Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, at this time I would include in the official Record comments of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) who has been a great friend and champion of the Irish peace process as well. Mr. McGovern. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4293, a bill to provide cultural and employment training for the disadvantaged of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I want to commend by colleagues--the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] and the gentleman from my own Commonwealth of Massachusetts [Mr. Neal]--for their leadership on Irish issues, and especially for drafting this bill that promotes peace and prosperity in Ireland. Mr. Speaker, we all know of the long sectarian violence and tragic history of Northern Ireland. But today we are facing a new history in Northern Ireland--one built upon collaboration, consensus-building, and the people's choice for peace. H.R. 4293 will contribute to this process by involving those who have been exposed to such violence an opportunity to live and work in a multicultural society, a diverse society, the democratic society of the United States. At the same time, these disadvantaged individuals from Ireland and Northern Ireland will also be gaining valuable work skills and experience so that they might participate and become partners in building a new and more prosperous Ireland. I urge all my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 4293 and I salute the leadership of Congressman Walsh and Congressman Neal.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Manton) who, as previously indicated, is retiring at the close of this Congress, and again I would say, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) have already stated and I am sure others will reiterate, there has not been a longer or more dedicated champion of the peace process in Ireland than has been the Congressman from Queens.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring attention to the fact that October is National Physical Therapy Month. American International College in Springfield, Massachusetts, my alma mater, is celebrating National Physical Therapy Month with a variety of activities designed to get the message out regarding physical therapy as a profession, as well as physical fitness in general. The theme for this year, ``On The Move,'', reflects the attitude of the people in the physical therapy field. Their goal is to get everyone moving in a healthy and safe way. The students at American International College are ``On The Move'' because they are learning a trade in a burgeoning field. They are learning how to get their patients back onto their feet through the assessment of joint motion and muscle strength and endurance. They must also assess the ability of a patient's heart and lungs to function correctly during the performance of daily activities. To someone recovering from an injury, these skills are of the nutrient importance. Most people know of at least one person who has had to endure physical therapy after an injury or surgery. Last year President Clinton himself under went knee rehabilitation, after which he praised the physical therapy profession. Every year we see examples of professional athletes, like Jerry Rice and Eric Davis, making wondrous recoveries from career threatening injuries. These athletes seem superhuman when they return to their respective playing fields, yet without the hard work and dedication of physical therapists, their changes for a full recovery would be greatly diminished. Before they are allowed to treat patients, physical therapists are taught their trade at institutions of higher learning, like American International College. The Health Science Complex at AIC allows students access to state-of-the-art facilities including computer classrooms, an amphitheater, and a human anatomical laboratory. In order to show their appreciation, the students of AIC plan to hold flexibility screenings, visit local schools, and hold an open house for high school students interested in the field of physical therapy. Their goals is to make people more aware of their own physical condition, as well as bring attention to the importance of physical therapy as a medical field. The American Physical Therapy Association has sent public relations kits around the country to help colleges educate the people in their areas about the field of physical therapy. I invite everyone to join me in recognizing the extremely important work being done by Physical Therapy Departments all over the United States. I would also like to bring special attention to the training being done in the Physical Therapy Department at my alama mater, American International College. These students at AIC are learning how to care for their fellow citizens and their efforts deserve special recognition.