Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the superb speech delivered by Rebecca Desilets, a Senior at Uxbridge High School. Ms. Desilets was elected Student Governor for the 1999 Massachusetts Student Government Day. For the past 52 years, the high schools of Massachusetts have democratically elected student delegates to assume the roles of constitutional officers, court justices, and members of the General Court on Student Government Day. This has been a most worthwhile experiment in state government. Mr. Speaker, the speech delivered by Ms. Desilets is both eloquent and timely, and it is with great pride that I submit it for the Record. Ms. Rebecca Desilets, Student Governor, Uxbridge High School. It's quite remarkable to see so many of us here in this historical chamber. I use the word remarkable because we are here as a result of an interest in government. We won our elections in our respective high schools. We took the risk and threw our hats into the ring. This is remarkable. At a time when the political talking heads have focused their attention on scandal and investigation, when TV news coverage devotes more time to a stain on a dress than to the President's many attempts to discuss Kosovo, it becomes easy to turn off, to become cynical about government and politics. A cynicism has infiltrated our view of the political process. The very word ``politics'' conveys a negative connotation. Who hasn't heard the seemingly endless jokes of the late night show hosts? Is nothing sacred or off limits? No wonder there is such distrust of the American political system. No wonder there is apathy among the citizens of this nation. In preparation for Student Government Day, I conducted a survey of my peers. This was a random sampling of the Juniors and Seniors at my high school. It is pretty safe to say that although my survey may not be 100% scientific, it is accurate enough to be a reflection of what you would find if repeated at your high school. I was trying to get a handle on how cynical our age group has become. The results were depressing to say the least. Let me give some of the findings. 75% of the respondents blamed their distrust of government on political parties, on lack of bipartisanship. 60% stated that the political scandals of late had added to their negativity. In the comment area that I provided there were some interesting opinions and observations made. The word ``corruption'' appeared over and over again as an explanation for the pessimism toward government. Perhaps even more significantly, many students attributed their distrust to the media. Specifically, the press was blamed for focusing on the worst case scenarios of political blunder and bad behavior. One responder said that politicians were more concerned with the ``power prize'' than with the common good, the good of the American people. Politicians are viewed by many as motiviated by self-interest rather than the good of the people they represent. What is the cause of this cynicism? Of course, some of it comes from politicians and the political party system. Our forefathers were right to have a fear of party politics, of faction. It is also a result of an unrestrained press and the race for great ratings. It is up to us to reduce the effects of cynicism. However, we can't nor should we eliminate it. A healthy skepticism is a good thing, no doubt. But how can we make sure that voters don't get so turned off that they stay away from the polls, that they simply do not participate in this democracy? As you probably know, last November's election had one of the lowest turnouts ever. Sure we can rationalize and blame it on the candidates. You know those people who say ``I didn't vote because I didn't like either candidate''; or the oldest excuse ``I didn't vote because my vote doesn't really make a difference.'' Adlai Stevenson, a Governor of Illinois and a presidential candidate in the 1950s, said: ``As citizens of this American democracy, you are the rulers and the ruled, the lawgivers and the law-abiding, the beginning and the end.'' Stevenson was right. We do have an active role to play as citizens of our towns or cities, state, and country. We have rights but also responsibilities. I know that this room is filled with people who are interested. We care about capital punishment, health care, and education. We may be somewhat cynical but this doesn't stop us from knowing what is at stake in Kosovo. We are the voters who will decide the issues of the 21st Century. Some of us will be the policy makers of the new millenium. Let us send the message, as we are in a small way just by being here, that cynicism will not keep us from our responsibilities as citizens. In fact, let us be the ones that replace cynicism with healthy skepticism. Jay Leno may make us laugh, he will not turn us off. The Drudge Report can contain sensational gossip, but it won't keep us away from the polls. There may be scandal and corruption but some of us will still consider politics as honorable and public service a priviledge.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and celebrate an important milestone in the Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts. For over one year now, the parish of St. Joseph's Church has been celebrating its 125th Anniversary. This celebration will be formalized with an Anniversary Mass on April 11, 1999 and will be attended by Bishop Thomas Dupre, Bishop Joseph Maguire, current and former parishioners, and the general public. The importance of ethnically based parishes to the immigrants of the late 18th Century and early 19th Century cannot be overstated. Groups of people from European nations such as France, Ireland, Italy, and Poland made their way to the prosperous shores of America, only to be met with suspicion and discrimination. Laws and practices were instituted to make life more difficult for new immigrants. Their only recourse was to turn to those with whom they shared a heritage. The focal point for many of these communities was the Roman Catholic Church. The bonds of ethnicity and language were strengthened by bonds of faith. By fostering the language and traditions of the old country, these parishes gave new immigrants something familiar to hold onto in the strange new world in which they had landed. The church offered support, education, and contacts in the business community that the new immigrants would not have had otherwise. The children of the immigrants were taught English as well as their native language, allowing them to assimilate more easily into the society at large. Springfield, Massachusetts is blessed with a wide variety of ethnic groups, of which the Franco-American community is one. In 1873, the Reverend Louis Guillaume Gagnier, a 43-year-old missionary priest founded St. Joseph's Church in the Diocese of Springfield. From the masses held in parishioners' homes, to the basement of the church building, to the beautiful structure seen today, the mission of St. Joseph's, to faithfully serve its community, has remained the same. The church and the surrounding structures have seen hard times, but they have perservered. The widening of roads, explosions, hurricanes, and floods have rocked the buildings of St. Joseph's Church, but not the faith of its parishioners. During the first 100 years of St. Joseph's Church, Reverend Gagnier's mission was continued by Reverend Joseph Bissonnette, Reverend Arthur Cayer, Father Albert Aubertin, Father Romeo Rheaume, and Reverend Gerald Lafleur. Throughout all of their tenures, the Pastors were aided by the unyielding support of the Sisters of Saint Joseph and the Sisters of the Holy Cross. The Sisters opened and ran the parish school, thereby fostering a sense of religious and social community in the neighborhood. Mr. Speaker, historically, spiritually, and socially significant community centers such as Saint Joseph's Church need to be recognized and celebrated. Their contribution to the establishment of cities like Springfield cannot be measured. The effects of Saint Joseph's Church will be felt for many years to come in the Franco-American community and in the society at large. Mr. Speaker, the United States of America needs more positive social centers like Saint Joseph's Church and I hope that its members will continue their faithful service for at least another 125 years.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today my colleague from Illinois, Representative Phil Crane, and I are introducing the IRA Charitable Rollover Incentive Act of 1999. Our legislation would allow individuals who have reached age 59\1/2\ to donate the assets of their individual retirement account to charity without incurring income tax liability. I am sure that over the past few years many of our colleagues have heard from charities in their district that the charity was approached by an individual who had accumulated a large IRA and wished to make a charitable donation. However, they are effectively precluded from doing so by the unique tax laws that apply to IRAs. We intend to change this. Our legislation would allow an individual to donate his or her IRA to charity without incurring any income tax consequences. The IRA would be donated to the charity without ever taking it into income so there is no tax consequence. Similarly, because current law IRAs represent previously untaxed income, there would be no charitable deduction for the donation. IRA rollovers to qualifying charitable deferred gifts would receive similar treatment. Mr. Speaker, this change in tax law could provide a valuable new source of philanthropy for our nation's charities. I would hope that my colleagues will join Mr. Crane and myself in sponsoring this innovative new approach to charitable giving.