Folk Violin'' tours organized by the National Council for the Traditional Arts. In 1990, he won a Massachusetts Cultural Council Fellowship Award, one of three recipients from over 2,500 applicants. Also, Mr. Connolly appeared on the nationally televised ``Today Show'' and was profiled by Boston's WCVB-TV5 ``Chronicle Program.'' He initiated, produced and cohosted with Larry Reynolds Comhaltas Ceoltoiri Eireann's ongoing weekly radio program of traditional Irish music on WNTN-1550 AM Boston. He also co-hosted the Irish segments of Boston's WGBH National Public Radio series ``Ethnicity.'' Mr. Speaker, it is with great appreciation and gratitude for Mr. Connolly's dedication and leadership to Irish music that I ask he be recognized. Mr. Connolly possesses the intelligence and poise of an excellent fiddle player, and graciously extends his talent to the community.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this ``day late and dollar short'' Republican bill. I fear that a lot of desperate families back in Springfield, North Hampton, and Milford, MA, are watching this debate today with confusion and anxiety. Well over 2,000 families of displaced workers in my district lost their unemployment compensation on December 28. Those desperate families,who thought losing their job in an economic slump was plenty to deal with, encountered even more pain with the loss of their financial life-line during the holidays. Almost a million families around the country today, who are struggling to get back into the workplace, will not see their benefits resume if this bill is enacted. In a successful effort to provide fewer benefits to fewer workers, the leaders of this House scuttled any chances for meaningful relief back in December when we knew this crisis was upon us. What we are asking for in our substitute is not unusual. Congress has previously acted to temporarily extend unemployment benefits during periods of economic recession of high employment. And, unfortunately, the Nation reached an 8-year high for unemployment in November, 2002. While the majority has recently decided that extending these benefits is the right thing to do, this bill is literally too little and too late. I urge my colleagues to support the substitute providing more financial security to more displaced workers. Every penny we provide to the families of laid-off workers goes right back into the economy. Support this economic stimulus proposal.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague and friend, Representative Amo Houghton, in reintroducing legislation to make three important changes to two of the most popular and efficient housing programs before Congress: the Mortgage Revenue Bond (MRB) program and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program. First, this bill repeals the Ten-Year Rule, a provision of the MRB program that restricts states from using homeowner mortgage payments to make new mortgages to qualified purchasers. This provision is obsolete and detrimental to the program. Every day, states lose millions of dollars in financing for first-time homebuyer mortgages due to this handcuffing provision. Our bill removes this unnecessarily restrictive provision to allow states to finance additional lower income mortgages. Next, the bill replaces the present limit on the purchase price of the homes these mortgages can finance. The plain fact is there are no reliable comprehensive data that exist to determine average area home prices. The current price limits were issued in 1994 based on 1993 data and are well below current home price levels in most parts of the country. We propose a simpler formula limiting the purchase price to three and a half times the qualifying income under the program. This will work to preserve the goals of current law while providing a realistic limit on the program for almost all areas of the nation. Finally, the bill facilitates lower income apartment production in rural areas by allowing states to use the greater of statewide median incomes or area median incomes as the basis for the income limits in the Housing Credit program. It is clear that the current rules do not provide sufficient incentives to build apartments in very low-income rural areas. Our bill addresses this by applying to the Housing Credit program the same methodology used in the MRB Program to determine qualifying income levels. This bill is identical to the one 360 of our House colleagues cosponsored in the last Congress, which earned the support of the National Governors Association and every major national housing organization along the way. Mr. Houghton and I believe these changes will ensure a strong, effective housing program that will meet the needs of our constituents now and well into the future. We ask for your support to ensure that these important provisions are enacted as part of tax legislation this year.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our mission to protect and secure the homeland, but also to oppose the efforts of those who excuse corporate expatriation. Since September 11th, this nation has pulled together to fight the war on terrorism. And now, with more military action looming, we must face the fact that fighting a war and combating terrorism costs money. To fully fund the needs of our military and homeland security, every American taxpayer, individual and corporation alike, must be prepared to pay their fair share. If corporate expatriates are not paying their tax bills (and evidence shows they avoid paying $4 billion worth), the American people know that someone will have to pick up the slack. We should use everything in our arsenal to stop corporate expatriation. No more government contracts for financial traitors. No more tax benefits for runaway corporations. I regret that the Republican leaders struck the very reasonable federal contract ban from this bill--a ban supported by 318 Members of this House--and inserted instead an ineffective provision that affects no one. Corporate expatriates cheat the federal government out of needed tax revenues and then have the audacity to return for a federal hand-out. However, the sensible contract ban passed by the House and then championed in the Senate by the late