Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I 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 earnings 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 team 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 13 State titles and 26 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, I regret that I have to speak out against this tax bill. That regret comes from the fact that it has been put together in a very clever manner. For me, it cloaks a number of very good provisions of secondary importance, with some more important items that are simply bad policy. I have generally found that when you are weighing all the items in a tax bill, you have to be particularly sensitive to bad policy because once a provision gets into the tax code, you can rarely get it out. On the other hand, the good items will resurface again in the next bill, either during the next few days or next year. I like very much the 100 percent deduction for the self-employed, a large number of the pension provisions, the housing provisions especially the immediate increase in the low income housing tax credit and the private activity bond cap for first time buyers, and the insurance provisions, among many other provisions. Repeal of section 809 and section 815 are examples of the type of clean-up of the tax code that we need to do more of, and I congratulate the majority party for including these items. Nevertheless, there is bad policy contained in a number of items of the bill that will have an adverse impact on average Americans. If a reasonable test of a provision is that it does something good, as opposed to simply doing something, then some key provision of this bill fail. For example, the health deduction provides an incentive for healthy individuals to drop group health insurance. This drives up the cost of the group pool for everyone else, and thereby drives up the total cost of the system, while providing a minimum increase in coverage. Relaxing the arbitrage rules on school construction bonds provides an incentive for local governments to delay the construction of new classrooms for two additional years--not a good provision when you are enacting a school modernization program. And the many good, solid provisions of the pension bill are negated by a few provisions that provide an incentive to reduce pension coverage. If the retirement savings credit and the small business credits were included, at least there would be countervailing pressures to expand coverage for moderate income workers. But those incentives, while accepted by Senate Republicans, were rejected out of hand by House Republicans. So now we have to decide which way to go, yes or no. It would not be too hard to have crafted this bill to get a yes, but unfortunately there is enough bad policy in this bill to require a ``no'' vote. Perhaps this will produce a situation where the leadership on the other side of the aisle rethinks its decisions, and brings out an acceptable bill. I hope this is the case.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the efforts of Ms. Karin M. Orbon. Ms. Orbon has been selected to participate in the 2000 Awards for Excellence in Teaching exchange program between the United States and six countries in the former Soviet Union. Ms. Orbon will be visiting Russia as a member of the 23 teacher U.S. delegation. The teachers chosen for this assignment were selected from a pool of educators who had previously been honored for their excellence in teaching through such programs as the annual U.S. Teacher of the Year Award and the Miliken Educator Awards. Ms. Orbon, a computer, business and accounting teacher at North Brookfield High School is a recipient of the Miliken award. The Milken Family Foundation was established in 1982 to support education and health care nationwide. The Milken Educator Awards were established in 1985 to celebrate and reward educators who are making great strides in improving the nation's education system. The Milken national conference annually recognizes outstanding national educators who receive the Milken Family Foundation National Educator Awards, carrying with it a $25,000 check to each educator. The 70 teachers from the former Soviet Union participating in this exchange have already visited the United States as part of their program. Ms. Orbon will participate in the reciprocal portion of the program through discussions on English and American studies programs and what effect the introduction of American studies into the foreign language curricula has on teaching in Russia. She may even be invited to teach a class. The American Councils for International Education, the group sponsoring this teacher exchange, has made a great choice in the selection of Ms. Orbon for their program. She is a leader among the educators of Massachusetts and an invaluable emissary for the United States. The school system of North Brookfield, Massachusetts is blessed to have Ms. Orbon in their classroom, and I am honored to count her among my constituents.