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Administration's pension proposals contained in its fiscal year 2000 budget submission to the 106th Congress. These proposals build on previous efforts to improve the chances for every American to have a secure retirement of which an adequate level of retirement income is a crucial factor. The proposals are aimed at making it easier for employers to offer pension plans, and for employees to retain their pension benefits when switching jobs. Proposals to encourage small businesses to establish pension plans, and to encourage more individuals to utilize retirement accounts are included. In addition, the Administration's pension proposals also contain numerous simplification initiatives. As we all know, it is assumed that every worker will have retirement income from three different sources--social security, private pensions, and personal savings. This so-called three-legged stool does not exist for many workers, either because they work for employers who do not offer a pension plan, or the benefits offered are inadequate, or because some employees earn too little to save for their retirement on their own. While the 106th Congress is expected to address the problems of the social security system, it is imperative that this Congress expand and improve the private pension system as well. Many workers, like federal workers in FERS, are eligible to save for their retirement through social security, a defined benefit plan, a defined contribution plan, and hopefully through personal savings. In general, employers in the private sector, however, have moved away from offering defined benefit plans, much to the detriment of overall retirement savings. Since 1985, the number of defined benefit plans has fallen from 114,000 to 45,000 last year. The number of defined contribution plans, conversely, has tripled over the last twenty years. While defined contribution plans have the advantage of being highly portable, and are an important source of savings, it is also important to remember that defined contribution plans were intended to supplement, rather than be a primary source of, retirement income. In addition, we cannot ignore the fact that women and minorities face special challenges in obtaining adequate retirement savings. For women, this is directly related to employment patterns. Women are more likely to move in and out of the workforce to take care of children or parents, work in sectors of the economy that have low pension coverage rates, and earn only 72 percent of what men earn. Fifty-two percent of working women do not have pension coverage, and 75 percent of women who work part-time lack coverage. For minorities, lack of pension coverage and a lower pension benefit level is often related to low wages. While 52 percent of white retirees receive an employment-based pension at age 55, only 32 percent of Hispanic Americans and 40 percent of African Americans receive such pensions. While these problems cannot be solved overnight, it is necessary for us to make improvements in the pension system whenever there is an opportunity. I believe we have been provided with just such an opportunity in this Congress, and we should seize that opportunity. The Administration's proposals incorporated into this bill take an important step forward. I encourage my colleagues to join me in making improved pensions a reality for many American workers. The Employee Pension Portability and Accountability Act of 1999 section by section Section 1. Short Title. This legislation is entitled the Employee Pension Portability and Accountability Act of 1999. Section 2. Payroll Deduction for Retirement Savings. This section is intended to promote increased retirement savings among employees. Employees could elect to have contributions, up to a total of $2,000, withheld during the year from their paychecks and contributed to an IRA. Under this Section, employees who are eligible for a deductible IRA could elect to have pre-tax contributions withheld by their employer and deposited to their IRA. These IRA contributions generally would be excluded from taxable income on the W-2 rather than deducted from income on the individual's tax return. However, the amounts would be subject to employment taxes (FICA) and would be reported as contributions to an IRA on the employee's Form W-2. If at the end of the year, the employee is determined not to be eligible for any portion of the $2,000 contribution, the employee would be required to include such amounts as income for that taxable year. The legislative history under this Section also would clarify that employees not eligible for a deductible IRA could use payroll deductions of after tax amounts as contributions to a nondeductible IRA or Roth IRA. Such an arrangement would not constitute the employer sponsoring a plan. The provision would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999. Section 3. Credit for Pension Plan Startup Costs of Small Employers. The credit provided under this Section is intended to be an additional incentive to employers, especially small employers who may not otherwise establish a plan because of high start- up costs. Under this Section, the employer could claim a credit for up to three years after establishing a new qualified defined benefit plan or defined contribution plan including a section 401(k), a SIMPLE, SEP, or IRA payroll deduction arrangement. The credit for the first year of the plan is 50 percent of up to $2,000 in administrative and retirement education expenses. For the second and the third year, the credit would be 50 percent of up to $1000 of such expenses. For purposes of the credit, an eligible employer is one who employs no more than 100 employees in the preceding tax year and the compensation of each employee was at least $5,000 for the year. The employer would be eligible only if such employer did not have a retirement plan prior to establishing the new plan. In addition, the new plan must cover at least 2 employees, and must be made available to all employees who have worked with the employer for at least three months. The credit is effective beginning in the year of enactment and would be available only for plans established on or before December 31, 2000. Thus if an eligible employer established a plan in the year 2000, the credit would be available for the years 2000, 2001, and 2002. Section 4. Secure Money Annuity or Retirement Trusts (SMART). This Section creates a simplified defined benefit plan. As in all defined benefit plans, contributions are made by the employer. The plan would be available to employers with no more than 100 employees who received at least $5,000 in compensation in the prior year. In addition, the employer could not have maintained a defined benefit plan or money purchase plan within the preceding five years. The plan generally would be available to all employees who have completed two years of service with the employer and earned at least $5,000 in compensation. Like all other qualified plans, contributions to the SMART plan would be excludable from income, earnings would be accumulated tax-free, and distributions at the time the distribution is made would be subject to income tax (unless rolled over). Participants would be guaranteed a minimum annual benefit upon retirement, but could receive a larger benefit if the return on the plan assets exceeds specified conservative assumptions. The employee would be guaranteed a minimum annual benefit upon retirement which would be equal to 1 or 2 percent of the employee's compensation plus a minimum rate of return of 5 percent. The minimum annual benefit would be computed based on the employee's average compensation with the employer, the number of years worked, and the percentage elected by the employer. Thus, an employee with 25 years of service, whose average salary was $50,000, and whose employer elected a 2 percent benefit would receive an annual benefit of $25,000 at retirement (age 65). The guaranteed benefit requirement could result in some employers making additional contributions to the employees' account if the rate of return plus the contributions do not produce sufficient assets to pay the minimum guaranteed benefit. If the rate of return exceeds 5 percent, the employee would receive a benefit greater than the minimum guaranteed benefit. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) would provide insurance to ensure the payment of the guaranteed benefit. To permit catch-up contributions on behalf of workers (especially workers nearing retirement age) for the years a retirement plan was not available, an employer could elect a benefit equal to 3 percent of compensation for the first 5 years the plan is in existence. This higher percentage would be elected in lieu of 1 or 2 percent and would have to be made available to all employees. The maximum amount of compensation that could be taken into account for purposes of determining the annual benefit would be $100,000 indexed for inflation. Employees would immediately vest in the contributions made and the earnings that accrue under the plan. Benefits in the account would be treated as all other qualified pension plans, i.e., the contributions or earnings would not be taxable to the employee in the year made (or earned) and the employer would be permitted to deduct currently the contributions made to the plan. Distributions from the plan would be taxable to the employee upon distribution except where the balance is directly rolled over from a SMART plan to another SMART plan by the trustee of the plan. The provision would be effective for calendar years beginning after December 31, 1999. Section 5. Faster Vesting of Employer Matching Contributions. This section changes the vesting requirement for employer contributions. Under current law, employer matching contributions vest after either 5 years cliff vesting or 7 years graded vesting. Under the 5-year vesting, an employee becomes fully vested (i.e., full rights) to employer contributions after the employee has completed five years of service with the employer. If the years of service is less than 5 years, the employee does not vest in any portion of the contributions. Under 7-year graded vesting, the employee becomes fully vested to the employer contributions in increments of 20 percent, which begins after the employee completes three years of service, and is fully vested after seven years of service. Under this provision, the 5-year cliff and the 7-year graded vesting schedules would be modified to provide for 3 year cliff vesting and 6 year graded vesting. The 6 year vesting would begin after the employee has completed two years of service. The vesting schedules would apply for all employer matching contributions made under any qualified plan. The provision would be effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 1999. Section 6A. Pension Right to Know Proposals. This provision would modify current law with respect to a written waiver of a survivor annuity. Under current law, the plan participant (not the spouse) is provided with a written explanation of terms and conditions of the survivor benefit. This provision would require that the same written information provided to the plan participant also is provided to the spouse. This would help the spouse to fully understand both his or her rights under the plan, and the full implication of a waiver of those rights. This provision would be effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 1999. Section 6B. Right to Know Pension Plan Distribution