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and honor the Melha Shriners of the Springfield area on the celebration of their 100th anniversary. The Melha Shrine is a fraternal organization composed of two dozen units and clubs--ranging from its Shriner Clowns, Directors, a Military Band and Hadji (the familiar ``little cars'') to the Vintage Autos and an Oriental Band. Melha began when Charles H. Miller and other Shriners, who were Springfield residents but belonged to Boston's Aleppo Temple, decided to form their own Temple in Springfield in 1897; they received their charter in 1898. They went through many meeting places until finding Hibernian hall where they met for the next 38 years. In the 1920's, Melha acquired 7.5 acres of property in Springfield as the potential site for one of the Shriners Hospitals. The hospital's committee was met with such pride and enthusiasm from the Melha Shriners, it is said to have melted to hearts of the committee and the Springfield site was selected. Melha and the hospital have been intertwined ever since. The Shrine currently operates 19 orthopedic, burns and spinal-cord injury hospitals for children free of charge, and conducts important research as well. During the post World War II economic boom, the financial and economic outlook for the Melha Shriners was very optimistic. In 1955, the Melha decided that an indoor circus would be a worthwhile endeavor. That was the beginning of the annual Melha Shrine Circus, which has become a springtime tradition in Western Massachusetts. Parents bring their children to the circus they fondly remember seeing as youngsters themselves. In the late 1950's, because of expanding membership the Melha Shriners moved their Temple to a new location, where they have thrived ever since. The Temple was not the only thing that need updating and in the 1980's it was decided that the existing Springfield Shriners Hospital needed to be replaced. Because of the large amount of land owned by the Shriners the new hospital was built behind the old hospital. This allowed children to receive medical care without interruption. The new state-of-the-art facility includes outpatient and inpatient services along with two operating theaters, an occupational therapy department and a gait lab. In 1996 an new cleft lip and palate clinic was added. Just this year the hospital has received approval for a telemedicine pilot program to be established between the Springfield Shriners Hospital and the island of Cyprus and a residency program in orthotics and prosthetics started in June. Although it is hard to imagine, the hospital is under consideration for expansion and renovation because of the consistently increasing level of activity at the hospital. This year, to celebrate the 100th anniversary, the Melha Shriners hosted the Northeast Shrine Association Field Days. Approximately 3,500 Shriners and their families took part in the convention which culminated with a mammoth parade through Springfield. I want to acknowledge the members of the Melha Shrine on their 100th anniversary.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today Congressman Delahunt and I are introducing legislation to modify the tax on commercial aviation to and from airports located on sparsely populated islands. Senator Chafee has introduced companion legislation in the Senate. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 replaced the 10 percent airline ticket tax with a combination ticket tax and per passenger segment charge. Under prior law, domestic air passenger transportation was subject to an excise tax equal to 10 percent of the amount of the ticket price. The new formula, which is gradually phased-in, is a combination of a 7.5 percent excise tax on the price of a ticket and a fixed fee of $3 per segment. Congress enacted a new formula to ensure a long-term stable funding source for the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. The formula was changed to reflect a user-based approach to pay for the use of FAA service and facilities. This new formula has resulted in inequities for short distance flights between an island and the mainland. When fully phased- in, the new tax formula could represent as much as 18 percent of the ticket price of a short distance flight to an island. Short distance flights between islands and a mainland make little demand on Air Traffic Control (ATC) services as these flights do not use ATC centers, and rarely use departure or arrival control. These short island flights usually are transferred from the departure control tower to the destination control tower. Air and ferry transportation provide islands with a vital link to the mainland for shopping, employment, health care and other needs. For these communities, air and ferry service maintain a delicate balance, where both are needed to meet the communities' needs for mainland access. The new formula is harsh on island communities and for this reason, the legislation I am introducing will provide more equitable tax treatment for short distance flights to and from islands. This legislation would modify the tax to allow island airports to pay a 10 percent excise tax instead of the new formula which includes a segment fee. The legislation defines an island airport as an airport located on an island with population of 20,000 or less, 400,000 or fewer commercial passengers departing by air from such airport, and 50 percent or more of the initial flight segments of such commercial passengers are 100 miles or less. I urge my colleagues to review this legislation and to consider addressing the inequities that were created by the new ticket tax formula.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in the past week, we all read about the gathering of Wall Street's financial giants and their agreement to bail out Long Term Capital Management L.P., which ``The Wall Street Journal'' has referred to as a ``high flying hedge fund that was on the verge of collapse.'' After a meeting orchestrated by the Federal Reserve, a group of investment firms and commercial banks agreed to a $3.5 billion bailout of Long-Term Capital. Without this bailout, Long-Term Capital's $80 billion balance sheet and additional exposure in the form of off- balance-sheet agreements would have been liquidated. A forced liquidation could have had an adverse impact on worldwide markets. The financial service industry bears the overwhelming portion of blame. Lenders extended enormous amounts of credit without adequate supervision or knowledge of the activities of the fund. However, Congress also shares a part of the blame for this debacle. Derivatives have legitimate uses, but they can be used to create excessive levels of leverage by avoiding margin requirements. They have the potential of tax avoidance. Congress was aware of this. