Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. There was no one on this side who said that this was a giveaway to the rich in the 2 hours of debate that we have been pursuing here. I think, instead, we suggested it was not a balanced proposal, in the sense that the very people that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has referenced here, people that make under $30,000 a year, they are the ones that depend upon Social Security. We are never going to have a healthy discussion about Social Security and its future in this country as long as we leave those people out of defined pension benefit plans. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), one of the experts in the House on retirement savings plans, a friend and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and a very competent individual.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) whose pitched battle with IBM is on the cutting edge of what the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) just pointed out.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would close on our side. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for the quality of the debate that has taken place here today and also to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) because the debate in committee I thought was good as well. I also appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) said just a few moments ago that he had honest information that came from the Congressional Research Bureau, that the information did not come from the Republican side or it did not come from the Committee on Ways and Means. So we do appreciate that statement that the gentleman was able to offer for us. This has been a good debate, and it has been legitimate. There is a sincere difference of opinion here on how to proceed. I have acknowledged time and again that I believe that the underlying support for this bill is indicative of the fact that it does address many of the problems that we have spoken to in committee during the last few years. The key question that we face today, Mr. Speaker, is essentially this: How do we get low- and moderate-income workers to be full participants in the private retirement system of this country? We must help those who are not covered by a pension plan or who are covered by a pension plan but do not participate, or those who simply cannot put enough money away in their retirement plan, although they are trying very hard to make modest contributions. I submit that H.R. 10 as currently constructed really does not address those issues, although it does solve a number of other problems in our pension system. I believe the issue of low- and moderate-income workers needs to be faced this year, or surely we are going to be back here very soon attempting to do something. Why not do it today? I do not think the cost is very great given the size of the tax bills both Democrats and Republicans are talking about, and I do not believe that there will be a great deal of administrative complexity surrounding the retirement saving account proposals. Workers know how much they put into their pension plans, and there is a paper trail that everybody can easily check, just like every other line on our income tax forms. Pension contributions are a document that on a taxpayer's W- 2 form right now, contributions under my RSA proposal, would receive the same scrutiny and treatment. H.R. 10 increases contribution limits on individual retirement accounts and on qualified pension plans in hopes that business owners will bring other employees along as they take advantage of these new provisions. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and I pursued this last year, the Roth IRA. I do not object to that at all, but the underlying tone of this debate today is, maybe so but maybe not so as well. Either way, it simply makes sense to give small business owners a direct incentive to offer pension plans to their employees. Tax credits to cover the part of administrative costs of opening up a new pension plan and tax credits to help employers with the cost of making contributions on behalf of their employees in the early years simply makes very good sense. In fact, it makes so much sense that these issues are going to be in the conference report one way or another. I would urge us today to do it right now in the next half hour to 45 minutes. I hope my colleagues will support the substitute. It is anything but partisan. It speaks to a legitimate interest that we all have, and that is how do we get low- and moderate-income workers into a bona fide retirement plan? The proposal before us is a sound one. With this substitute, we can improve upon the work of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). I would ask a favorable consideration at the right time. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to hereby recognize the outstanding career of one of Hampden, Massachusetts' finest educators, Roger E. Farrell. Mr. Farrell has taught social studies at the Thomas W. Burgess in Hampden for thirty-four years. During that span he has instilled in Hampden's young people an appreciation of our government and of the many facets of our world. Also, he has done exceptional work in organizing award programs, student videos, and educational trips to New York and to our nation's capital. Mr. Farrell and his classes have always been welcome visitors to my office. Even more important than this Mr. Speaker, is the fact that Mr. Farrell has significantly contributed to the molding of fine character of those he has taught over the years. The upstanding character displayed by his students on their yearly visits to Washington serves as testament of this. Mr. Speaker, the Thomas W. Burgess School, the entire Hampden community, and myself are extremely grateful of the dedicated service that Mr. Farrell has provided his students. I congratulate him on his retirement and wish he and his wife Barbara the best of luck in all their endeavors.