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize that October 11th marks the 221st anniversary of the death of a Polish military hero who sacrificed his life in the fight for American liberty, General Casimir Pulaski. Every year, Poles and Americans alike honor this great man, known as the ``Father of American Cavalry,'' for his dedication to the cause of freedom, and his brave contributions to both the American Revolution and the fight for Poland's independence. General Pulaski was a romantic figure and brilliant military strategist, known throughout Europe for his valiant defense of Poland's freedom from the imperialism of Russia and Prussia. Eventually outnumbered in the fight for Poland, Pulaski was exiled to Paris, where Benjamin Franklin recruited him to join the American Revolution. Pulaski quickly established himself as a talented and effective military leader at the battle of Brandywine under George Washington. Recognizing his potential, Congress granted Pulaski an independent cavalry, which became an entity feared and respected by British foes. On October 11, 1779, Pulaski crusaded for freedom one last time during the siege of Savannah. Galloping to the rescue of a fellow commander, Pulaski was mortally wounded by British cannon fire. He died the way he lived--freely, valiantly, and purposefully. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Americans, allow me to pay tribute to this great Polish man to whom, in part we owe our freedom.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, let me if I can at the outset thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) and members of the Committee on International Relations for the expeditious manner in which they brought this piece of legislation that I authored to the floor. Also I think to fully acknowledge that time and again on the issue of Ireland, there has been bipartisan support in this House of Representatives for the work that has occurred on this side of the ocean, as well as on that side of the ocean. House Resolution 547, Mr. Speaker, simply urges the British Government to fully implement the Patten recommendations on police reform in the North of Ireland. The people on the island of Ireland support the Patten recommendations, not the Mandelson recommendations. Let me give you a little bit of background, if I can, on this issue. Probably one of the most difficult problems that has confronted the people in the North of Ireland for the better part of the previous century was the issue of policing in a small state the size essentially of what we would know as Connecticut. But on May 21, 1998, the vast majority of the people of the island of Ireland voted for what we know as the Good Friday Agreement. In unprecedented numbers, they said yes to the future, a future that would include justice, and a future that would include reconciliation between the two traditions that have resided on that island. But as part of that Good Friday Agreement, there was a very special provision that cuts to the heart of the discussion that we are having this evening. It established an independent commission on policing that would make recommendations to the British Government and to the Irish Government. The notion was to create a new policing service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole. The Nationalist population currently comprises about 7 percent of the Royal Ultra Constabulary. That means that the Unionist community, which, by the way, represents about 54 percent of the people in the North, nonetheless constitutes 93 percent of the police force. The Nationalist community sees them as a force to keep them in line. Fundamentally, the issue of policing can change the whole complexion of the process in the North of Ireland that we know as the Good Friday Agreement. Now, let me delve into this a bit more. On September 24, 1999, Chris Patten, a conservative member of the British parliament, was chosen to review the state of policing in the North of Ireland. He came back, and, listen to this number, Mr. Speaker, offered to not only take the politics out of policing in the North, but, just as importantly, offered 175 recommendations that included changing the name, changing the flag and emblems of the RUC, a new oath for all the officers, human rights training and a new policing board to be comprised of both communities. This evening this Chamber should be grateful for what Chris Patten did and the efforts that he extended on behalf of this fundamental issue. Now, when he came to Washington at the request of the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), he presented to us a very cogent plan for fundamentally restructuring the Royal Ulster Constabulary. What he said at that time essentially was this: do not allow my report to be cherry-picked. Precisely what is happening at this moment in the North of Ireland is the cherry-picking of Chris Patten's recommendations. Now, I would remind all present, as well as those viewing across the country, that there was a democratic election which people in both traditions on both sides of the border voted for in overwhelming numbers. So what we are saying essentially here is this, that we have had an agreement, we have had an election, and now we are going to move the goalposts back by another 10 yards, because that is what the Nationalist community will deem this intransigence to be. Everybody in the British Isles has concluded that there has to be a fundamental reform of policing in the North of Ireland. Secretary Mandelson's position, however, has been to come back and say, we know better, we know more. We have decided that, despite what Chris Patten said, despite the Patten recommendations, despite an election, that we are now going to compromise the very notion of fully integrating the police service or police force in the North of Ireland. What is difficult for most of us to digest in this process is essentially this: if we are to go back to the recommendations that Patten made and essentially say we cannot sell them politically now, it invites both sides to say, let us reopen the Good Friday Agreement. Now, George Mitchell deserves enormous credit for