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) raised questions earlier this year about the adequacy of supervision of hedge funds. Congress not only chose to ignore the warning of the CFTC, but it pushed legislation that would prohibit the CFTC from proposing new derivatives regulation. This tax avoidance potential of derivatives did not cause the fall of Long-Term Capital, but it may have added fuel to the fire in the failure. In the fall of 1997, management of Long-Term Capital wanted to increase its stake in the fund. Rather than invest directly, the founder and partners entered into a complex transaction with Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS) that gave them $750 million of equity in the fund through the use of derivatives. According to Derivatives Strategy Special on-line Report, the management of Long-Term Capital deliberately chose this complex transaction in order to convert foreign interest income from their offshore hedge fund into long-term capital gains and defer it for seven years. Their motivation for this transaction was pure and simple--tax evasion. Congresswoman Kennelly was the only one who had the foresight to recognize that the tax avoidance potential of derivatives should have a legislative response. On February 5, 1998, Congresswoman Kennelly introduced H.R. 3170, legislation which would prevent the use of derivatives to convert ordinary income into long-term capital gain eligible for the 20% capital gain rate. That legislation was aimed at investments in hedge funds through derivatives. The deal that the management of Long-Term Capital entered into with UBS is an example of a transaction that the Kennelly legislation would have shut down. I commend Congresswoman Kennelly on her efforts to prohibit transactions that use derivatives for tax avoidance. If this legislation had been enacted, the motivation for the transaction between the managers of Long-Term Capital and UBS would have not existed. The rise and fall of Long-Term Capital will be studied by Congress in the upcoming months. I plan on following Congresswoman's Kennelly lead and to work towards the passage of legislation which addresses the tax avoidance potential of derivatives. The Kennelly bill affects transactions such as the transaction between the founder and partners of Long-Term Capital and UBS that are not available to the ordinary investor because of their cost. In an economic sense these transactions are equivalent to ownership, but their costs are substantially greater than the costs of a simple purchase. Congresswoman Kennelly believes that there is no tax policy justification for giving an investor in a derivative more favorable tax treatment than an investor in an identical underlying product. The Kennelly bill redefines the concept of when there is ownership for tax purposes in order to take into account the economic substance of these new transactions. I look forward to working on the Kennelly bill and ultimately working towards passage of legislation that addresses the potential tax avoidance of derivatives. Attached is a technical description of the Kennelly legislation. Constructive Ownership Treatment The Kennelly bill would apply to taxpayers who hold constructive ownership positions with respect to any financial property. The legislation would treat gain from constructive ownership positions as long-term gain only to the extent the investor would have received long-term gain treatment if he/she held the underlying asset directly. The bill would define constructive ownership as any of the following transactions (and any other transaction having substantially the same effect as a transaction described below): 1) entering into an offsetting notional principal contract with respect to the same or substantially identical property; 2) entering into a futures or forward contract to acquire the same or substantially identical property; 3) granting a put and holding a call with respect to the same or substantially identical property and such options have substantially equal strike prices; 4) entering into 1 or more than other transactions (or acquiring 1 or more positions) that have substantially the same effect as a transaction described in any of the preceding subparagraphs. The bill would only apply to financial positions in stock, debt instruments, partnerships and investment trusts held through derivatives. This legislation is not intended to apply to interests held through mutual funds. A deferred interest charge would apply to constructive ownership transactions in order to recapture the benefits of deferral. The deferred interest charge would be equal to the underpayment of tax rate in Section 6601. The legislation would be effective for gains recognized after date of enactment.