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 15, 2001, the Massachusetts Life Insurance Company will celebrate its 150th anniversary--a milestone achieved by only twenty other Fortune 500 companies. The Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company was founded by George Rice in Springfield, Massachusetts, in 1851. Today, the MassMutual Financial Group continues to have its headquarters in Springfield, and has grown into a global diversified financial services organization with more than $213 billion in total assets under management. The family of companies include Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, plus its subsidiaries Oppenheimer Funds, David L. Babson, Cornerstone Real Estate Advisers, MML Investors Services, MassMutual International, MassMutual Asia, The MassMutual Trust Company, Antares Capital Corporation, Persumma Financial, MML Bay State Life Insurance Company and C.M. Life Insurance Company. The Mass Mutual Financial Group serves more than 8 million clients and offers a broad portfolio of financial products and services with offices located across the United States, and international operations in Hong Kong, Argentina, Bermuda, Chile, and Luxembourg. Celebrating a 150th anniversary is an extraordinary accomplishment so I ask my fellow Members of Congress to join me in recognizing the MassMutual Financial Group's anniversary and congratulating them for a successful 150 years and anticipating another 150 years of continued success.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing along with Messrs. Rangel, Matsui, Coyne and Andrews, the Retirement Security Act of 2001. This legislation expands and improves pension coverage for low- and moderate-income workers, by providing a direct incentive for these workers to save for their retirement through pension plans offered by their employers or through an Individual Retirement Account (IRA). There are three provisions in this legislation. First, the savings proposal allows eligible low-and moderate-income taxpayers to receive up to a 50 percent tax credit for contributions to an IRA or to an employer sponsored defined contribution pension plan, like a 401(k) plan. The credit is refundable so that workers who have little hope of saving for retirement right now might be encouraged to do so under this bill. It is this group of workers who are most at risk of retiring without adequate retirement savings, and it is this group which has proven to be the most difficult to bring into the pension system. They need additional incentives to help get them off the ground, which is why a refundable credit is key to any proposal to expand pension coverage to this group. The 50 percent refundable credit would be available for single taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes up to $12,500, and up to $25,000 for joint returns. The credit amount phases down from fifty percent to zero between $25,000 and $75,000 on a joint return. The maximum credit amount would be $1,000. The credit would be claimed on the federal income tax form. While it might be more appealing to workers if the money was given to them up front, a tax credit provides the most efficient form of delivery. The next two provisions of the bill provide tax credits to small businesses to expand pension coverage and participation. First, a small business tax credit would be given to small employers of 100 or less employees equal to 50 percent of administrative and retirement education expenses for the first three years of a newly established qualified pension plan. The second small business credit would be for employer contributions to new qualified pension plans, also for up to three years. Under this provision, small employers could take a 50 percent tax credit for employer contributions made to any pension plan on behalf of any non- highly compensated employees covered under the plan. All of these provisions would generally be effective after December 31, 2001. Mr. Speaker, this is a summary of the provisions contained in this bill. I believe it directly and firmly addresses the issues of pension coverage, participation, and savings for a group of workers who need this help because they are currently excluded from our pension system. This bill would expand the number of employees covered by plans and would provide a strong incentive for many individuals in a plan to save additional amounts for their retirement. In addition, the bill provides needed incentives for small businesses to offer pension coverage to their employees. I hope the Committee on Ways and Means will consider this approach carefully as an addition to any pension legislation that the Committee adopts this year.