his good and patient work. Bill Clinton deserves great credit for his work. Republicans like the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and others deserve credit for their work. This has always been bipartisan in nature. Let me, if I can for a second, read a statement that Vice President Gore has asked me to offer on his behalf: ``I also want to make clear my position on the Patten Commission's recommendations for police reform in Northern Ireland. I urge the British government to fully and expeditiously implement these recommendations. The goal of the Patten Commission's recommendations is to take politics out of policing and to create a police service in Northern Ireland that meets the highest possible standards and that enjoys the support of both communities.'' Now, I would submit tonight, Mr. Speaker, that if we are to head back to a reopening of the Good Friday Agreement, canceling the provisions of the Good Friday Accord, we are going to invite the rejectionists to step forward. I would ask the rejectionists of the Good Friday Agreement a very simple question: tell us your alternative. You have always had great moments of outlining what you are against; we would like you to tell what your competing proposal is on behalf of what you are for. It becomes very obvious to all of us who have been in this process, myself included, for more than two decades, that they really have no alternative to the Good Friday Agreement. They are going to continue to chip away at the edges, they are going to continue to be naysayers, they are going to continue to criticize all of the parties that have brought us to this moment. But the point tonight to remember is this, they provide no viable alternative. There is no option, that I am aware of, other than the Good Friday Agreement. It has met the test of time, it enjoys support across the island; and if we are to say tonight that the Patten Commission recommendations are to be, as Chris Patten said, cherry-picked or taken apart, then what is to prevent the next party from standing and saying, we do not like this part of the Good Friday Agreement? The term ``royal'' should be taken out of police service. Members of the Nationalist community do not want to swear allegiance to the Queen upon taking the oath for joining its police service. Chris Patten understood that; Tony Blair understood that. That was part of this far- reaching agreement, that they would not have to swear allegiance to the Queen to join the police service. Instead, they would take an oath of office similar to the one that patrolmen and patrolwomen across this Nation take upon entering that service, simply acknowledging your duties. I would submit tonight, Mr. Speaker, to Members that are going to have a chance to go at this later on, that my words do not ring hollow on this occasion. If we allow any part of the Patten Commission recommendations to be undone, we invite the naysayers and the rejectionists to step to the floor to fill the vacuum. We have to push them aside and make them in free elections tell the people what they are for or what they are against, as opposed to sitting in the inexpensive seats and telling all of us how wrong we have been all along the way. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Members assembled here this evening again for their steadfastness.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting bill. It seems to combine an unnecessary bill on debt relief that passed the House yesterday by a vote of 381-3, with a faulty bill on retirement policy that passed the House on July 19 by a vote of 401-25. It is my understanding that our side of the aisle learned about the contents of the bill about 11:00 this morning, so there may be changes that we have not discovered yet. Since revenue that is not spent goes to deficit reduction automatically, a statement that 90 percent of the surplus should go to deficit reduction next year hardly seems momentous. However, it does no great harm either, so I intend to vote for passage of this bill to indicate my strong support for deficit reduction. In addition, I am pleased that Members on the other side of the aisle have adopted the Democratic position as articulated all year, and have finally made deficit reduction a priority. On the retirement bill, let me just say that I continue to believe that H.R. 1102 is flawed and is in need of many improvements. I agree with Jane Bryant Quinn when she wrote in the Business Section of the Washington Post this past weekend that this and other bills are ``for the upper-middle, investor class. There should be a companion tax incentive bill that helps the workers, too.'' Just such a companion bill, I believe, was offered by myself on July 19, but that amendment failed by a vote of 200-216, with all Republicans present and voting opposed, and all Democrats but three present and voting in support. This amendment established a refundable tax credit for contributions to pension plans by low and moderate income workers, and tax credits to small businesses to establish and contribute to pension plans. While not perfect, it at least made an attempt to deal with the problem of access to retirement income for those who can not save due to their low income, or can not save as much as they should. But the House, as I indicated, adopted the narrow approach. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I intend to vote for deficit reduction, and to continue my effort to enact a comprehensive retirement bill that helps all Americans save for retirement, not just the ``upper-middle, investor class.''