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we are now debating the second part of the ``90/10 Plan''. Earlier in a misguided vote the House decided to lock up 90 percent and not 100 percent of the projected surplus to save Social Security. Now, we are considering the 10 percent part of the plan. I have to admit that the 10 percent part of the plan is quite attractive. It is a package of modest tax cuts which are mostly targeted to the middle class and it include many tax cuts that Democrats have offered in the past and it includes a provision that I have worked on this past year. We should not be spending the Social Security trust fund surplus. We have to deal in budget realities, even though it is very politically enticing to vote for a tax cut right before the elections. However, I believe we were elected to make hard choices. The hard choice before us today is voting against very likable tax cuts in order to protect Social Security. There is not surplus right now except for the surplus in the Social Security trust fund. Without Social Security's temporary surplus, there would be a $137 billion deficit over the next five years so we should not be spending $80 billion that we do not have today. The Democratic substitute is responsible. It still provides tax relief, but not until effective until the Social Security trust fund is solvent for 75 years. The bill before us today includes a provision which I think is extremely important and should be in addressed before Congress adjourns. Recently, I introduced H.R. 4611 which provides a temporary waiver for taxable year 1998 of the minimum tax rules that deny many families the nonrefundable personal credits, pending enactment of permanent legislation to address this inequity. Also, I have introduced H.R. 4489 which provides a permanent solution to address this inequity by allowing nonrefundable personal credits to offset both the individual's regular income tax liability and the minimum tax liability and repeal the rule that reduces the additional child credit for families with three or more children by the amount of minimum tax liability. I am pleased that the ``Taxpayer Relief Act of 1998'' includes a permanent solution and a temporary solution. However, this bill will receive a Presidential veto if even it makes it that far. This is an issue that we need to address before we adjorun. 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 exceed the individual's tentative minimum tax. This results in 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. Without addressing this problem, many taxpayers will have to fill out the minimum tax form. Not only is the minimum tax complicated, it can penalize middle-income taxpayers who claim some of the new tax credits such as the child tax credit and the Hope Scholarship credit. 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 credits, 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 unnecessarily complex. Without simplifying the child tax credit, the child tax credit form will be required on next year's form is a nightmare. The complexity of the forms is the result of deliberate decisions last year by the Republican majority in Congress. Today, they decided to fix a problem that they knowingly created last year. The interaction between the minimum tax and the child tax credits was in the original chairman's mark. They did not want to spend revenue on this provision. Remember, last year's tax bill was offset, not like this year's bill which uses the projected surplus as an offset. If we do not address the interaction of the minimum tax with nonrefundable personal credits, many families will be cheated of the full credits that were promised. We need to address this issue to prevent the average family from having to pay a tax return preparer in order to fill out the forms for the new credits. We should address this issue and include a temporary solution in revenue neutral legislation to extend the expiring provisions and continue to work on a permanent solution. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that a one year solution for the taxable year 1998 would cost $474 million. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill today. It is time for us to get back to our real work.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, let me try to clear up what was just stated by the gentleman from Arizona. This is as clear and concise an argument as I have witnessed in the House of Representatives during the 10 years that I have been here. We are being told by the Republican majority that the best way to save Social Security is to take 10 percent of it for tax cuts. That as I stated yesterday was not only a misguided vote, it was Orwellian philosophy, that the best way to save Social Security is to take 10 percent of it out six weeks before the national elections and provide a tax cut that nobody in Washington believes is ever going to happen. And we are accused of demagoguing the issue. There are many seductive proposals in this tax bill, most of them Democratic proposals that we would gladly vote for. You talk about a turn of events, the Democrats standing up for fiscal responsibility and saying, ``Save Social Security first.'' My friend from Arizona said that this is about politics. Now, who among us in America today would measure that argument when we are offering here in this proposal tax cuts six weeks before an election? We had from January to discuss these things. But on the eve of the national election, we are going to talk about $80 billion worth of tax cuts, we are not going to talk about saving Social Security first, and the argument the Democratic minority makes today is simply this: Do not touch the Social Security trust fund until we decide that we have permanently fixed this issue for the American people. Mr. Roosevelt offered a contract with the American people in 1935. We stand with it today. We are witnessing here the slow erosion of the Social Security surplus for the purpose of providing tax cuts to the American people who, by the way, the wealthiest among us are not asking for these tax cuts. They want fiscal stability. George Bush in 1991 and Bill Clinton in 1993 with minimal or no hope from the other side gave us the fiscal picture that we have today. It is one of responsibility. Leave the Social Security trust fund alone and let us have a substantive debate about its future. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record: National Council For Adoption, Washington, DC, Sept. 25, 1998. Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Gingrich: I am writing in support of the provisions of H.R. 4579 and H.R. 4611, which would help adoptive families by providing them with adoption tax credits, credits many of them need to help them adopt. With more than 110,000 children in the foster care system alone waiting for adoption in the United States, every effort to assist in qualifying families must be pursued with utmost urgency. These provisions in these bills would provide a temporary solution to the problem caused by the minimum tax liability as it affects tax credits that benefit families. They would provide stop-gap help for families qualifying to use the adoption tax credit. While H.R. 4579 would provide both immediate and long-term remedies for the minimum tax liability problem, its fate is uncertain given a threatened Presidential veto of that bill. Should a veto threat prevent passage of H.R. 4579, we urge you to attach the provisions in H.R. 4611 to a scaled down bill of tax extenders. We strongly support any action that would at this time make the adoption tax credit work as effectively as possible, for as many children and families as possible, as soon as possible. We deeply appreciate the hard work you have done in the past on behalf of a variety of adoption issues, including your support for the adoption tax credit. Sincerely, William Pierce, Ph.D., President.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the details, when we come into this Chamber, that makes us really feel good about being Democrats. I have to tell the Members, when I hear speakers march to that microphone and suggest that this side is playing politics with social security, after they have scheduled the tax cut 6 weeks before the national elections, that we are playing politics? Do Members know what the name of this account they have offered today is? The Protect Social Security Account. It is Orwellian, that is really what it is, because only George Orwell would have suggested that we should protect social security by raiding it. That is precisely what they are doing today. For them to complain about politics, politics, 6 weeks before a national election, to offer a tax cut to the American people by raiding the social security account, that is politics. We ought to have a substantive debate in this Chamber about what we really mean by ``protecting social security,'' and spending it for a tax cut is not the way we protect social security. This bill that they are offering today locks up what they say is 90 percent of the social security trust fund. What about the Asian fiscal crisis? What about a recession that could loom on the horizon, and alter dramatically every fiscal projection we have seen in this Chamber for the last year? Are we blind to the realities of what is happening across the globe? This is a time when we should be taking satisfaction from the fact that it was the Democratic Party, with the leadership of President Clinton in 1993, that balanced that budget. Do Members know what else is ironic? Let us not forget the role George Bush played in 1991 when half of his own party split from him, when he looked at the reality of where we were headed as we turn the page on this century. I have to go back to what I said earlier. To complain that the Democrats today are using politics, we are honoring the contract we made with Mr. Roosevelt, which the American people have said time and again they subscribe to and they do not want to see it altered. A tax cut 6 weeks before the national election, who among us believes that that is intelligent fiscal policy? And at the same time, they violate that sacred trust that Democrats hold dear and senior citizens hold dear. Social security should be saved and protected before we discuss any tax cuts.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation which provides a temporary waiver for taxable year 1998 of the minimum tax rules that deny many families the full benefit of nonrefundable personal credits, pending enactment of permanent legislation to address this inequity. Recently, I introduced H.R. 4489, legislation which would allow nonrefundable personal tax credits (i.e., the child tax credit, the HOPE and lifetime learning credits, and the dependent care credit) to offset both the individual's regular income tax liability and the minimum tax liability and repeal the rule that reduces the additional child credit for families with three or more children by the amount of the minimum tax liability. Last week, the Committee on Ways and Means reported out the ``Taxpayer Relief Act of 1998'' which included a substantially identical provision to address the interaction between the minimum tax and nonrefundable personal credits. H.R. 4489 and the ``Taxpayer Relief Act of 1998'' provide a permanent solution to ensure that families receive the full benefits of the child credit and the education credits. However, the ``Taxpayer Relief Act of 1998'' will almost certainly receive a Presidential veto and even if it were signed, I recently learned that Internal Revenue Service (IRS) would not be capable of implementing these changes in time for the 1998 tax year. For these reasons, I am introducing this new legislation that would provide a one year solution for 1998 to enable substantially all families to receive their full credits. 