Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me the time. Today, Mr. Speaker, we are considering more resolutions without meaning. What was great about the Seinfeld show, a show about nothing, is not so funny here in Congress when we debate bills about nothing. These empty resolutions seek to divert attention of the American voters from the Republican leadership's mediocre attempt at pension and corporate reforms. What we should be debating today is actual legislation that deals with the important issues of pension reform and corporate accountability. My colleagues may recall, Mr. Speaker, that the first economic stimulus bill that the leadership pushed through this House, and my friend from Ohio made reference to Ma and Pa businesses they want to help, would have given $254 million with repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax to Ma and Pa Enron. Well, in the wake of Enron's spectacular demise, this House has done little to help those who were financially devastated as shareholders and workers. Pension security deserves serious debate. Establishing parity between corporate executives and rank-and-file employees regarding the buying and selling of stock is simply the right thing to do. It is imperative to strengthening the integrity and public trust in corporate America. Congress has that opportunity if we would just get to it. President Bush, a former corporate executive himself, said, ``If it is okay for the captain, it ought to be okay for the sailor.'' Instead of debating senseless senses of the House, we should correct this system that unfortunately allowed hardworking Americans, the backbone of corporate America, to lose their retirement savings. What we are continuing to allow by wasting our time on these resolutions is abusive corporate perks. Let us start with our friends at GE, the quintessential corporate manager who was receiving exorbitant perks at shareholders' expense and most importantly, without shareholder approval. I call Members' attention to the enviable list of perks ranging from big-ticket items to minutia, from a $15 million Manhattan apartment, to corporate jets, to membership fees at four country clubs, to sports tickets, and even expensive toiletries. It is interesting why a man whose wealth has been estimated at $900 million would feel it necessary to have the shareholders of GE pay for his laundry service. How about the ousted CEO of Tyco, formerly of New Hampshire and now of Bermuda. Without shareholder approval, the company paid for a bizarre set of perks, including $2 million on a birthday party for his wife, $15,000 for a dog umbrella stand, and how about $445 for a pin cushion. The CEO of Adelphia, he used company funds to construct a $13 million golf course on family property. The holidays must have been very good there. These extravagances reflect a corporate culture gone awry. Warren Buffet summed it up best when he said, ``The ratcheting up of compensation has become obscene.'' But rather than taking up legislation to prevent or discourage such financial abuse of shareholders and investors, we debate resolutions about nothing. Mr. Speaker, I want to join the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) in urging this House to take up his legislation which would bring some sanity into the corporate compensation process. We need better protections for our investors, shareholders and workers. How can anybody look at those shareholders and employees at Enron and justify what happened to them?

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today we are voting on a sense of the House resolution which, frankly, makes no sense. Rather than taking up legislation that actually helps our ailing economy, rather than providing relief for workers or pensioners who have fallen victim to corporate greed, rather than tackling the remaining eight appropriations bills in the 2 weeks before the fiscal year ends, the Republican leadership is wasting time in the people's House by playing politics. We all remember, Mr. Speaker, the glorious talk of future surpluses ``as far as the eye could see'' in order to provide a trillion dollars in tax cuts for the next 10 years. Sadly, these surpluses have vanished, and now we are scratching our heads trying to figure out how to fund national priorities. The President has asked for $38 billion for homeland security, $48 billion more for national defense, and now perhaps 1 to 2 percent of the GDP, $100 to $200 billion to prosecute the war in Iraq; and we know in this Chamber today that the President is going to get much of what he asks for. But with a war on terrorism and Iraq looming, the Republicans have chosen to spend the last few months pushing one bill after another to cement in place the Bush tax cuts. Any economist worth his salt or her salt will tell you that the future is always uncertain, particularly long-term forecasts. So why would you want to lock in escalating tax cuts? Every one of us today has had an opportunity in our offices to hear from the 3,000 visitors who have successfully fought the scourge of cancer in their own lives. Six people from my congressional district visited with me today. Ovarian cancer, breast cancer. They were applauding the work of the NIH, applauding the work of our hospitals, particularly our teaching hospitals across the country and universities, and asking us for more money for cancer research. We know that that is a priority, and the Members of this House are about to act upon an estate tax repeal that they know in the next year or so we are going to have to revisit. It is sad commentary on the priorities that we have as Members of this House.