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to expand and improve pension coverage for low- and moderate-income workers. My legislation will provide an incentive for these workers to participate in the current pension system and to hopefully stay in the system once the benefits of compounded interest can be clearly seen. For those who believe that we must really do something to encourage savings, this is an ideal piece of legislation. This bill will allow individuals to receive up to a 50 percent tax credit on voluntary contributions to an individual retirement account or an employer-sponsored pension plan. The maximum credit would be $1,000 on a $2,000 contribution and would be refundable so that this incentive to save would be attractive to some who otherwise might not be in a pension system due to low incomes. The bill also allows small businesses to receive two tax credits, one for start-up administrative costs associated with a new pension plan and another for contributions made to a pension plan for non-highly- compensated employees covered under the plan. Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill would make significant progress in encouraging employees to participate in a pension system and, most importantly, to keep them participating. I hope this year we will move this legislation and attach it to any piece of major pension legislation that moves or sails through this Congress.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) indicated earlier that this was a debate about the rich versus the poor. That is simply not true. The debate today is about doing something for the living as opposed to doing something for the dead. We could well afford in this institution today to provide a prescription drug benefit that was fixed for Medicare recipients. Instead, we are coming to this floor today to assist those who really do not need it. Let me, if I can, quote again the editorial from the Washington Post that appeared this morning. ``The House will be asked today to approve a tax cut so blatantly irresponsible that the authors have, in effect, had to white out the cost.'' In other words, the phase-in of the estate tax repeal is so slow that the $660 billion cost of immediate repeal has been reduced to $185 billion. That was the point of an amendment offered last week in the Committee on Ways and Means. But there is even a more fundamental point here. It is that the committee majority could not figure out how to handle the true cost of repeal, given their other priorities, so they manipulated the budget rules to make it fit the 10-year window. Under the rules here, it is perfectly legitimate, but it is very questionable in terms of governance. There are tax proposals that should be phased in over a few years for policy reasons; others are phased in over a few years to save costs. But moving the bulk of the revenue loss out into the 11th year because we cannot figure out how to pay for this repeal is, as they say, a horse of a different color. This is what it means. We cannot deal with it now. We cannot deal with it now because nobody knows what the real revenue estimate is. We do not know how to repeal the estate tax and make it affordable, but we intend to hold out and hold on to the notion that the estate tax will be repealed because we have a political commitment out there that we intend to honor, at least for the moment. Mr. Speaker, I think that we missed a grand opportunity today. What a missed moment when we could have offered a solid compromise that would have taken care of 1 percent of the 2 percent who pay the estate tax in America. The Democratic substitute is preferable today. Vote for our alternative.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join Representative Jim McCrery and a majority of the Ways and Means Committee in introducing legislation to make permanent the exclusion from Subpart F of the Internal Revenue Code for active financial services income of U.S. businesses operating in foreign markets. This provision permits American financial services firms doing business abroad to pay U.S. tax on their foreign earnings only when those earnings are returned to the U.S. parent. The provision expires at the end of this year. This rule for active financial services is the same rule that applies to most other types of U.S. companies, and is the general rule in most of the industrialized world. Most competitors of U.S. financial institutions operate under tax regimes that generally do not tax currently active financial income earned outside their home countries. Making the Subpart F rule for active financial services permanent means that U.S. financial services companies will be on a level playing field throughout the life of the contract for which they are competing when they seek to compete in overseas markets with foreign-based financial services companies. While taxes are clearly not the only factor in determining the competitiveness of U.S. financial companies abroad, they do make a difference. In an increasingly global world with increasingly sophisticated competition, we cannot afford to put our financial services companies at such a disadvantage any longer. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I believe it is vital to make the active financing provisions of current law permanent, to provide stability to our American service industries and all who work for them.