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 child credit is provided and this is reduced by the amount of the individual's minimum tax liability. Under current law, all taxpayers who claim the child credit with incomes above $45,000 for joint filers and $33,750 for single filers will have to make at least a rudimentary minimum tax calculation. Many of these taxpayers will also have to fill out the full alternative minimum tax (AMT) form. Not only is the AMT complicated, it can penalize middle-income taxpayers who claim some of the new tax credits such as the child credit and the Hope Scholarship credit. The Department of Treasury estimates that in 1998, the alternative minimum tax will cause 800,000 taxpayers to fail to receive the full benefits of the child credit (Hope Scholarship credit and lifetime learning credit). My new legislation makes nonrefundable personal credits allowable against the entire amount of an individual's regular tax liability for 1998 and it would repeal the rule that reduces the additional child credit for families with three or more children by the amount of the minimum tax liability. This is a one year solution for 1998 and the IRS is capable of making this change in time for the 1998 filing season. Without enactment of this legislation, taxpayers who are planning to claim the child tax credit should be warned that the computation of their taxes will be difficult, time consuming, and unnecessarily complex. Without simplifying the child tax credit, the child tax credit form that will be required on next year's tax return is a nightmare. In a recent Wall Street Journal article, a tax expert stated that many people ``will be totally overwhelmed'' by required forms. The instructions and required forms total eight pages. The Internal Revenue Service has completed a time analysis for completing the AMT form which will be required for many taxpayers claiming the child credit and it takes approximately 5 hours to complete this form. This legislation makes claiming the new credits, especially the child credit, simple compared to the draft forms that have been released by the IRS. Not only is this solution simplification for the 1998 tax year, it enables substantially all families to receive credits that they are entitled to for 1998. We need to enact this legislation to prevent the average family from having to pay a tax return preparer to receive the benefits that were promised. I urge you to join me in cosponsoring this important legislative fix which should be enacted before Congress adjourns. This solution should be added to revenue neutral legislation to extend the expiring provisions. Also, we should continue to work on a permanent solution to ensure taxpayers receive their full credits.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a exemplary public servant whose roots lie in my home district of Massachusetts. For over 20 years, Steve Manning has shown undivided dedication to the people of Western Massachusetts. Steve is a highly respected attorney and a dedicated community activist. Mr. Manning has been engaged in private law since June, 1996 concentrating in property law, estate and corporate business matters. In 1976, he was admitted to the Massachusetts Bar and U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In addition to his tremendous achievements, Mr. Manning serves as adjunct faculty member at Western New England College, Business Division. Under his inspired leadership, he was elected and appointed to many public offices throughout Western Massachusetts. For the last 18 years, Steve has served as a remarkable Selectmen for the town of East Longmeadow. He is a true family man and extraordinary friend who I proudly commend and honor. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to represent such an outstanding individual and I join with the citizens of the Second Congressional District in offering a most heartfelt thank you for the service he has given to Western Massachusetts.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the actions of a spectacular humanitarian, Christine Burrage. She is a letter carrier in my home town of Springfield, Massachusetts. Ms. Burrage has recently been honored as the National Association of Letter Carriers' National Humanitarian Award winner, an event I was proud to attend. The letter carriers employed by the United States Postal Service have the opportunity to positively influence the neighborhoods in which they work. Though the opportunity may present itself daily, not every letter carrier is willing to become a part of the community to which they deliver mail. On the other hand, there are a number of letter carriers that become deeply involved with the people in the communities through which their route takes them. Christine Burrage is one such person. Christine Burrage delivers mail in a poor, downtrodden neighborhood. She learned Spanish from her patrons in order to interact with them more effectively, and interact she has. Ms. Burrage gives food to those who cannot afford groceries, toys and clothing to children in need, and all manner of relief for victims of fire. The people to whom she delivers mail know that if they have a problem, Christine Burrage will do whatever she can to help. There are many children