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida said that the issue was too many margaritas. The issue really is too few opportunities to vote on Bermuda. I am in opposition to this rule today. I am going to continue to be in opposition to these rules until there is an opportunity for this full House to vote on the issue of runaway corporations moving offshore to avoid American taxes in a time of war. The President has requested $48 billion more for national defense, $38 billion for homeland security, and these corporations in the dark of night are sneaking out of the country without ample opportunity for this body to take a vote on stopping it. Whether it is Stanley Tools running off to Bermuda to avoid taxes or J. Paul Getty's grandson turning in his U.S. citizenship to avoid individual income taxes, the American taxpayer wants us to act to stop these tax dodgers. We have known that these penalties are insufficient for those who renounce U.S. citizenship for tax purposes, but since 1996 we have had no opportunity to do anything about it. These expatriates still visit, work and even live here while avoiding U.S. income taxes. The Republicans have stopped this vote from coming up, and now they even stop the report on individual expatriates from coming to the House floor. We deserve a vote and I will predict what I have said all along. Give us a vote on the Bermuda tax dodge, what these corporate traitors are doing in the dark of night, and 300 Members of this body at a minimum will vote to do something about it. Stop blocking this opportunity. We need the report to find out what is happening with these billionaires and our tax revenues. Let me say this. We can stand here and hold hands and sing ``God Bless America,'' but part of the blessings that we enjoy in this country are paying for the benefits that we have as well. Give us a vote on the Bermuda tax dodge.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is precisely on target with his comments. During the 1990s, we understood the need to balance the budget. What was the result? It created the greatest period of economic growth in the history of the Nation. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means says, hindsight, it is easy. It is foresight that we undertook in the 1990s. We prepared for the rainy day; that was the whole notion: a national disaster, international conflict, a downturn in the economy. That is why we do not understand a reckless $2 trillion tax cut. We should have been focused on the items that we might not have been able to control in the near or far future. Unemployment has gone from 4 percent to 6 percent, the budget deficit is at $250 billion, and a Wall Street analyst said yesterday, the economy and the markets right now are in the midst of a full-blown corporate governance shock. Stock market numbers are down, the value of the dollar has dropped considerably, retail sales have dropped along with consumer confidence, and we continue right down this road. Now here is the point that I find most focused tonight and the one that I think troubles me perhaps far more than anything else. There were Members on the other side of this body who were going to impeach Secretary Rubin, going to impeach him. Actually, the Committee on Financial Services in this House held hearings on impeaching Bob Rubin because of the debt ceiling question. They would not vote to raise that debt ceiling under any circumstances. Tonight, the argument is, well, if we had better hindsight, it would be much easier for us to undertake these sorts of initiatives. The point that we have reached is because of the tax cut, and we have to focus on that issue, and we have to understand it and keep it in perspective. At the same time that we discuss this, American companies are allowed to sneak out of this Nation in a time of war in the dark of night to Bermuda to escape what they contend to be corporate taxes. Mr. Speaker, $48 billion more, $38 billion more for homeland security. The chairman was mistaken. The problem is not hindsight; the problem is vision and foresight.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, this proposal states that the retirement savings of all workers, including those who have had the misfortune of being employed by a corporate expatriate, that those savings should be protected and preserved. This motion would build in important protections for workers of companies who have decided to flee the country in order to avoid U.S. income taxes, many who snuck out in the dark of night even as the Nation pulled together after September 11. My friends on the other side are going to say, ``We're holding hearings,'' and I appreciate that. ``We're discussing legislation.'' Then they are going to say, ``Well, maybe we should stop the expatriates temporarily.'' Then they are going to say, ``Well, maybe we should enact a flat tax or a sales tax'' or however else we reform the Code and pay for the war on terrorism. The problem with that, Mr. Speaker, is that is what we were going to do 8 years ago. Once down in Bermuda, a country which has no developed or tested corporate common law, executives have the flexibility to no longer care about these irritating qualified plan requirements. For U.S. companies, these requirements and pension protections are the only way that the rank and file gain access to tax-deferred retirement accounts. Without these pension requirements, or sticks, it will be carrots aplenty in Bermuda for the CEOs. I urge the Members of the House to vote against this corporate excess. I just want to say this, if I can, for one second, Mr. Speaker. I read in the paper yesterday where somebody in this body said that this was nothing more than deciding to move, I believe, to North Carolina or to Florida. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anybody in this Chamber who believes that Bermuda is part of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

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