Information. This provision would require employers who use one of the 401(k) safe harbor plan designs to provide employees with sufficient notice that would afford them the real opportunity to make an informed decision regarding electing to contribute (or modify a prior election) to the employer-sponsored plan. The employee would be provided at least a 60-day period before the beginning of each year and a 60-day period when he or she first becomes eligible to participate. In addition, the current requirement that employers notify eligible employees of their rights to make contributions, as well as notify them of the employer contributions formula being used under the plan, would be modified to require that such notice be given within a reasonable period of time before the 60-day period, rather than before the beginning of the year. This provision would be effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 1999. Section 7. Mandatory 1 Percent Employer Contribution Required Under Alternative Methods of meeting Nondiscrimination Requirements for 401(k) Plans. This Section modifies 401(k) matching formula safe harbor by requiring that, in addition to the matching contribution, employers would make a contribution of 1 percent of compensation for each eligible non-highly compensated employee, regardless of whether the employee makes elective contributions. This contribution shows the value of tax- deferred compounding. This provision would not apply where the employer uses the safe harbor design under which the employer contributes 3 percent of compensation on the behalf of each eligible employee without regard to whether the employee makes an elective contribution. This provision would be effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 1999. Section 8. Definition of Highly Compensated Employees. Under current law, a highly compensated employee is defined as an employee who was a 5 percent owner of the employer at any time during the preceding year, or had compensation of $80,000, and if the employer elects, was in the top-paid group of employees for the preceding year. An employee is in the top-paid group if the employee was among the top 20 percent of employees of the employer when ranked on basis of compensation paid to employees in previous years. This Section eliminates the top-paid group from the definition highly compensated employee. Thus, the level of compensation earned or ownership determines whether the employee is highly compensated. This provision would be effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 1999. Section 9. Treatment of Multiemployer Plans under section 415. This Section would repeal the 100 percent-of-compensation limit, but not the $130,000 limit for such plans. Also, it would exempt certain survivor and disability benefits from the adjustments for early commencement and participation, and service of less than 10 years. This provision would be effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 1999. Section 10. Full Funding Limitation for Multiemployer Plans. This Section would eliminate the limit on deductible contributions based on a specified percentage of current liability. The annual dedication for contributions to such a plan would be limited to the amount by which the plan's accrued liability exceeds the value of the plan's assets. This provision would be effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 1999. Section 11. Elimination of Partial Termination Rules for Multiemployer Plans. Under current law, when a qualified retirement plan is terminated, all plan participants are required to become 100 percent vested in their accrued benefits to the extent those benefits are funded. In the case of certain ``partial termination'' that is not actual plan termination, all affected employees must become 100 percent vested in their benefits accrued to the date of the termination, to the extent the benefits are funded. Partial terminations generally occur when there is a significant reduction in workforce covered by the plan. This Section repeals the requirement that affected participants become 100 percent vested in their accrued benefits upon the partial termination of qualified multiemployer retirement plan. This provision would be effective for partial terminations occurring after December 31, 1999. Sec. 12. Rollovers Between Qualified Retirement Plans and Section 403(b) Tax-Sheltered Annuities. Under current law, rules governing eligible rollover distributions do not permit rollover of funds from a section 403(b) tax-sheltered annuity to another type of qualified retirement plan. Amounts saved in a section 403(b) tax- sheltered annuity only can be rolled over to another section 403(b) tax-sheltered annuity. This Section would allow an eligible rollover distribution to be rolled over to a qualified retirement plan, a section 403(b) tax-sheltered annuity, or a traditional IRA. Also, an eligible rollover distribution from a section 403(b) tax-sheltered annuity, could be rolled over to another section 403(b) tax-sheltered annuity, a qualified retirement plan, or a traditional IRA. This provision would be effective for distributions after December 31, 1999. Sec. 13. Rollover of Contributions From Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plans of State and Local Governments to IRAs. Current law does not permit participants of eligible non- qualified deferred compensation plans of States and local governments (section 457 plans) to roll over distributions from these plans to an IRA. This Section would allow participants of section 457 plans to roll over distributions from these plans to an IRA. This provision would be effective for distributions after December 31, 1999. Sec. 14. Rollover of IRA Contributions To A Qualified Retirement Plan. Current law does not allow contributions made to an IRA, not including rollover contributions from a qualified retirement plan or a section 403(b) tax-sheltered annuity, to be rolled over to an employer-sponsored qualified retirement plan. This provision would allow individuals to roll over these traditional IRA contributions to a qualified plan, including section 403(b) tax-sheltered annuities. This provision would be effective for distributions after December 31, 1999. Sec. 15. Rollover of After-Tax Contributions. Current law permits employees to make after-tax contributions to qualified retirement plans but they are not allowed to roll over distribution of these amounts either to an IRA or a qualified retirement plan. This provision would allow employees to roll over their after-tax contributions as part of an eligible rollover to a traditional IRA or an employer-sponsored qualified plan provided that the receiving plan or IRA provider agrees to track and report the after-tax portion of the rollover contribution for the individual. This provision would be effective for distributions after December 31, 1999. Sec. 16. Purchase of Service Credit in Governmental Defined Benefit Plans. This provision would permit employees of State and local governments, particular teachers, who often move between States and school districts in the course of their careers to make tax-free transfers from their section 403(b) tax- sheltered annuities of governmental section 457 plans to purchase service credits under their defined benefit plan. This provision would be effective for distributions after December 31, 1999. Sec. 17. Modifications to Joint and Survivor Annuity Requirements. This provision would modify current law to provide that retirement plans which are required to provide a joint and survivor annuity option must include the option under which the plan participant could elect to receive a lifetime benefit equal to at least 75 percent of the benefit, to be paid to the surviving spouse, the couple received while both were alive. Under current law, a joint survivor annuity provides for a benefit of 50 percent of the benefit received while both are alive. This provision would be effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 1999, with an extended effective date for plans maintained pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. Sec. 18. Period of Family and Medical Leave Treated as Hours of Service for Pension Participation and Vesting. This provision would allow leave taken by an employee under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to be taken into account for purposes of (a) determining the employee's eligibility to participate in the employer-sponsored plan, and (b) vesting in benefits accrued to the employee's retirement account/plan. This provision would be effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 1999.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to permanently fix the tax problem caused by the fact that the new tax credits for education and children are limited by the alternative minimum tax (AMT). Consequently, more and more average Americans who use the dependent care credit, the new child credit, the HOPE credit or the lifelong learning credit, will be forced to fill out the complex alternative minimum tax form. Even worse, a growing number of Americans will have all or part of these credits denied by the interaction of the regular federal income tax and the alternative minimum tax. This is not a new issue. Last year I introduced legislation, H.R. 4489, to permanently fix this problem. Once it was clear that permanent legislation would not pass, I introduced H.R. 4611 to correct this problem for 1998. This one year temporary ``fix'' did pass Congress last fall as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act. This year, the Administration's budget includes a two year ``fix'' of this problem. This is simply not enough. This is a permanent problem; it demands a permanent solution. Specifically, my legislation allows personal nonrefundable credits to be used against AMT liability. Nonrefundable credits include the child credit, the HOPE and lifetime learning credits, the dependent care credit, and the adoption tax credit. In addition, the bill eliminates the complex interaction of the partially refundable family credit with the AMT. In doing so, the bill would eliminate a penalty faced by large families. Under current law, the total allowable amount of nonrefundable personal credits may not exceed the amount by which the individual's regular income tax liability exceeds the individual's tentative minimum tax. For families with three or more children, an additional refundable child credit is provided and this is reduced by the amount of the individual's minimum tax liability. This requires all taxpayers who claim the child credit with incomes above $45,000 for joint filers and $33,750 for single filers to make at least a rudimentary minimum tax calculation. The Department of the Treasury estimated that in 1998, without the one year ``fix'', eight hundred thousand taxpayers who are entitled to the child credit or the education credits would have been denied the full benefit of these credits by the AMT. In order to eliminate the complexities of the AMT in a revenue neutral manner, this bill reduces the income phase-outs for the child credit from $110,000 to $91,000 on a joint return, and from $7,500 to $60,000 for single filers. According to the IRS, the estimated average time it takes to fill out the alternative minimum tax form is 5 hours and 39 minutes. It would, of course, take much longer for hundreds of thousands of taxpayers who may be forced to fill this form out for the first time as a result of the credits Congress offered them last year in the name of child care and education. And to show how truly perverse this provision is, the interaction between the AMT and the partially refundable child credit will result in a tax increase on 177,000 large families if the Republican 10 percent across the board tax cut was passed into law. Some might respond that they intend to fix this problem later, but that is exactly the type of thinking that put us in this situation to begin with. Mr. Speaker, this bill is ``must pass'' legislation, and it must be passed on a bipartisan, revenue neutral, permanent basis. I hope it will be.