Paul Wellstone, was watered down to the ineffective provision we are debating today. Regrettably, this provision only affects companies who leave after the date of enactment. It makes as much sense as closing the barn door after all the cows are out. Let's take Tyco, formerly of New Hampshire, now of Bermuda, for example. Tyco, which will be unaffected by the ban in this bill, avoids paying $400 million a year in U.S. taxes by setting up a shell headquarters offshore, but was awarded $182 million in lucrative defense and homeland security related contracts in 2001 alone. If Tyco had just paid its tax bill, Congress could have easily paid for 400 explosive detection systems (EDS), which are badly needed to protect U.S. travelers at airports around the nation. Or let's examine corporate expatriate Ingersoll-Rand, formerly of New Jersey, and now also in Bermuda. Ingersoll-Rand, also unaffected by this bill, earned as much last year in U.S. defense and homeland security federal contracts as it avoids in U.S. taxes annually merely by renting a mailbox in Bermuda and calling it `home.' If Ingersoll- Rand paid its U.S. tax bill, Congress could easily fund the proposed Cyberspace Warning Intelligence Network estimated to cost $30 million, or could also buy 400,000 gas masks for American citizens. Mr. Speaker, the leadership of this House has thwarted all efforts to have a legitimate debate and vote on HR 3884, The Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act, a bipartisan bill to deny the benefits to corporations who flee to tax havens. We must show the American people that this Congress will not coddle corporate abusers. These financial traitors are escaping income taxes, and then, profiting from the very government they have left behind. I urge my colleagues to fight for tax fairness, any way we can get it.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I am re-introducing a modest bill to remove incentives for corporations to bet on their own stock. In recent weeks, the Wall Street Journal has reported on the downside risk of this behavior, with several well-known and otherwise successful U.S. corporations forced to recognize hundreds of millions of dollars in losses when a stock price dramatically decreased. What was a successful game during the bull market, has turned into a risky venture in the bear market with corporations forced to buy back stock at prices greatly in excess of market value. A more pernicious aspect of this transaction is that some corporations take the `best of both worlds.' If they bet right and the price rises, they will pay no tax on the gain; if they bet wrong and it declines, they will simply deduct the loss. This legislation would apply Internal Revenue Code section 1032 to all derivative contracts. The impact of this change is to prohibit corporations from recognizing gain or loss in derivative transactions to the extent the derivative purchased by the corporation involves its own stock. Section 1032 states that a corporation generally does not recognize gain or loss on the receipt of money or other property in exchange for its own stock. In addition, a corporation does not recognize gain or loss when it redeems its own stock for cash. Section 1032, as originally enacted in 1954, simply recognized that there was no true economic gain or loss in these transactions. However, the 1984 Deficit Reduction Act extended this policy to option contracts, recognizing the potential for tax avoidance inherent in these contracts. Since that time, the financial industry has developed a number of new types of derivative products. My legislation merely updates current law to include in section 1032 current and future forms of these new types of financial instruments. On June 16, 1999, the Tax Section of the New York State Bar Association issued a report on section 1032 which recommended the changes discussed above. In addition, building on the work of the Treasury Department's budget recommendation, the Bar Association also recommended that Congress require a corporation that retires its stock and ``substantially contemporaneously'' enters into a contract to sell its stock forward at a fixed price, to recognize as income a time-value element. In effect, these two transactions provide a corporation with income that is economically similar to interest income but is tax-free. This legislation includes a provision that recognizes a time-value element, i.e., the version recommended by the Bar Association. The effective date of this legislation is for transactions entered into after date of enactment. The problem identified in 1984 and in 1999 by the Department of the Treasury is best described in the New York State Bar Association Report. The report states, ``We are concerned that all the inconsistencies described above (both in the general scope of section 1032 and in its treatment of retirements combined with forward sales) present whipsaw and abuse potential; the government faces the risk that income from some transactions will not be recognized even though those transactions are economically equivalent to taxable transactions. In addition, the government faces the risk that deductions are allowed for losses from transactions that are equivalent in substance to transactions that would produce nontaxable income, or--because taxpayers may take different positions under current law--even in the same form as such transactions. To avoid these inconsistencies, we believe it is necessary to amend section 1032.'' Mr. Speaker, I consider the legislation I am introducing today to be a normal housekeeping chore, something the Committee on Ways and Means has done many times in the past and hopefully will do so in the near future in order to preserve the original intent of the law. As such, I hope it will be seen both in Congress and in the industry as relatively noncontroversial, and that it can be added to an appropriate tax bill early in the next Congress. Despite the disappointing record this Congress has compiled to address the fallout from Enron, WorldCom, Tyco and other recent corporate failures, I am hopeful that the next Congress will quickly respond to eliminate provisions in our tax law encouraging such risky behavior by corporations.