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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. I have great regard for the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery). He is a bright guy and a very capable guy here. But I must tell my colleagues this: In 14 years here I have not heard a substitute referred to as the ``generous spirit'' of the majority toward the minority. This is an elementary legislative courtesy that we are supposed to extend to each other. That is why the House is constructed the way it is, unlike the European system where they face each other. This is done so that we can look at each other and at the same time listen to each other. I hope that we are not at the point of in this session where getting a substitute is generosity. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of our Democratic substitute and in opposition to H.R. 4931. This Congress should and can do more to help those workers who were practically left out of the pension bill last year. The gentleman from Ohio knows that my objections really have been fairly narrow largely based upon who is in and who is out of their proposal. While we are providing these important retirement incentives for the rank and file, we should also try to clean up some of the abuses that have come to light since the demise of Enron and other fallen corporate giants. That is why this Democratic substitute makes significant strides forward for corporate responsibility, which, in the end, by the way, only helps corporations, provisions that are absent in the Republican bill. Regarding our corporate governance provisions, we must address the issue of corporate expatriates who relocate offshore to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Currently when a company moves to Bermuda, shareholders are subject to a capital gains tax when they trade their U.S. shares for foreign shares. Corporate executives, such as Stanley's John Trani and Tyco's Dennis Koslowki, on the other hand, are not required to recognize accrued gain on their stock options. What our substitute does is to require that executives of corporate expatriates are taxed on the accrued gains on their stock options. It is only fair for these executives, who are picking the pockets of the American taxpayer to the tune of $4 billion, to feel some of the pinch. And what are the reasons that these changes have occurred for people at the low end of the spectrum, and why they do not receive the same benefits as the people at the top end are receiving? It is elementary. After the people at the top exhaust all of the money and set up loans for themselves, by the way, interest-free loans of millions and millions of dollars, there is no money left for the people at the bottom. How many more abuses can we read of, how many more times do we have to be witness to what is happening to the people at the bottom end of the pension rung? The reason we are trying to change, I am not saying we are trying to change, but the other side is trying to change these pension rules, is to give more to the people at the top. I ask, as I have repeatedly on this floor, can we, can we, can we in this Congress do anything more to help the wealthy? I tell you that when the closing days of this Congress occur, the slogan of this Congress is going to be ``We are rich, and we are not going to take it anymore.'' How many times can we come to the assistance of those at the top, even in the face of the headlines we read day after day after day? Homes on Nantucket the shareholders had no idea of, loans of $20 million and $25 million that are interest free, and the boards of directors of these corporations respond by saying, ``I had no idea. I had no idea this was happening.'' Then the company goes under, the shareholders lose everything, and the board of directors have insurance to cover their problems. We look at Enron. We look at Enron in this institution, where employees are encouraged to buy stock, told by company rules they cannot unload the stock that they have, at the same time the heads of the corporation to the person sell off the stock. It is astounding what we witness here. It is as though it is amnesia when we move down the road on these topical challenges. What this substitute does today is to require that executives of corporate expatriates are taxed on the accrued gains of their stock options. It is only fair, and I know that is a word that we do not use around here, because who wants to be fair to these folks when we can be favorable to them? They are picking the pockets again of the American taxpayer to the tune of $4 billion. Is it not okay that they feel some of the pinch? Second, the substitute closes the loophole surrounding executives' non-qualified deferred compensation plans. These plans are specifically designed to be out of the reach of creditors during bankruptcy. During bankruptcy. What do we say to those people at Enron? Who covered them during bankruptcy, when they lost everything? But there is never any money left to take care of those people. One of the things I pride myself on, Mr. Speaker, is where I grew up. We were not into stock options, and we were not into pension plans and sophisticated tax planning. But you know what, Mr. Speaker? There is not one guy I grew up with that would have stood by and watched what happened at Enron. They had far too much honor. And we should not be defending those practices in this wonderful old House. Now, third, there are some executives who manipulate pension plans in order to create illusory cost savings. Well, we have all read about what these cost savings mean and how they are done. These phantom savings allow executives to meet performance goals which, by the way, they quickly retreat from, and then they receive large tax deductible bonuses. Tax deductible bonuses. Well, the Democratic substitute demands today accountability from these companies and their executives by ensuring that tax deductible bonus pay is not, not, based on pension plan manipulation. Finally, and I hope we can all listen to this, finally this week it was revealed that 100 Enron executives reaped $330 million in severance pay at the same time the employees saw their retirement plans, their job security, their investment plans wiped out. Their retirement plans are gone. And what do we want to do here today? More