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to William J. Scott, a man who for the past 30 years has made the streets and neighborhoods of Longmeadow, Massachusetts, a safer place to live and raise a family. As a veteran of the Longmeadow Police Department, Sergeant Scott consistently served his community with compassion, courage and dignity. Tonight as his friends and family celebrate his retirement, I urge my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives to congratulate Bill on a job well done, and wish him the best for a happy and healthy future. Bill Scott joined the Longmeadow Police Department in the Spring of 1965 and quickly earned the reputation as a consummate law enforcement professional. He excelled at every level, from Safety Officer, to Detective, and finally Sergeant, to which he was promoted in 1981. When he announced his retirement in February, he did so as the most senior Sergeant on the force. He leaves with an impeccable reputation as a dedicated, honest and hard working cop who will be genuinely missed by his fellow officers. Bill Scott is also known in western Massachusetts as a sports enthusiast, which dates back to even before his days as a standout athlete at Springfield's Technical High School. Whether it is an adult hockey league or the old-timers softball team, you are sure to find Bill competing year round, surrounded by his many loyal friends. Mr. Speaker, it is also fitting at this time to pay tribute to Bill's wife Judy, with whom he has celebrated over 35 years of marriage, their two children Bill Jr. and Beth, their spouses Marybeth and Kevin, and their grandchildren Kaitlin and T.J. For their caring and support, they too deserve special recognition on this important occasion. On behalf of the United States of America, I am proud to join Bill's family, friends and colleagues who are gathered at the Log Cabin tonight in offering my sincere congratulations on your retirement from the Longmeadow Police Department after more than three decades of unprecedented service.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation along with several of my colleagues in the Massachusetts Delegation to alter the federal tax treatment of real property tax reduction vouchers received by senior citizens for volunteer work. Several towns in Massachusetts have tried 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 the town in exchange for a voucher that reduces their property taxes by up to $500. Seniors have volunteered in libraries, recreational centers, parks and senior centers in exchange for these vouchers. The House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed a bill last year to exempt these vouchers from income for purposes of the State income tax. While the State Senate did not take up the bill last year, I am informed that this issue will be brought up again in the State Legislature this year. The legislation I am introducing would exclude from gross income vouchers issued by a government unit and received by senior citizens in exchange for volunteer work. The voucher could only offset real property taxes imposed by the government unit that issued the voucher, and no real property tax deduction would be allowed to the extent of the amount excluded from gross income by the voucher. 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. I very much hope we can address this issue this year, and encourage other towns in Massachusetts and across the country to ease the financial plight of many of our senior citizens.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the lifelong commitment to youth athletics in Western Massachusetts of Mr. William C. ``Billy'' Sullivan. For the past fifty years, Billy Sullivan has been a fixture on the sidelines of playing fields throughout the Greater Springfield area. As a football, basketball, and baseball player, Billy displayed an unmatchable drive to succeed. his dedication to fair play and high quality athletics has been evident since he was a young man, and has continued to this day. Billy Sullivan's dedication to athletics as a coach, manager, and organizer is unparalleled. He has coached local youth teams for well over thirty years, including a stint as manager of the Sacred Heart Semi-pro baseball team. He has been a sitting member on the Catholic Basketball League Board of Directors, the Springfield Pee Wee Baseball Leagues Board of Directors, the Basketball Hall of Fame Tip-Off Committee, and the Basketball Hall of Fame Board of Trustees. He has been Chairman of John L. Sullivan Day at Pynchon Park, the NCAA Division II Elite 8 Basketball Championships, the Springfield Civic Basketball Committee, and the Springfield Peach Basket Festival Committee. His public service resume includes time as a Member of the Massachusetts General Court, City Clerk of the City of Springfield, and Mayor of the City of Springfield. Billy Sullivan's commitment to youth athletics will be on display on the weekend of March 26-28, 1999. Over 1,500 children, ages 7-17, will descent upon Western Massachusetts to participate in the 40th annual New England Catholic Youth Organization Basketball Tournament. Proceeds generated by the tournament will be donated to Brightside for Families and Children in care of the Vinny Del Negro Endowment Fund. Billy Sullivan and Vinny Del Negro are the co-chairman for this popular event. Mr. Speaker, allow me to pay tribute to the service, commitment, and character of Mr. William C. Sullivan. He has proved himself to be an indispensable member of his community, as a leader, an organizer, and an advocate of youth athletics in Western Massachusetts.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to clarify that the employees of a political subdivision of a State shall not loose 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 from 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 loose 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 of 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 loose the benefit of the grandfather rule merely because they have been consoditated with a State government.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) who has been a good leader on this issue and a faithful friend as well. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who has had a long interest in the issues and affairs of Northern Ireland.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh). Mr. Speaker, there is high significance to this issue as we confront it here again on the House floor in the sense that in terms of international relations, this issue was inspired by Members of the House. It was the constant vigilance of the Members of the House of Representatives many years ago that played an enormous role in bringing this question to the surface and allowing members of the international community to pass some judgment. I want to thank Mr. Walsh. Time and again, like many Members of the Republican Party, he and others have been of great assistance on this question over a long period of time. As one who has been involved in the issue of Ireland for the better part of two decades, in fairness it should be acknowledged this afternoon how far we have come. But the truth is, as we have continued to role the boulder back up the hill time and again in the face of obstacles, some minor and some major, it has been the vigilance of this Congress that has ensured that all voices have rightly been heard. But let me, if I can, speak for a few moments about the Good Friday Agreement and the issue of decommissioning, as it is commonly known. The Good Friday Agreement states that all participants reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organizations and to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following the endorsement of referendums in the north and the south of Ireland. What is significant about this occasion, I believe, is that nowhere in the Good Friday Agreement is that issue compromised. It is pointed out time and again in a prescribed timetable that the people in the Republic of Ireland and the north of Ireland simultaneously voted for and endorsed. So what brings us to this point on the House floor? We are here because, once again, the Nationalist community, the Social Democratic and Labor party, led by John Hume, and the Sinn Fein political party, led by its president, Gerry Adams, have met all of the agreements that were reached on Good Friday under the substantial and able leadership of former Senator and our friend George Mitchell. And what has been their reward as they have gotten to the goal line? As they have gotten to the goal line, the response has been to move the goal posts back. Sinn Fein and SDLP both have stated emphatically that there are no preconditions that have been offered nor none that were accepted on the issue of decommissioning. But what do we have as a response from David Trimble and the Ulster Unionist party? They have sought to rewrite and to renegotiate the agreement on the matter of decommissioning. What is to suggest to the Nationalist community that if they want to subscribe to this precondition, that another precondition might not be offered in the near future, as it has