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of funding our Defense Department, but also to oppose the efforts of those who excuse corporate expatriation. Since September 11, this nation has pulled together to fight the war on terrorism. And now, with more military action looming, we must face the fact that war costs money. To fully fund the needs of our military, every American taxpayer, individual and corporation alike, must be prepared to pay their fair share. If corporate expatriates are not paying their tax bills (and evidence shows they avoid paying $4 billion worth), the American people know that someone will have to pick up the slack. We should use everything in our arsenal to stop corporate expatriation. No more government contracts for financial traitors. No more tax benefits for runaway corporations. I regret that the Conferees struck the very reasonable federal contract ban from this bill. Corporate expatriates cheat the federal government out of needed tax revenues and then have the audacity to return for a federal hand-out. Let's take Tyco, formerly of New Hampshire, now of Bermuda, for example. Tyco avoids paying $400 million a year in U.S. taxes by setting up a shell headquarters offshore, but was awarded $156 million in lucrative Defense Department contracts in 2001 alone. If Tyco had just paid it tax bill, the conferees could have easily awarded the Coast Guard the extra $300 million that was left out of this bill. Or let's examine corporate expatriate Ingersoll-Rand, formerly of New Jersey, and now also in Bermuda. Ingersoll-Rand's tax avoidance would pay for half the money we've going to spend in order to protect Israel from Iraqi Scud missiles. Mr. Speaker, the leadership of this House has thwarted all efforts to have a legitimate debate and vote on the Neal-Maloney Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act, a bipartisan bill to deny the benefits to corporations who flee to tax havens. We must show the American people that this Congress will not coddle corporate abusers. These financial traitors are escaping income taxes, and then, profiting from the very government they had left behind. I urge my colleagues to fight for tax fairness, any way we can get it.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor of the House to carry out one of the most important responsibilities that an elected Member of this institution has, to vote on a resolution authorizing the use of military force. It is a profound responsibility and one that I take most seriously. Even Mr. Lincoln, as a Member of this House, wrestled with the issue of war-making powers when in 1848, in a letter to his law partner, William Herndon, voiced concern that Congress should not give unlimited powers to the executive. I share Mr. Lincoln's views on this important subject. Everyone in this Chamber agrees that Saddam Hussein is a threat to his own people, his neighbors, and the entire civilized world. He is a tyrant intent on developing weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. His many atrocities have been catalogued in this House and the Senate during this important debate, and his dictatorial regime is held in contempt around the globe. That is why any attempt to disarm or to replace him, and I support both, should be done with the support of our friends and allies in the international community. Unilateralism and the doctrine of preemption are dangerous precedents that the United States may be setting. Such action is contrary to our country's core values and principles. Efforts to neutralize Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear threat should be done with the support of an international coalition and in accordance with international law. In my opinion and the opinion of many allies around the world, there are many compelling alternatives to acting alone and the immediate use of force as the first option. Here is one. It is my belief that we need a new unambiguous resolution from the United Nations Security Council calling for the immediate and unfettered weapons inspectors to be allowed into Iraq. This new resolution should be unconditional, have clear time tables, and must exclude the unreasonable 1998 language that restricts inspectors from visiting Saddam Hussein's presidential palaces. Nothing should be off limits. It will hold Iraq permanently accountable to the international community. Saddam Hussein will have only two stark choices. He can accept robust inspections and begin to disarm or pay serious consequences, and I urge the United Nations to act immediately. In preparation for this debate, Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to talk and listen to many people about the merits of this resolution. I went to my constituents in Massachusetts, colleagues in Washington, and officials of administrations past and present. And each time I came away with more questions than answers. Important and timely questions about the wider implications of a unilateral war with Iraq should be answered. The administration must tell the American people in clear and concise terms what impact a unilateral strike against Iraq would have on the already tenuous situation in the Middle East. In 1990 Saddam Hussein launched 39 SCUD missiles into the heart of Israel. Does anyone doubt that he would do it again? Twelve years ago the State of Israel showed restraint in the face of such attacks; but as we debate this resolution this evening, the Israeli Government has indicated it will defend itself against any Iraqi initiative. What does this mean for the security of the region? Any attempt to restore the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians would be lost in the short term. What about Iran, Syria, and Libya, who are all engaged in active programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them? How do we respond to a unilateral, preemptive American strike against Iraq? We should not minimize the far-reaching implications of a first strike and a new doctrine of preemption. Indeed, it may have unintended consequences in other parts of the world, in conflicts between India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, Russia and Georgia. On the verge of this