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago today President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed legislation into law that established real estate investment trusts, also known as REITs. A REIT is a company dedicated to owning and, typically, operating income-producing real estate such as apartments, shopping centers, offices and warehouses. The key feature of a REIT is the requirement that it pass 95 percent of its taxable income to its shareholders every year, which also means that it needs to grow primarily by raising investment funds in the capital markets. Congress established REITs in 1960 to make it easier for small investors to invest in commercial properties, much like mutual funds allow small investors to pool funds. And as hoped, REITS have every reason to be proud of their record of professional management, and their history of bringing liquidity, security, and performance to average investors in commercial real estate. REITs currently hold about $325 billion of assets, and this year have averaged a total return of 22.5 percent and averaged a dividend yield of 7.3 percent. While REITs have played an important role in American economic life since 1960, they have truly come into their own since passage of the 1986 Tax Reform Act which removed most of the tax-sheltering capability of real estate and emphasized income producing transactions, and allowed REITs to operate and manage real estate as well as own it. This merged owner interests with the interests of other significant parties, leading to greater confidence in this form of investment. The adoption of the REIT Modernization Act by this Congress, a bill I cosponsored and worked for, will continue the trend toward allowing REITs to remain competitive and flexible in today's marketplace. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the REIT industry on their 40 years of leadership in the economic marketplace, and their national association for their effective leadership on federal and state issues important to the industry. I look forward to continuing to work with them on issues of importance to REIT investors.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the problem with what the previous speaker just said is that 98 percent of the American people are not affected by this. This is clearly an effort to reward 2 percent of the American people. That is what the estate tax is about. Let me give you the strategy that has been employed here by the Republicans. Let us have a big tax cut, $1.3 trillion. It went nowhere with the American people. Let us separate it out in pieces. It went nowhere with the American people. Let us contest the President's veto. It went nowhere with the American people. And do you know what, they are still at it. They are still at it, even though they see polling data that indicates clearly that the issue is crystallized and the public sides with us on this. We could do something constructive on this issue. The Democrats came up with a great alternative here today, $4 million of exemptions that would take care of all of the people that they have noted here today. The previous speaker said ``override the President's veto.'' The overwhelming truth here is that the President offered a good fix on this issue, along with us in the Democratic Caucus, and the other side refused to accept it. Stand with the President on this veto today.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I very much support the legislation we are now considering. H.R. 4923 is one of the few bills we are going to enact this year on a bipartisan basis, the revenue loss is reasonable, and it will provide a good deal of help for communities trying to turn themselves around and increase economic activity within their neighborhoods. CO This bill does a lot, but frankly it could do quite a bit more. There is overwhehning support for legislation to immediately increase the low-income housing tax credit and the private activity tax exempt bond volume cap. The bill makes a very modest step forward in both areas, and I appreciate that very much, but by no means are these provisions sufficient. And given the fact that both bills have over 350 cosponsors each, there is no political or partisan reason why a full immediate increase in the credit and the bond cap could not have been put in this bill at this time. Mr. Speaker, I am supporting this bill. However, I intend to work as hard as I can to see to it that when the conference report comes back to the House, both the tax credit and the bond volume cap provisions are significantly improved over the provisions that are contained in H.R. 4923 today. Many States are like mine, Mr. Speaker, with good, solid projects backed up and waiting for an allocation. Under current limits, the allocations are simply not there. It would be a crying shame, Mr. Speaker, if in the current budget situation we ignored their pleas and did not provide the necessary assistance right away.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we meet once again to debate the tax cut de jour. Some of the proposals the Republicans have insisted on are strictly for the very wealthy, like the estate tax repeal. Some are spread out more evenly, like the telephone excise tax repeal. Some manage to do a certain amount of harm and a certain amount of good, like the pension bill. But the bill that is in front of us today does real harm to the Medicare trust fund. But all of this legislation is aimed at the November elections. Let us acknowledge one thing clearly today. The Republicans never liked Medicare to begin with. They certainly did not like Social Security. That is what they attempt to do with this line of reasoning of legislation today. It is to weaken the Medicare trust fund. Under current law, the revenue generated from this tax that is being repealed goes into the Medicare trust fund. So, in effect, all citizens benefit from current law. Eighty percent of the senior citizens will not get anything from this legislation, and 20 percent of the well-off senior citizens will. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to ask themselves one question: Is this a good trade-off? If it was such a good trade-off, why did they not do it 6 years ago when they took control of this institution? Why was it not proposed 3 years ago when we had the first major tax bill passed into law? The reason is that this proposal does not look good when massive deficits are staring one in the face. One cannot sell this proposal when it seems clear that there is a need for strong discipline in the general budget to resolve our deficit crisis, as the Democrats did in this House in 1993. But for the moment, while the projections are rosy, let us remind ourselves, there is no guarantee that those projections are ever going to come through as they relate to budget surpluses. There is an opportunity for all of us to be very prudent today and, even on the Democratic side, being conservative. Reject this chicanery.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) has continued to do here in each and every appropriations bill is to undo a freely negotiated settlement between the Department of HUD and Smith & Wesson. Smith & Wesson is synonymous with not only gun safety over the years but, just as importantly, an excellent reputation for community service. And also it is a major employer in my district. What troubles me about this is that we always hear these complaints about the intrusive nature of the Federal Government. This agreement was not forced upon Smith & Wesson. They voluntarily entered into this agreement. Overwhelmingly, the American people agree with the negotiated settlement. It is sensible and visionary public policy. The continued effort here to resist this negotiated settlement is what is intrusive. This interference that has come now on three appropriations bills is what is intrusive. It is a mistake to proceed in this manner. We should allow this agreement to stand as it is, and we ought to honor it.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), a senior and distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means who is well known for his work on retirement savings.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), whose work in pension security is well known to all Members of this House. In fact, I would submit that there are very few, if any, Members of this House that have more knowledge on this issue.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the highly effective minority leader in this House. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who is well known for her work on retirement savings.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate quickly, Secretary Summers has told me in a phone conversation he will recommend a veto of this legislation as currently proposed if it goes to the President's desk. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), who worked on a recent pension case in the State of Vermont who has been an inspiration for all of us. (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) whose work in the pension arena has been invaluable to this Congress.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), my understanding is that this was not part of the amendment as proposed; that it was supposed to be deleted last evening and it was not.