always been done in the far and recent past? David Trimble in this instance, who, by the way, has won a Nobel Peace Prize, and I held great hopes for just a few weeks ago, has attempted to review the agreement that the people on the island of Ireland have voted for. He and some of his allies have deliberately delivered a crisis in the peace process by refusing to cooperate in the establishment of the new political institutions in the north of Ireland that, once again, the people in those six counties have voted for. They have repeatedly missed deadlines, and they have used decommissioning as an excuse to try to review the whole topic. What is sorely needed here is the leadership of the First Minister in Waiting to accede to the views of the electorate and to all of the political parties by Monday of next week, or February 15th. David Trimble and the Unionist party should not be allowed to park, to rewrite, or to renegotiate this agreement that was approved by the vast majority. Ten months after the agreement and nine months after the historic North-South referendums, the Assembly, the Executive and the North-South Council have still not been established. The refusal to establish these new institutions is in fundamental conflict with the letter of the Good Friday Agreement. It is undemocratic and a denial of the rights and wishes of a majority of the people who voted for that agreement on May 22, 1998. We cannot diminish on this occasion or on this floor how significant this achievement has been. To think that all of the political parties, with the exception of some fringe elements, have come to the bargaining table and hammered out an agreement with the endorsement of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, who both have done a great job, now to discover as the deadline for the North-South bodies approach that the would-be First Minister has decided to erect a new barrier to the accomplishment of our overall goal, and that is to have a role for Dublin in the day- to-day affairs in the north of Ireland. It was just a few weeks ago that we saw the process stumble and we saw Prime Minister Blair intercede to help pick it up. In this instance, we hope once again that he would be willing to do precisely that. We should not underestimate how far this has come. We should time and again remind ourselves that we are now far up the hill as to where we once were. But it needs an extra nudge, and the nudge would be, I believe, to encourage Prime Minister Blair, and if it is the consensus of the political parties in the North, Bill Clinton, to once again intercede. But if we are to find ourselves each and every step along the way in this process of having a referendum which parties agree to and the parties all endorse, and then to say at the end of the day that is not entirely what was meant, we have to go back and revisit all of these issues that have intervened in recent time, then the agreement will collapse of its own weight, and none of us here who have been party to this solution want to see that happen. It is time for the development of these bodies, fully in compliance and in agreement with the wishes of the people in the North.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Newark, New Jersey (Mr. Payne). Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Baltimore (Mr. Ben Cardin), a good friend to the Irish peace process, as well.

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for calling attention to what happened on the night of January 14, 1998, when Terry Enright, a 28-year-old nationalist, was killed by the Loyalist volunteer forces outside of a Belfast pub. He was the 3,233rd person killed in the 30 years of sectarian conflict in the north of Ireland. His wife, Deidre, is a niece of Gerry Adams. His funeral was the largest burial service since Bobby Sands in 1981, attracting thousands of people from both the Nationalist and the Unionist communities. They came in such numbers because Terry Enright was a popular social worker and an athlete who worked with disadvantaged youths. He was a role model to both Protestant and Catholic youngsters who participated in his Outward Bound program and admired his message of nonviolence. Many people said they would remember the funeral, where two bright rainbows appeared when the casket was brought to the church and when it was eventually taken away to the cemetery. On the 1-year anniversary of his death, let us remember the life and spirit of Terry Enright, and let us pay tribute to a brave young man who rose above the conflict and dreamed of an Ireland free of violence and sectarian hate. This life highlights how difficult this task has been, but at the same time, the acknowledgment demonstrates how far we have all come in this process. We should note the work of not only the friends of Ireland here in this Congress, with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and many others on the Ad Hoc Committee on Irish Issues, but also the role that President Clinton, Prime Minister Blair, Mo Mowlam and Bertie Ahern have played, as well as John Hume and Gerry Adams. We should not be discouraged at this time. We can only hope and pray that the best instincts of all the parties will prevail in the next few weeks as we enter this critical phase once again of Irish history. We hope and conclude in the near future that all the people on the island of Ireland will live in an agreed-upon Ireland. I thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jim Walsh) for organizing this special order. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record this article from the Online Edition of the Irish News. The article referred to is as follows: (From Irish News: Online Edition, Feb. 11, 1999) Squaring the Arms Circle The future of Northern Ireland will be decided within weeks. Next week the assembly will decide whether or not to adopt proposals for a 10-member executive and cross-border bodies. In the next week or two the executive will be established in shadow form, ready to accept powers back from Westminster. The deadline for that is March 10--though Tony Blair and Mo Mowlam have both said they are prepared to allow some slippage. Progress depends on reconciling David Trimble's refusal to sit alongside Sinn Fein ministers in the absence of concrete decommissioning with Sinn Fein's refusal to link membership of the executive with the hand-over of arms. Nobody knows how this particular circle will be squared. One thing is certain, neither Mr. Trimble nor his Sinn Fein counterpart Gerry Adams seems willing to give way first. The most likely formula revolves around the status of ministers. It has been suggested that the appointment of ministers with shadow powers would be a clear signal to republicans of unionist bona fides. This in turn would give republicans space for the beginning of actual decommissioning. There may be an element of wishful thinking here. But it is difficult to see any other solution which would give both sides the space they need. Mr. Trimble would be able to tell his electorate that republicans would not bet a hand on the reins of power without movement on weapons. Mr. Adams would be able to say that Sinn Fein ministers had been appointed without decommissioning being given in return. Both men should take encouragement from the real desire for movement within the community they serve. That was well articulated yesterday by the G7 group which represents business and the trades unions. Their interests are at one with the interests of the entire community. They know all too well that political stability will bring enormous economic rewards. Sir George Quigley put the issue succinctly when he said: ``For everybody to wait for somebody else to move before moving themselves is a sure recipe for permanent immobility. ``Northern Ireland has no future of any quality except as a stable, inclusive, fair, prosperous and outward-looking society.'' That fact has not been lost on the prime minister. Yesterday Downing Street let it be known that Tony Blair intended to become ``much more fully engaged'' in the coming weeks. Mr. Blair has played a crucial role in moving the process forward. He has done so because he has earned the respect of both traditions. He should know that the vast majority of people on this island, as well as within Northern Ireland, will support efforts to find a way around this problem which recognizes the concerns of both sides and strives for an accommodation.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak, if I could for just a few moments again, about that policing issue. It was touched upon by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) earlier and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), but it is a crucial issue in terms of developing some faith in the institutions of governance in the north of the nationalist community that they fundamentally see a change in the identity of the police force. They cannot be seen as occupiers in a land that people see as their own. There have to be changes in the uniform, the name of the force, the emblems and the flag of the new force that will eventually command respect in both communities. We seek not the triumph of one community over the other as much as an agreed upon Northern Ireland. What we ask for is that North-South policing cooperation reinforce community confidence, and that a permanent international team be sent to the north to monitor the implementation of the agreements and the reforms as proposed. This opportunity must be emphasized in terms of the overall agreements in the north. If we are to have a professional police force, it must be one that is acceptable to both sections of the community and indeed, to both traditions. And while the Good Friday Agreement calls for a new beginning to policing, it has been slow to come about, and we are anxious to see the Patten Commission deliver on the agreement of policing and to see the composition of the police force of the URC in the north be dramatically changed. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Newark, New Jersey (Mr. Payne), an individual who again has been a great friend on this issue.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague, Mr. McCrery. Today, Mr. McCrery and I are introducing legislation to permanently extend the exception from subpart F for active financing income earned from overseas business. The growing interdependence of world financial markets has highlighted the need to rationalize U.S. tax rules that undermine the ability of our financial services industry--such as banks, insurance companies, insurance brokers, and securities firms--to compete in the international arena. The provision permits financial services to act like other U.S. industries doing business abroad and defer tax on the earnings from the active operation of their foreign subsidiaries until such earnings are returned to the United States. The permanent extension of this provision takes an important step towards making the U.S. financial services industry more competitive in international markets. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to address this issue prior to the expiration of the temporary provision.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, while we grapple with this issue tonight, we are all a bit uncertain about what this is all about, but we know what it is not about. It is not Watergate, it is certainly not Iran-Contra, and astonishingly enough, after the expenditure of $56 million and an investigation that has gone on longer than the Civil War, it is not about Whitewater. Contrast the way the Republican leadership has handled this issue with the way Tip O'Neill handled Iran-Contra, when he decided never to put the Nation through a trial when he knew Ronald Reagan would never be removed from office. What we have seen in this Congress really is the occurrence of 2 things: One, the rise of the Intimidator Caucus on the Republican side where they have intimidated moderate Republicans into voting for this impeachment proceeding. Secondly, we ask ourselves tonight, whatever happened to moderate Republicans?