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good example of where we could have found common ground with the Republicans to get marriage penalty relief for the American people. But once again, the proposal that they offer is excessive. I would highlight to my colleagues that their proposal is more generous than the one that President Bush proposed. It is excessive in that it goes way beyond his proposal, which perhaps we even on this side of the aisle could have lived with. But when it comes to taxes these days, the Republican Party is like parents with twins who have just entered their teenage years. They know college is coming in a few years, and they should be saving to pay college expenses, but they refuse to. Mr. Speaker, by providing excessive tax relief, the Republican Party is denying the looming problems that result from the retirement of the baby boomers in just a few years. This bill represents missed opportunities once again. It could have contained more tax simplification than it does, which we should be doing, and it could have offered far more relief on the alternative minimum tax. But AMT relief and simplification are not part of the current political agenda in this institution. Mr. Speaker, there are some good points to this legislation: The child credit, the earned income tax credit, and they do touch upon some relief with AMT. The problem with this legislation is, once again, it is excessive. What we do here is we cut taxes and then we do a budget, rather than the other way around. Let me speak specifically, if I can, for just a moment about alternative minimum tax, and I hope people are paying attention to what is about to happen. This bill makes the alternative minimum tax worse by, listen to this, $292 billion. That is not much of a fix. There are currently 1.5 million taxpayers who are categorized according to AMT. Under the current law, that number increases to 20.7 million in 2011. With some people having incomes of only $50,000 a year, get ready, they are about to pay alternative minimum tax. Because of this entire tax proposal, 15 million more Americans are going to be forced into alternative minimum tax. If this bill goes through and is signed by the President, there is going to be no revenue left to fix alternative minimum tax. The Democratic alternative is a sound piece of legislation. It is certainly much more fiscally responsible than the bill that we are going to vote on in a few moments. Our legislation is superior in that it addresses the looming problem of AMT. Get past sloganeering. Get down to policy. Fix alternative minimum tax.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Margaret M. Carroll and the announcement of her being named the recipient of the John H. Chafee Award, which was presented to her by the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission. Ms. Carroll has given of herself generously over the years for the good of the Blackstone and Millville communities and this award appropriately recognizes her tireless efforts. Ms. Carroll served as a fine educator in the Blackstone-Millville school district for thirty- seven years. The many success stories of the students she taught serves as testament to her teaching ability. The many success stories of the students she taught serves as testament to her teaching ability. Also, Ms. Carroll has familiarized herself with the Blackstone River Valley to a level that is matched by no one. The river valley is forever in Ms. Carroll's debt for the dedicated service she has provided to it over the years. In addition to her efforts related to the river valley, she has volunteered throughout the Blackstone-Millville communities countless times and in various ways. Mr. Speaker, I can think of no one more fit to receive the John H. Chafee award than Ms. Margaret Carroll. I personally congratulate her and thank her for her dedicated service.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, Representative Amo Houghton and I are today introducing legislation to make three important changes to two of the most popular and efficient housing programs before Congress, the single family Mortgage Revenue Bond (MRB) program and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program. First, this bill repeals the ten-year rule, a provision added to the MRB program in 1988 that prevents the states from fully using mortgage bonds by limiting the extent to which new mortgages can be made on outstanding bonds on which prepayments have been made by the original beneficiaries. States estimate that, between 1998 and 2002, the ten- year rule means the loss of over $8.5 billion in mortgage authority, denying over 100,000 qualified lower and moderate income home buyers affordable MRB mortgages. Second, the bill replaces the present limit on the price of homes these mortgages can finance with one that works better given the fact that there is no reliable comprehensive data that exists to determine average area home prices. The current price limits were issued in 1994 based on 1993 data. They are, obviously, obsolete and 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 makes housing credit apartment production more viable in rural areas by allowing statewide medium incomes as the basis for the income limits in that program. While this provision may need some technical adjustment, it is clear that the current rules do not provide sufficient incentives to build apartments in very low income rural areas. Mr. Houghton and I believe these changes, when combined with the increase in the caps on these programs enacted last year, will ensure a strong, effective housing program that will meet the needs of our constituents now, and well into the future. We hope these changes will be adopted in the near future.