for the people at the top by this proposal that the Republicans are offering. These executives were rewarded for sinking the company and bad behavior. Well, the substitute that we offer today addresses this issue by applying an excise tax on the executives' golden parachutes when they have steered the company and the employees down with the Hindenburg. Now, let me, if I can, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) or anybody else may if they would like to say something, let me turn to some of the changes we have made to improve and reform the pension provisions in the underlying bill. That is really what we are trying to do, to improve the bill. First, the original bill included a saver's credit, which is a nonrefundable tax credit, of up to $1,000 for lower-wage workers. For no apparent reason, this is the only provision, and, let me repeat, this is the only provision that will not be extended by the Republican bill. Why would we want to kill the only incentive for lower-wage workers before it even gets off the ground? The Democratic substitute today will make this essential provision for low- and moderate-income workers permanent, along with the rest of the bill. Second, the Republican bill, unfortunately, raised the compensation limit for pension contributions from $170,000 to $200,000. This allowed highly paid executives to secure their pensions while they were granting smaller company contributions to their employees. There has been some discussion over the last few years as to whether this provision and the next one harms average workers. I and many others believe they do. Because of that, the Democratic substitute today attempts to protect workers by preventing the higher compensation limit from lowering the benefits to rank and file workers. Third, the underlying legislation weakened the top-heavy rules. These commonsense rules ensure that a minimum benefit is contributed on behalf of the rank and file workers in order for executives to participate in their tax deferred plans. Why would we want to weaken these fairness rules? Our substitute reinstates these rules and closes loopholes by preventing companies from double counting contributions. Now, Mr. Speaker, when we get on a bit more in this debate this afternoon, I am going to provide an opportunity, the first of many, but I guarantee an opportunity, before this session closes, to have Members of this Congress vote on these companies that are moving to Bermuda so they can avoid paying American income taxes. We are going to have a chance once and for all to follow the lead of the Senate, when it is the House, by the way, that is supposed to lead on those issues, to take on the issue and put our fingerprints on the Bermuda question. We are going to sponsor a Bermuda Day here in the near future. We are going to get a vote on that issue before this session closes. In all the time, words and stories that we have generated on the issue of Bermuda, I wish to tell you I have received one letter against my position. One letter. I would lay down the same gauntlet that I have done in the past. Put our Bermuda bill on the floor, put a Bermuda bill on the floor, and I guarantee you 300 votes to do something about these companies moving to Bermuda to escape American taxes. At the same time that President Bush is rightly asking for a $38 billion homeland security program, at the same time we are prepared to debate $48 billion more of defense spending, who is going to pay for it? We do not want to help these people with their pensions, but we want them to pay their taxes so they can support the defense buildup. The motion to recommit we are going to entertain later on, Mr. Speaker, is going to include the first vote on Bermuda. We are going to set aside ample opportunity during the course of the remaining days of this session for this House to be recorded on how people feel about Bermuda. I must tell you that in this debate, in this debate today, this is not an effort at any sort of class warfare as much as it is the essential argument over what constitutes fairness in American life, how we come to the aid of those kids that are over in Afghanistan, how we come to the assistance of those who sacrifice every day. If we are in a war, it is a question of national purpose, and we all rally around the challenge that is in front of us. My fondest hope is that wisdom will prevail in this institution and we will have an opportunity to vote on Bermuda. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader, is here, and I yield 2 minutes to her.

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

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader here in the House. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to guarantee the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), who is my friend, that I will verbally lacerate any union official or any union that steals any money from employees. But I hope we are not suggesting that what happened at Enron is akin to what has happened with unions here or there, where somebody has siphoned off money. At Enron, everybody at the lower end lost their pension benefits. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I am opposed to this bill in its present form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I think a concern that we have tried repeatedly to express, and I in particular have tried to express, is that this issue demands action in this institution. I would suggest today, based upon the headlines that we have all seen for weeks and weeks and weeks now across the country, we are headed toward a gilded age. There is an opportunity for this Chamber to act responsibly, to shut down this outrageous loophole that we should be acting on immediately. We have tried very hard, and I want to say to the Members of this body, I guarantee you this is the first of many votes until we succeed in shutting down the ability of these companies to move to Bermuda in a time, as the President has said, of war.