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Reinstatement of Medicare Bonus and Capital Payments for Rehabilitation Act of 1998. This bill would restore the full incentive payment percentages for PPS-exempt rehabilitation hospitals and units that were repealed in Section 4415 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA). The restored percentages would remain in effect only until the new prospective payment system (PPS) for inpatient rehabilitation services in fully phased in by October 1, 2002. The bill would also change the provision in the BBA that reduced capital payments for PPS-exempt hospitals and units by 15 percent for FY 1999-2002. Prior to the BBA, qualifying PPS-exempt hospitals were eligible to obtain an incentive payment for keeping their costs below their TEFRA limits. That payment was the lesser of 50 percent of the difference between their costs and the TEFRA limit, or 5 percent of the limit. This system encourages these facilities to incorporate efficiencies without compromising service or quality for their patients. The BBA reduced the applicable percentages to 15 percent and 2 percent, respectively. This modification for paying PPS-exempt (TERFA) hospitals dramatically reduces incentive payments that were designed to reward efficient facilities that are able to keep costs below their TEFRA limits. The earlier formula actually worked as it was intended. It provided an incentive for PPS-exempt hospitals to keep costs below TEFRA limits while still retaining high quality care. This is evidenced by the fact that patient outcomes have remained the same, despite a decrease in average lengths of stay in PPS-exempt hospitals. The BBA provision reduces incentive payments so significantly the payments are unlikely to motivate facilities to further reduce lengths of stay. And there could easily be additional negative ramifications to this misguided policy. First, absent incentives to hold down costs, many facilities may increase lengths of stay if it is more economically feasible to do so. The end result will be increased costs to the Medicare program. In fact, a one-day increase in average Medicare length of stay in rehabilition facilities would result in increase payments of about $200 million. This is substantially more than the amount ``saved'' by the BBA's new formula. Second, incentive payments should be retained to hold costs down and motivate efficiencies since payments under the new PPS system will be set to total 98 percent of what would have been paid absent the PPS system. That is why it is particularly important that Congress offer providers incentives to hold down costs in the interim. However, under the bill, the restored incentive payments would be retained only until the new PPS for inpatient rehabilitation services, also authorized by the BBA, is fully implemented. Third, increased lengths of stay may negatively impact patient outcomes if providing necessary rehabilition services is postponed to lengthen a patient's stay. This could lead to another negative--a shortage of beds. It follows that longer lengths of stay will also mean that fewer beds will be available for new patients who require access to rehabilitation services. Fourth, a shortage of rehabilitation beds could also negatively effect hospitals' costs. Hospitals could end up keeping patients, who otherwise would have been discharged, for longer periods. This would increase their costs. Finally, many facilities have used incentive payments in the past to help fund building programs for persons with disabilities. These programs also will likely suffer under the revised BBA incentive payment scheme. My bill would also change the provision in the BBA which imposed a 15-percent reduction in capital payments for PPA-exempt hospitals and units for FY 1999-2002. This provision is very problematic. Rehabilitation facilities and others are paid on a cost basis, not on a prospective payment basis as other hospitals and providers. They were exempted from capital cuts in the past because of this difference. The argument for full reimbursement of capital is that a provider under cost reimbursement has no opportunity to make up the loss of capital payments through operating efficiencies. If operating costs go down, so does reimbursement, and the provider is stuck with payment below cost. The provider does not have any incentives to become more efficient, thus the rationale for the incentive bonus payment. This argument is still valid. However, the incentive payment has also been seriously reduced. A 15-percent cut in capital reimbursement will cost PPS-exempt providers at least $79 million. Total incentive payments are likely to be far less than the aggregate loss from the 15-percent cut in capital reimbursement. Few rehabilitation providers can cover capital cuts with incentive payments. This means that almost all rehabilitation providers will be paid below cost. Compounding this situation is the fact that a rehabilitation provider does not have the same opportunity as other providers to shift costs to other payers. Because rehabilitation hospitals are heavily dependent on Medicare, they have few non-Medicare patients on whom they can shift costs. That is because 70 percent of admissions and 65 percent of days in rehabilitation are covered by Medicare fee for service. This rate of Medicare utilization is unique among provider groups. Until the PPS system authorized by the BBA is fully implemented, capital cuts should not be imposed on PPS-exempt rehabilitation hospitals and units. Full payment of capital should continue under the cost-based system because, unlike providers in a PPS system, PPS-exempt providers have no opportunity to make up the loss of capital payments through operating efficiencies. If operating costs go down, so do reimbursements. For the rehabilitation entities, that leaves the only other way to generate revenue from Medicare--cover the shortfall on capital reimbursement through incentive payments--which the BBA also reduced. For this reason, almost all rehabilitation providers will be paid below cost under the BBA. That is why I am introducing my bill today. We need to enact this legislation which will repeal Section 4415 and restore the former 50/50 incentive payment formula until a PPS for inpatient rehabilitation services is fully implemented. It also removes the provision that reduces capital reimbursement for rehabilitation hospitals and units for FY 1999-2002. I appreciate your support and look forward to working with all of you on this very important issue.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments today to pay a special tribute to a colleague of mine who at the end of this legislative session will be retiring after a long and distinguished career from the United States House of Representatives. Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy, II, a native son of Massachusetts and the eldest son of Ethel and the late Robert F. Kennedy, will soon be returning to our great State to, along with other pursuits, run Citizens' Energy Corporation, the low-income assistance program he founded in the early 1980's. Before he departs, I would like to take a few moments today to honor his accomplishments here in the House and to tell you more about the man I regard as my friend. Joe Kennedy roots for the underdog and leaves behind in Washington a long track record of standing on the side of people who don't view government as an intrusion, but instead, as a means for achieving justice and dignity in life. Whether working to assist the homeless, children, the poor, the elderly or the disabled, Joe Kennedy has always brought a special earnestness and passion to his work. As a result, his legislative achievements on the Banking Committee and in the House have been many, and the impact of his charitable and meaningful work will continue to be felt for years to come. Since 1986, his constituents in the 8th District of Massachusetts have known of Congressman Joe Kennedy's dedication. They, like those of us who work with him regularly, also know of the many endearing qualities he brings to the table. Joe Kennedy is a remarkably kind man, and it is his heart, not political polls or newspaper headlines, that is the compass that guides him in here in Washington. Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy, II has continued the great legacy of his father and his uncle, and it is his heart and his commitment to what is right and just that people from Massachusetts and across the Nation will miss most. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Joe Kennedy, my friend, for his many years of hard work in the United States Congress. I wish Joe and his wife Beth all the best on the road that rises to meet them in the years that lie ahead.