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, what we are essentially being asked to do today is this, to vote on what economic conditions are going to be like in 10 years. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) had it right on target when he suggested that. Let me take my colleagues back 10 years. What we were told that we had to replicate in America 10 years ago were simply Japanese management practices. If every businessman and businesswomen in America simply did what the Japanese did, we would be in great shape, and the prosperity would be just around the corner. Who among us would argue that today? We were told we were going to have deficits for the next 25 years. Who would argue that today? We were told by Paul Kennedy at Yale with his popular book 10 years ago that America's best days were behind; and it was widely read and on the best seller list forever. Who would argue that today? But yet we are being asked to do precisely that by projecting what economic conditions will be like a decade from now. Then we are being told we better do this today so we can stimulate the economy. The Senate is not going to take this up until spring or summer, but we are told it has got to be done today. Minimal debate. Shove it through. Ram it down the minority's throat. Let me tell my colleagues what we are going to do with AMT. We are going to make the matter even worse today. Currently, there are 1.5 million taxpayers who are caught in the AMT net. Under current law, that increases to 20 million in 2011, some with incomes as low as $50,000. Because of the bill that we have before us today, 15 million more people are about to pay AMT over the next 10 years. The problem, cost, $292 billion. Reject this sham today. We will offer a tax cut here. A reasonable tax cut targeted to middle-income Americans is where we should be headed.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today legislation with Messrs. Tierney, McGovern, Capuano and Markey to allow the 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 one 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, today I introduced legislation, along with six of my colleagues from Massachusetts, 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 senior citizens, in exchange for volunteer work. The legislation also exempts these vouchers from employment taxes, and senior citizens who are at least 65 are eligible. 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, today I am introducing, along with Messrs. Tierney, Frank, McGovern, Capuano, Olver and Markey, legislation to clarify that the employees of a political subdivision of a State shall not lose their exemption from the hospital insurance tax by reason of the 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 which counties had performed, and made certain county officials employees of the State. Specifically, the law provided that the sheriff and all his 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 in and of themselves 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 thought of during the consideration 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 government.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding to me, and thank the Members that are assembled here today. Joe Moakley's sense of humor was infectious for all of us; and one can sense, I think, the affection that we all feel for him today. In Massachusetts, people think that one is supposed to be good at politics. We take it very seriously. In the instance of Joe Moakley, he is heir to the great legacy of the great McCormack and the great O'Neill. There are two parts of this business in Congress. There is the outside business, and there is the inside business. Joe Moakley was good at both of them. The problem in this institution, like most institutions of legislative life today across America, is that the people that are good at the outside part of it can never become good at the inside part of it because they profess a disdain for the institutions of which they serve, thereby never buying into consensus, never having the chance to do the great governing that has to take place in legislative life. Joe Moakley understood both parts of legislative life. One has to be good at the outside part of it, and one has to be very good at the inside part of it. Hence, committee assignments. I know people's eyes glaze over when they hear that, but the members of the delegation were always on good committees, primarily because of McCormack, O'Neill, and Moakley. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) said to me a moment ago when somebody mentioned, well, Jeez, Joe treated everybody alike. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) said, In our delegation, he sure did. He thought we were all on his staff. But it was a joy to be part of his success in this institution. There is still going to be a lot of good days as we move along as well. Let me just close on this note: I bumped into the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett) today, a terrific guy. He said to me, ``You know, I never voted the way Joe Moakley voted in the years I have been in Congress, but there was nobody whose company I enjoyed more at dinner. There is nobody that I enjoyed talking to more about the great stories that he told and still will have an opportunity to tell.'' I am indeed very grateful for many of the good things that have come my way in legislative life here in the Congress because I consider it an honor to serve here. Joe Moakley has been responsible for much of the success that I have had within this institution. I am indeed grateful today and happy to be part of this and only wish our friend from South Boston, if one asked him where he was from, he would not say Boston, he would say he was from South Boston, our friend Joe Moakley.