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

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

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the previous speaker, by the way, in employing the logic he did as he pulled out the copy of the Constitution, I would bet Members anything he voted for the line-item veto. So where Congress is in charge of spending by the Constitution, I will bet he voted to give that power to the President of the United States. I would be willing to bet anything he voted for that. Mr. Speaker, today we vote on whether or not to repeal the sunset provision of the Marriage Penalty Tax Relief Act. Now, marriage penalty tax relief is important; but just as important is, how do we pay for it? Time and again, the House has been prohibited from voting on ways to pay for tax relief provisions that do not steal from Social Security and Medicare trust funds. The Matsui substitute is a responsible approach to providing marriage penalty relief by guaranteeing certification that the Social Security trust fund is not to be raided for this purpose. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats simply want to pay for this tax relief act by implementing provisions of the Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act, sponsored by myself and that old meatgrinder, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney). Taxpayers around the country want Congress to act swiftly to stop these corporations from shelving their patriotism to save a few bucks. That is what we should be debating on this floor, these companies that are moving to Bermuda. But constituent calls have fallen on deaf ears because we cannot readily get that piece of legislation to the floor. The Neal-Maloney Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act would immediately and permanently shut down the exodus of American corporations who are moving to Bermuda, in this time where we are all feeling good about patriotism in this Nation, so they can avoid paying U.S. corporate income taxes. Hardworking American families are, yes, entitled to tax relief; but I am sure these families do not want to burden their children by placing our trust funds and budget at risk. Let us pay for the Marriage Penalty Relief Act. Let us stop the procedural games. Let us get a vote in this institution on the Neal-Maloney Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act that would stop corporate expatriates. I will hold Members to the same offer and opportunity I provided a couple of weeks ago in my assessment of that vote: put that legislation on this floor and it will get 300 votes. We deserve a vote on that bill.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, for the seventh time since Republicans assumed the helm of this institution, we are taking up a constitutional amendment on tax increases. If I said it once, I have said it 10 times, or at least seven times; this is the wrong amendment. Why do we not channel our energies into simply balancing the budget? That is the responsible position to take. Do you know what? We could pass a balanced budget here without any difficulty whatsoever. The country would be better off. Let us talk about the ``gimmickry of the week'' that we witness here time and again. Remember not long ago when we had a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that they were all hollering about on the other side? Well, it strikes me as being odd that we were able to balance the budget without disturbing the Constitution. Why we are back to deficit spending in large measure is because of the tax cut. That is why we are here today. The President has proposed $48 billion more for defense. He is going to get much of what he wants. He has proposed $38 billion for homeland security. He certainly is going to get much of what he wants. In this institution our response is, ``Let us cut taxes, the estate tax. Let us move to an artificial gimmick on raising taxes in this institution.'' Well, let us say very easily today that perhaps the Director of the Budget had it right. He now says, a presidential employee, by the way, that moving the government back into balance by 2005 ``is very iffy. We know what the models that we have been using are telling us, but they are very obsolete.'' What a difference a year makes, Mr. Speaker. It seems the much-touted $1 trillion tax cut that was based on glowing predictions about endless government surpluses now apparently has vanished, while the House leadership and the President's Budget Director wobble on the burden of controlling spending. I am going to suggest tonight a great opportunity: Have every Member who submits a request to the Committee on Appropriations publish the letter. Let us have the Committee on Appropriations publish the letters. Let us find out who asks for the most money in spending, put it in front of the public for an opportunity to examine it, and then let us have the debate about spending. The same people that march to the well hollering about taxes all the time, they load up the requests of the appropriators. They are the ones that help to drive spending. They make the demands on the appropriators. Let us publish those letters, and not put the appropriators on the spot the way we do here time and again. This type of amendment is not only futile, it is dangerous. If this amendment were to pass and get enacted, it would make legislation such as legislation I proposed on those companies that are running off to Bermuda much harder to pass. A Member said not long ago that the American people do not object to paying their taxes fairly. Why is it they will not give us a vote here on those companies that are running off to Bermuda in this aura of patriotism that the American people are experiencing because they do not want to pay their share? Will Rogers did say it right. He said this country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when a baby gets hold of a sledge hammer. Oppose this dangerous gimmick.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, today we debate the Republican proposal to permanently repeal the estate tax, yet another bill that favors the wealthiest of the wealthy at a time when America is faced with increasing deficits. Can we do more for the rich than we are going to do this afternoon when they pass this legislation? This is a recipe for fiscal meltdown. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, permanent repeal would result in a $740 billion loss to the Treasury, when we instead should be supporting Social Security, fixing Medicare, spending some money on defense and spending some money on education and the environment. Mr. Speaker, today is the 58th anniversary of D-Day, the World War II allied invasion of Europe in which thousands of American troops sacrificed their lives for freedom. Americans are once again sacrificing right now, even as we take on this debate. But what is our answer? We are going to dole out more tax cuts to billionaires, who, by the way, were not even asking for it, and asking hard-working middle income taxpayers to pick up the difference. If they had not thrown procedural roadblocks in our way, we could have used $4 billion from tax savings from the corporate expatriate bill the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) and I have, and we could have used it to immediately pay for the estate tax exclusion offered by Mr. Pomeroy. What is the new campaign slogan in this institution, ``I'm rich and I'm not going to take it any more''? Mr. Speaker, can we do more for the wealthy than we do here day in and day out? This party used to be the party of Teddy Roosevelt. This used to be a party that did more for the environment and stood for fairness in American life. Now it is day after day, what more can I do for the wealthy. Well, it will be done without my help today.