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I want to thank first of all the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) for bringing this bill to the floor. I believe that, by and large, this is a very good piece of legislation. I support extension of the expiring provisions, and I am pleased that we will have this chance today to ensure that these provisions do not expire and that there will be no lapse in these valuable tax credits. The Research Experimentation Credit is important to Massachusetts. Massachusetts is the home of many high-tech companies and universities that develop technology. The research tax credit inspires the development of technology, which leads to both economic and job growth. The work opportunity tax credit plays a vital role in helping individuals move from welfare to work. This credit is a valuable program that enables many individuals to become self-sufficient. The program has been effective, and it should indeed be continued. Madam Speaker, there is one provision I believe, however, that should have been included in this legislation. Recently I have introduced legislation, H.R. 4611, which provides a temporary waiver for the taxable year 1998 of minimum tax rules that deny many families the full amount of the nonrefundable personal credit such as the child tax credit and the HOPE and lifetime learning credits. The Senate finance package included this provision in their extenders bill. I commend them for addressing this important issue, and I hope that we will seriously consider accepting this provision from the Senate. The Senate bill strikes the appropriate balance between families and business. The House bill addresses important issues, but the Senate bill, I believe, goes further in including an extremely important provision for families, temporary relief from the interaction of the minimum tax with the child tax credit. Without this fix, all families who claim the child credit with incomes above $45,000 for joint filers and $33,750 for single filers will be required to make some sort of minimum tax calculation. The minimum tax is not only complicated, it can penalize middle income taxpayers who claim the new personal tax credits. The Department of Treasury estimates that, in 1998, the alternative minimum tax will deny 800,000 taxpayers who are entitled to both the child tax credit and the education tax credit the full benefits of these credits. Without enactment of legislation to address this issue, taxpayers who are planning to claim the child credit should be warned that the computation of their taxes will be difficult, time consuming and, I believe, unnecessarily complex. Without simplifying the child tax credit, the child tax credit form that will be required on next year's tax filing will become a nightmare. Madam Speaker, it is a shame that we did not address this issue in this bill today. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that a 1- year solution for taxable year 1998 would cost $474 million. But by not addressing the interaction of minimum tax with nonrefundable personal credits, many families will be cheated of the credits that we, indeed, promised them. The average family will have to pay a tax return preparer in order to fill out forms for these new credits. Let me also share a quote with my colleagues from a letter that I witnessed today from the editor of Tax Notes, Mr. Christopher Bergin. He says, Apparently, few of us Washington types are surprised that the basis of the bill Republican leaders were trying to build at the last minute is a package extending expiring provisions that help mostly business or rich people who like to name foundations after themselves. But House leaders are taking the chance that those outside of Washington, the average taxpayers, may figure out that their congressional representatives did not have time to prevent the alternative minimum tax from eating their child credits because they were too busy taking care of multinational financial intermediaries. I disagree with part of what was stated, but I also believe that we should have taken up this issue, and I hope that we will do so in the near future. I have introduced a permanent solution this year, and I hope that we will give families the opportunity that we stated just a short time ago, and I hope that we will not bury them in their tax forms come 1999. I also thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) once again for getting this bill to the floor. By and large, it is a very good piece of legislation. Madam Speaker, I support extension of the expiring tax provisions. Unfortunately, this was a very small bill whose main purpose was to extend the expiring provisions. Other valuable provisions were not able to be included. I would like to briefly mention a provision that was included in the House-passed version of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, but it was not enacted because it was not included in the conference agreement. This provision clarifies the tax treatment of the state-mandated consolidation of mutual savings bank life insurance departments. Savings Bank Life Insurance is unique to the three States of New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. Last year with the help of Chairman Archer, the House addressed this issue. This provision clarifies the tax treatment of a 12-year dividends payout associated with a state-mandated consolidation by treating it as a deductible policyholder dividend rather than a non-deductible redemption of equity. This provision is extremely important to Massachusetts because in 1990, the State legislature consolidated the State's saving bank life insurance departments into a new non-public stock company, while still providing for the sale of its products through these State banking institutions. New York and Connecticut may follow the consolidation approach taken by Massachusetts. I am enclosing a letter to Chairman Archer thanking him for his assistance on this issue. I look forward to bringing closure to this issue next Congress. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, October 8, 1998. Hon. Chairman Bill Archer, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth HOB, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Archer: I am writing to thank you for your continued support for a provision that addresses potential adverse consequences for Savings Bank Life Insurance (SBLI) institutions that are unique to the three states of New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. Last year with your invaluable assistance, a provision was included in the House passed Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, but it was not enacted because it was not included in the conference agreement for that legislation. The provision would clarify the tax treatment of the state-mandated consolidation of mutual savings banks' life insurance departments. More specifically, the provision would clarify how the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 should treat certain policyholder dividends mandated by the Massachusetts State Legislature in 1990. This legislation consolidated the state's saving bank life insurance departments into a new non-public stock company, while still providing for the sale of its products through these state banking institutions. Because of the IRS's interpretation of current law, it is essential that Congress clarify that the 12-year dividends payout associated with this consolidation should be treated as a deductible policyholder dividend rather than a non- deductible redemption of equity. While only the Savings Bank Life Insurance Company of Massachusetts will be affected by the IRS's current interpretation of the Code, the SBLI industries in both New York and Connecticut may be adversely affected if the Code is not properly clarified because they may follow the consolidation approach taken by Massachusetts. Once again, Mr. Chairman thank you for your assistance. I look forward to working with you on this issue next Congress. Sincerely, Richard E. Neal, Member of Congress.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity today to congratulate the Polish American Veterans;' (PAV) Club of Wilbraham, Massachusetts on its 50th anniversary. The PAV in Wilbraham has for half a century played a vital role in its community. In celebration of this noteworthy occasion, I take this opportunity to express my personal congratulations to each and every member of the Club, and to enter the complete history of the Polish American Veterans' Club of Wilbraham, Massachusetts into today's Congressional Record. The History The hostilities of World War II had come to a close and the veterans were returning to their homes where their families were anxiously preparing a warm welcome. The local Organizations and merchants also combined their efforts to extend their greetings through a ``Welcome Home Day.'' The men and women who were being honored at these events formed a new segment in our community, ``Veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States.'' The loose social association these men held in the months following their return coupled with their similarity of interests, ambitions and background inspired the idea for the formation of an organizational of local Veterans. Uniting any group into a functioning organization required the leadership of a person who is familiar with the aspirations and problems of the group, along with a deep interest in their progress. The Veterans of the Tri-Town area were fortunate in having a man who qualified in every respect as an organizer. His interest in the welfare of this body must have had a great influence on leading them into organization. The man, Father A. Rys, then curate of the Immaculate Conception Parish. His uniting efforts during these important organizational meetings resulted in the formation of a strong ``Polish American Veterans Club.'' Father called the first meeting on February 23, 1947, where various types of Veterans groups were discussed. A committee, headed by Edward Haluch, was formed to do research into an organization that would function best in this area. The new club was to be founded by the Veterans of Polish extraction from the Indian Orchard, Ludlow and Wilbraham area to encourage social acquaintances among members for the advancement of social, educational and economic welfare of its members. With these ideals in mind, a committee was delegated the task of drawing By-Laws. Thus, the first meeting had set the organizational wheels in motion. During subsequent meetings officers were elected and committees for an efficiently functioning organization were appointed. The first few officers were: President, John Kiebania; First Vice President, Al Sambor; Second Vice President, Mitchell Kowalski; Clerk, Emil Wysik, Financial Secretary, Joseph Popeo; Treasurer, Bernie Smola; Service Officer, Dr. Francis Bacewicz; and Sergeant at Arms, Louis Grondalski. The name of the club was to be ``The Polish American Veterans of Indian Orchard, Ludlow and