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

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to modify this amendment. The modification is at the desk.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In the last hour, we have really gone through I think a very helpful exercise, and that is to point out that the differences are really not that large as currently proposed. Even though the differences are not large, they remain for low-income and moderate-income workers substantial. If we let this get away from us in its current form, if the President were to sign this legislation, which I suggest that he will not, we would find ourselves quickly coming back to an issue in succeeding sessions of the Congress on how to deal with what is the most prickly part of the problem, and that is how do we get low-income wage earners into a pension system? How do we provide the necessary incentives for employers to do precisely that? How do we speak to moderate-income workers who find themselves perhaps in mid-life without the benefits of a pension plan as well? The amendment today that we offer in the nature of a substitute would accomplish this goal by encouraging individuals, all workers, to save better for retirement through adding retirement savings accounts as proposed by the President and the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Summers. This proposal would provide a refundable credit to low- and middle-income workers who participate in an employer-sponsored pension plan or an individual retirement account. The credit would equal up to 50 percent of the annual contribution allowed under a traditional IRA. Let me say that 2 years ago, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and I led the fight here in a bipartisan manner on this floor in support of the Roth IRA. I hold no intransigence or opposition to the nature of expanding individual retirement accounts. I think that there is significant data, however, that indicates that the problem with IRAs is they tend to reward those who already have the ability to save for retirement. No problem with getting more people in, but at the same time we want to extend this benefit to low- and moderate-income workers. Under this proposal, eligible taxpayers would receive an immediate credit equal up to $300, which would be phased up to $1,000. When fully phased in, individuals filing a joint return with adjusted gross income up to $75,000 would be eligible for the credit. Taxpayers filing as heads of households with an adjusted gross income of up to $56,000 would be eligible for the credit as well, and individuals filing as single would receive the credit if their adjusted gross income does not exceed $37,500. Now, we have once again an opportunity in the closing days of this Congress to accomplish something that is very important to average Americans, and that is the opportunity, given the uncertainty that so many people feel about pension benefits that are allegedly set aside, we have watched the collapse in different States across the country of pension benefits and it is clearly an issue that is on the minds of the American people. So I ask in the spirit of bipartisanship that we take an opportunity in the next 6 weeks as the Congress adjourns to come back here in September, refreshed and energetic, with the goal of some tangible achievements. I would alert the Members of Congress again that President Clinton has argued, through Secretary Summers, that he will not sign this legislation into law. That should be the stop sign that we all see at the intersection. Let us come back and revisit it. I think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has done a commendable job. I think the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has done a commendable job. The problem is that they have, in my judgment, not accomplished enough for moderate- and low-income workers. Modification of Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Neal of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) for those very telling comments, and at the same time point out that we do not on this side hold opposition to this bill, as much as we argue that the bill can be improved. In the closing days of this Congress, there is going to be ample opportunity to do that. And I would close with the remarks that I opened with, the legislation in front of us does not do enough to help low- and middle-income workers, and when we look at the statistical data of the companies of the proposal in front of us, one would quickly conclude that is the case. We have an opportunity. The President says he will sign a pension bill. Secretary Summers has told me he will recommend to the President that he veto this legislation in its current form. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Yes, that is correct.

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

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) mentioned there was bipartisan support for the bill. I am pleased to announce there is bipartisan opposition to the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).