historic vote, these questions need to be answered before we reach a decision to send our young Americans into harm's way. Mr. Speaker, if we suddenly turn our attention to a unilateral war with Iraq, what are the implications for the ongoing war on terrorism? Since the attacks of September 11, we have waged a war on terrorism with the support of friends and allies around the globe. I have supported President Bush and commended his leadership time and again for his war on terrorism. But will the United States continue to receive the same level of support and cooperation from countries that do not support a unilateral preemptive strike on Iraq? Ironically, there is one aspect of this debate where there are definitive answers, and I ask this tonight: How much is this war going to cost the American people? The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the incremental cost of deploying a force to the Persian Gulf would be between $9 billion and $13 billion. Prosecuting a war would cost between $6 billion and $9 billion a month. After hostilities end, and we do not know how long they are going to last, the cost to return our troops home would range between $5 billion and $7 billion. If, as President Bush insisted, we intend to rebuild Iraq, the costs to the American taxpayer will rise exponentially. In the Gulf War with the support of an international coalition, the costs of the war was shared by our friends and allies. This will not be the case with unilateral action. The burden conceivably will rise to $200 billion, and it will not be ours alone if we do this with the support of the Security Council. Mr. Speaker, I have not been persuaded that unilateralism and the doctrine of preemption is the best course of action against Iraq. From my perspective, a preferable course of action is to enlist the support of the international community and demand a strict review by U.N. inspectors. We should take the diplomatic and political route before bringing this Nation to war, and I plan to vote against this resolution. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, there is an easy way to clear up these budget differences we have today. I propose formally that every letter in this institution submitted to an appropriator be published, requesting the expenditure of the public purse. The most egregious violators of budget discipline here tend to be those who pontificate in the well of the House about spending regularly. We have talked about the marriage penalty. In light of the fact that President Bush has requested $48 billion more for defense, $38 billion more for homeland security, measure that against the fact that the stock market has lost almost 3,000 points in the last year and a half, we have no enthusiasm in this institution, it seems to me, for going after those who have perpetuated the hoax of seizing pension benefits from regular employees at the same time that they would not allow those employees to sell Enron stock. Where is the enthusiasm we have for taking that up today? Instead, we go over and over the simplicity of the message: Let us cut taxes. Why do we not have the time after we have discussed this marriage penalty bill time and again in this institution, why do we not have time to bring up the Bermuda tax loophole or get a vote on the issue of Bermuda? These corporations have gone to Bermuda in the time of a war that the Nation is preparing for, for one purpose, to escape taxes. And what is the answer from the other side? The majority leader said that is like going to North Carolina or Florida. I guess they think Bermuda is the 51st State. I am amazed that we can discuss the marriage penalty relief, anything that says lower taxes to get us through this election cycle, but we cannot talk about Bermuda. The reason that we do not talk about Bermuda on this House floor is very simple: Because 350 Members of this House will vote to do something about it rather than trying to sneak through this election cycle. These companies leave in the dark of night. Name them. Stanley came to their senses because they finally wanted to help us do things right. We watched this parade out of country, and they preach patriotism to all of us. We deserve a vote on the Bermuda bill in this House, and let us send a message to the American people about fairness and equity in our lives.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the lifetime of service of Fire Chief John (“Jack”) Sullivan to the community of Bondsville, Massachusetts. His commitment to his town should be an example to us all of an answer to the call of duty and responsibility to our Nation. America's firefighters play a vital part in our communities and deserve more recognition for their role. “Jack” Sullivan began his career in public service when he joined the National Guard in 1952. After three years with Company “B” 104th infantry, he was granted an Honorable Discharge. He then became a member of the Operating Engineers Union, Local #98. “Jack” retired from that organization after 38 years of involvement. In 1967, “Jack” joined the Bondsville Fire Department. About one year later, Bondsville endured one of the worst fires in its history. “Jack” fought the Bondsville Mill Fire alongside over 500 firefighters from 18 different fire departments. The blaze burned for over 24 hours and caused a great deal of damage to property in the town. Most of the effort to fight the fire was simply to prevent it from spreading. Due to his exemplary service, “Jack” quickly became a captain and ultimately, in 1977, he rose to the position of Fire Chief. He has filled that post for the past 25 years. In that time, he has been able to obtain a substantial amount of equipment for the training and safety of his firefighters. His dedication to the community of Bondsville does not stop with his commitment to the Fire Department; he was a member of countless committees to improve the safety of the town. After 35 years with the Bondsville Fire Department, he has decided to retire. The Bondsville community is greatly indebted to Fire Chief Sullivan for his years of service. Indeed, we are, as a Nation, eternally grateful to all our firefighters for their selfless contribution to our society.