Wilbraham.'' Founded on the principle of social unity and community service, the club prospered in the ensuring years. From its inception, a vigorous athletic program was sponsored, the most successful of all being the baseball team which drew an enthusiastic following. They identified the organization throughout the Western Massachusetts area when they captured the Knights of Columbus Tournament in 1949 and were runner-up for the Western Massachusetts Amateur Baseball Championship in 1950. The basketball team was no less successful, in that they shared the limelight in completing the season as Western Massachusetts Champions in 1952. The bowling league and hockey team kept the members active in the winter months. In addition to the organized league activities an intramural basketball program was initiated and impromptu volleyball games or golf matches filled what spaces remained in the sports calendar. Trophies representing championships in every major sport are held by the club. In 1949, the Club Members remodels the old dairy building on 4\1/2\ Action Street as their temporary home and for ten years it served as an informal meeting place for members. The good management of the small clubhouse plus the aid of the members had placed the organization in a financial position which made the erection of new quarters possible. The purpose of this venture was to house all the club activities and to serve as a meeting place for the entire community. A building committee was appointed and in January 1959 at a specially called meeting, the plans for the new building were accepted by a vote of the body. The dedication of the ``Polish American Veterans Club'' was held on January 30, 1960. The membership broadened its scope in community service. We expanded our sports program to include the youth in the area by sponsoring baseball, girls' softball, hockey, soccer and basketball. We also sponsored a visit of the West Point Glee Club for a performance at the Springfield Auditorium. Many Club Members and their families had the pleasure of meeting the cadets personally by sharing their homes for an evening stay. The Polish American Veterans were instrumental in the renovation of the Kosciuszko Garden at West Point Military Academy. The Sunshine Village and many charitable organizations receive annual donations. The Ludlow Hospital was given a sizable donation for their fund drive. The cost of a classroom was given to Christ the King Social Center. A new Church Altar was presented to the Immaculate Conception Church. The Fire and Police Departments in the Tri-Town area received life-saving and communication equipment. The area Libraries are given hard cover books periodically. The annual United Polish Clubs Scholarship Dinner-Dance is held in the Veterans Ballroom. Biannual bus trips to the Holyoke Soldiers Home fill buses with Members, the Auxiliary, Polish pierogies, rye bread, horseradish, kielbasa and home baked pastries plus prize winning money for Bingo Games which is shared with the resident patient veterans. The Post also adopted a wing at the Holyoke Soldiers Home for which we funded interior decorations and supplies. The greatest highlight in the Club history was the founding of the ``Polish American Auxiliary.'' The women organized in 1952 under the same policy and the same aims as the Veterans Club. The ``Auxiliary'' has been indispensable in providing assistance to the Club. They have been a mainspring in devising fund raising methods. Our major fund raisers are joint ventures of the Veterans and the Auxiliary. The Labor Day Weekend Picnic and the Annual Breakfast-Brunch. In June 1962, the Wilbraham Post became affiliated with the Polish American Veterans of Massachusetts. Our Post hosted State Conventions in 1964, 1970, 1976 and 1984. The most outstanding was the 1976 Convention and Parade complete with 15 State Posts and their Marching Bands. The march was led by our own ``Minute Men'' dressed in Revolutionary War Uniforms. This Parade was one of our contributions to the year-long celebrations of the United States 200th Birthday Party. Many of our Club Veterans and Auxiliary Members served as officers in the State Department of the Polish American Veterans of Massachusetts. To this date, 6 Club Veterans have been elected State Commanders and 2 Auxiliary Members were elected State Presidents. The Town of Wilbraham generously deeded to the Polish American Veterans surplus Pine School land along with a parcel which was taken from the Polish American Veterans by eminent domain for School purposes. This enabled the Club to construct additional paved off-aces parking, an outdoor pavilion and open land for recreational activity. Socially we continue to celebrate the annual Dinner-Dance; the Joint Installation of Officers; a Spring-Fling; a Steak Barbecue; a Hawaiian Night; the Membership Jamboree and the Children's Party. There are also Bowling and Golf Tournament Banquets. This gives all our members and their friends additional opportunity for continued fellowship in a most friendly atmosphere. There is a more serious side to this organization. Annually, the Members and the Auxiliary gather in their Parade Dress for a march to church to pray for the souls of the deceased Members and Comrades who perished in battle. The Gold Star Mothers were always revered at the ceremonies. Services and wreath placing are also conducted at ``Our Lady of Peace'' monument adjacent to the Immaculate church, at the 1987 dedicated ``Polish American Veterans Triangle'' and concluding at our quarters ``Memorial Monument Green.'' The Full Military Honors given the deceased are witnessed by the many who gather to join in prayer for their souls. Many of our Members serve or have served the Community and State in various capacities. As trustees in Hospitals, Church Councils, Community Council, Senior Councils, in elected Political Offices and other service areas. The Polish American Veterans have established outstanding records and are a guiding influence in our community.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing my friend, Louis Anthony Tranghese, who is retiring after 49 years with the Construction and General Laborers' Local Union No. 999 in Springfield, Massachusetts. A leader in his profession, a devoted family man, a friend to many Louis has served his community with pride and distinction. On Friday, October 16, 1998, a testimonial dinner will be held in his honor. It is a tribute long overdue. Born and raised in the historic South End of Springfield, Louis Tranghese learned at an early age the importance of organized labor in our society. At age 14, he watched as his father Carlo, Arthur Coia and James Merloni played active roles in a newspaper strike. It was a defining moment, and from that point Louis knew that he wanted to dedicate his life to the concerns of working men and women. In 1948, the graduated from Technical High School and soon joined Local Union 999. It was the beginning of a remarkable career that would last a half-century. From his humble start as a waterboy to Business Manager, a position which he held for over twenty years, Louis Tranghese became a leader in an organization he cared deeply about. He was always proud to call himself a laborer. While Louis was busy with his professional career, he also found time to start a family. In 1956, he married the former Judie Monette, his wife and partner of nearly 40 years. The couple had four daughters: Carla, Gina, Lisa and Trisha who today own and operate the Dance Connection in East Longmeadow, Massachusetts. The Tranghese's are equally proud of their six grandsons and three granddaughters. Mr. Speaker, I ask all the Members of the United States House of Representatives to join me in offering our sincere gratitude to Louis Tranghese. His service, dedication and commitment to the Local Union No. 999 has been extraordinary. He has been a reflection of what is best about America. As he prepares to retire, let us wish him health, happiness and nothing but the best in the years ahead.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I think that this discussion this evening on the House floor speaks to the reach and the role of the United States as the mediator extraordinaire across the globe. I am particularly delighted tonight to stand in support of the good work of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) who I take a lot of satisfaction from having worked with because I recruited him to this cause some years ago when he came to the House, and the people that are here tonight I also think can take enormous satisfaction from the Good Friday agreement because people like the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Manton) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and others, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne) were literally, I think, isolated voices on this floor time and again when we attempted to elevate this issue in the eyes of the American people. We have advanced this cause long beyond what any of us might have imagined just a few years ago, and it is very, I think, satisfying tonight that the same actors are all here to participate in support of the Walsh initiative. I cannot say enough good things about people of uncommon courage who stand with us tonight because it was these voices that literally changed this debate in America, and although there are many, I think, who can take again a bow at this time, it was the, I think, elevation of Bill Clinton to the White House that also had an enormous influence. There are many fathers and mothers of this success, but the people who are standing here tonight that are about to speak in support of the Walsh initiative I think were the primary factors in getting us to this day. I also must thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith). He has always demonstrated a kind eye toward Irish immigrants with the notion that it has always been part of their legacy and heritage to demonstrate hard work time and again as they have taken their rightful role in American society, and I will have an opportunity, as we move back and forth, to acknowledge the other speakers that are here, Madam Speaker.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker I yield as much time as he might consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne), an individual who has been long active in the issue of Irish peace and has been a major player in this issue since he has been in the Congress. (Mr. COYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), another great champion of the Irish peace process. (Mrs. McCARTHY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)