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, a week ago I introduced legislation to allow nonrefundable personal credits, like the child credit and education credits, to be used against the alternative minimum tax. I have introduced this legislation in the past two Congresses, and it has been enacted into law twice on a temporary basis. The legislation I introduce today corrects an additional critical problem with the AMT. In this case, the mere fact that a family has a large number of children forces them to become alternative minimum tax taxpayers, and they lose some of the benefit of their personal exemptions. For example, my office has been in touch with a family in North Carolina for over a year. This military family has ten children, are home schoolers, and began to pay the alternative minimum tax in 1998. An extension of the temporary law regarding nonrefundable personal credits will not help this family, and neither will President Bush's tax proposal help them out of the AMT or give them a rate reduction. While it may be true that this family will be ``no worse off'' than they are now, they will not be any better off either in terms of their current situation. I do not believe relief for this family from the alternative minimum tax should wait until it is more convenient, or until after this year is over. Mr. Speaker, I think all the members of this body would agree that this family is not the type of family we meant to pay the minimum tax. They do not have large tax preferences with which they are sheltering income. Yet they are paying the minimum tax. Mr. Speaker, I hope all members will not just agree that we should provide families like this one relief, I hope they will act to provide that relief on the first tax bill on which Congress works.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today badly needed legislation to make permanent the temporary provision of current law that allows all nonrefundable personal tax credits to be used against the alternative minimum tax. These credits include the child credit, the adoption credit, the HOPE credit, the lifelong learning credit, and the dependent child care credit. I have introduced this bill in the two previous Congresses, H.R. 4489 and H.R. 1097. In 1998 Congress enacted a 1-year provision to solve the problem, and in 1999 Congress enacted a 3-year solution. Now is the time to permanently fix the problem, if only because the problem will get more serious and the revenue cost will increase every year we delay. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, a permanent solution to this problem enacted in 1999 would have cost $6 billion over 2000-2004, and $29.6 billion over 2000-2009. This rapid escalation in cost demonstrates why it is important to resolve the problem now. It also indicates how rapidly this provision will affect American families if it is not solved permanently. To date, two messages have come out of the Bush administration on this issue. The first message is that the alternative minimum tax is a problem to be thought about. The second message is that Congress ought to fix it. Refusing to face this problem directly, and taking responsibility for helping resolve it, is a recipe for continued temporary solutions in an era where budget surpluses demand real tax solutions to real tax problems. I have offered twice to work with the administration on permanent solutions, and I continue to hope a permanent solution will be incorporated into its tax proposals. Without these temporary solutions, current law would not allow personal tax credits to be used against the alternative minimum tax. Since taxpayers must pay the higher of their regular federal income tax, or the alternative minimum tax, many families find some or all of these credits disallowed by the AMT. In 1998 the Department of the Treasury estimated that over 800,000 families would have been denied the full amount of the child credit or the education credits, and that the number would increase annually. According to the Internal Revenue Service, the estimated average time it takes to fill out the alternative minimum tax form was 5 hours and 39 minutes. It would, of course, take much longer for hundreds of thousands of taxpayers who may be forced to fill out this form for the first time as a result of the credits Congress offered them in the name of child care, adoption, and education. And I cannot think of anything that would produce greater cynicism on the part of the American people than not enacting a permanent solution to this problem. Mr. Speaker, I have never thought of this issue as a partisan issue. I have worked with the former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee Mr. Archer, and with the chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee Amo Houghton, to bring this issue to the attention of Members of Congress, the administration, and the American people. I will continue to pursue all avenues during the 107th Congress to defuse this hidden time bomb permanently. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that the AMT presents additional challenges to Congress. The interaction of the AMT and the nonrefundable personal tax credits is only the most immediate, most crucial, problem. A second problem is that over the next decade the fact that the AMT is not adjusted for inflation while the regular federal income tax is adjusted, will push millions of families into the AMT and that should be dealt with as soon as possible. A third problem exists because the AMT will slash much of the tax relief that will be promised by President Bush this week, if it is not dealt with within the Bush proposals. I, and others, have proposed various solutions to these problems and I will continue to press for solutions to all the problems presented by the AMT. But the most immediate problem is that caused by the interaction of the AMT and nonrefundable credits, and that must be dealt with no matter what this year.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of the 2000 Ludlow High School boys soccer team. This past season the Ludlow boys team compiled a record of 19-0-3 en route to earning the Smith Division League Championship, the Western Massachusetts Division I Championship, and the Massachusetts Division I State Championship. Their efforts enabled them to earn a top five ranking nationally. Not only did the boys team finish the season undefeated, but their 2000 campaign marked the first time in Massachusetts history that a boys soccer team won four consecutive Western Massachusetts Division I titles. Also, the Lions have won back to back State titles, the first time this has been done in Massachusetts in 35 years. Ludlow High School has a fine and proud tradition in boys soccer play. The school has earned thirteen State titles and twenty-six Western Massachusetts championships. At the Lions' coaching helm was Tony Goncalves. He and his staff have fine tuned their team's athletic skill and have instilled poise, discipline, and sportsmanship into their players. Coach Goncalves and his staff have certainly earned their reputation as one of the finest coaching staffs in all of New England. I would also like to note that included in this year's team are seven players that were named to the All-Western Massachusetts squad, three players named to the All-State team, and two players receiving All-New England honors. Mr. Speaker, allow me to recognize here the players, coaches, and managers of the 2000 Ludlow High School boys soccer team. The seniors are: Helder Pires, Jay Devlin, Mike Pio, Joey Jorge, Ray Cheria, Brian Cochenour, Tim Romansky, Paulo Dias, Dennis Carvalho, Paulo Martins, Steve Jorge, Manny Goncalves, and Chris Chelo. Juniors include: Joe Shanley, Seth Falconer, Kevin Keough, and Sebastian Priest. The Sophomores are: Kevin Chelo, Sven Pfefferkorn, Michael Lima, Tyler Severyn, Josh Naginewicz, Casey Siok, and Corey Mange. The Head Coach is Tony Goncalves. Assistant Coaches are Jack Vilaca, Greg Kolodziey, and Dan Pires. Team managers are Sarah Russell, Jill Dube, and Jenn Russell. Mr. Speaker, once again, allow me to send my congratulations to the Ludlow High School boys soccer team on their outstanding season. I wish them the best of luck in the 2001 season.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the achievements of the 2000 Ludlow High School girls soccer team. This past season the Ludlow girls team compiled a record of 21-0-0 en route to earning the Coombs Division League Championship, the Western Massachusetts Division I Championship, and the Massachusetts Division I State Championship. Their efforts enabled them to earn a ranking of 3rd in the country. Each year the Commonwealth of Massachusetts fields many talented high school soccer squads. Every season the Ludlow community looks forward to cheering on their hometown heroes. This year the Lions certainly did not disappoint. Finishing a season undefeated and untied, as the Ludlow girls did, is a feat well deserving of high praise. The Ludlow girls soccer team rose to the challenge each and every game. They are winners in every sense of the word and are examples of athletic prowess, class, and true sportsmanship. For leading his team to such accomplishments, Head Coach Jim Calheno has been named the Massachusetts Division I Girls' Coach of the Year. Under his leadership, the Lions have remained a perennial powerhouse. His assistants are tireless and deserve praise as well. In addition I would like to note that senior midfielder Liz Dyjak has earned All- American honors while senior forward Stephanie Santos has been named to the All-New England team. Mr. Speaker, allow me to recognize here the players, coaches, and managers of the 2000 Ludlow High School girls soccer team. The seniors are: Jessica Vital, Lindsay Robillard, Sarah Davis, Lindsay Haluch, Nikky Gebo, Liz Dyjak, Kara Williamson, Stephanie Santos, and Ana Pereira. Kristine Goncalves is a Junior on the squad. The Sophomores are: Darcie Rickson, Beth Cochenour, Natalie Gebo, and Lauren Pereira. Freshmen members include Jessica Luszcz, and Stefiny Knight. The Head Coach is Jim Calheno. Assistant Coaches are Saul Chelo, James Annear, Nuno Pereira, and Tony Vital. The team manager is Katie Romansky. Mr. Speaker, once again, allow me to send my congratulations to the Ludlow High School girls soccer team on their outstanding season. I wish them the best of luck in the 2001 season.