along her route whose family life is less than ideal. For these children, and for many adults as well, Ms. Burrage serves as a role model. She reminds the children who follow along with her of the value of an education and the rewards for hard work. She is also willing to take the time to explain the many dangers associated with drugs. Christine Burrage does not only deliver the mail. She also plays the roles of social worker, counselor, and teacher. She has become an indispensable member of the Memorial Square community. In a time when the people of the United States are searching for heroes to look up to, some need only look down their own street. The real heroes are ordinary people who take the opportunity to do extraordinary acts of kindness. People who are willing to take risks for the welfare of others are a credit to their town, their state, and their country. Christine Burrage is that kind of person and I feel honored and privileged to serve as her representative in Congress.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the outstanding efforts of Selectman Wallace ``Wally'' Johnson. For thirty-nine years Mr. Johnson has worked diligently to further the best interests of his community, Sutton, Massachusetts. Mr. Johnson's incredible career is unfortunately coming to a close since he recently announced that he will not seek re- election when his current term expires. Wally Johnson has live in Sutton since the mid-1930s. His first job after high school was with the clean-up crew after the Hurricane of 1938. At a time when people were trying to put their lives back together, Wally Johnson was there to help. Wally worked on his family's farm, as well as giving his neighbors a helping hand when they needed one. Even as a young man, Mr. Johnson displayed his fervent desire to make Sutton, Massachusetts a better place. Before being elected to the Board of Selectman, Mr. Johnson served his country for four years during World War II. From 1942-1946, Mr. Johnson, along with is fellow brave American soldiers, defended the American way of life, ensuring us the right to live free. The strength of character that Mr. Johnson needed to fight in World War II has stayed with him to this day. In a time when many people in the United States are trying to expand into every rural area, Mr. Johnson has remained steadfast in his conviction that Sutton retain its old town character. He demanded that the new Town Hall be placed on the exact site of the old Town Hall and he has recently decried local urbanization efforts which he feels would bring hardship to the residents of his town. He believes that the old way of doing things is the better way and he has dedicated his career to keeping the morals and values of his youth alive in Sutton. His service, dedication, and strong character have made Wally Johnson an indispensable member of his community. I am proud to count Wally Johnson as one of my constituents and feel honored to represent a person of his quality in Congress.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation which will simplify the child credit in a revenue neutral manner. Over the past three years, the tax code has become unbelievably complex for the average individual taxpayer. The capital gains form that was part of last year's Federal income tax return is only the first installment. The next installment will be the extraordinarily complex child credit form that will be required on next year's tax return. In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, a tax expert stated that many people ``will be totally overwhelmed'' by required forms. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has released proof copies of the 1998 child tax credit worksheet. These forms are extremely complicated. Some will be quick to blame the IRS for the complexity of the forms. In fact the IRS is merely the messenger. The complexity of the forms is the result of deliberate decisions last year by the Republican majority in Congress. Taxpayers will find out next spring that the two-page child tax credit work sheet is difficult to fill out and time consuming. Claiming the child credit goes beyond filling out the child credit forms. Additional calculations and forms are required. Under current law, all taxpayers who claim the child credit with incomes above $45,000 for joint filers and $33,750 for single filers will have to make at least a rudimentary minimum tax calculation. Many of these taxpayers will also have to fill out the full alternative minimum tax (AMT) form. In addition, large groups of taxpayers such as self-employed and individuals who have a capital gain distribution from a mutual fund will have to fill out the full AMT form regardless of their income level. The Internal Revenue Service has not completed an analysis on the amount of time it will take to complete the new child credit forms, but the Internal Revenue Service has completed a time analysis for completing the AMT form which will be required for many taxpayers claiming the child credit. It takes approximately 5 hours to complete this form. Not only will the taxpayer have to spend time on this form, many will have to fill out the Schedule D form for capital gains twice. The IRS estimates that it takes 5 hours and 20 minutes to fill out this 54-line form. Not only is the AMT complicated, it can penalize taxpayers with middle-income who claim some of the new tax credits such as child credit and the Hope scholarship credit. In 1998, tax policymakers estimate that the minimum tax will cause roughly 700,000 taxpayers to fail to receive the full benefits of nonrefundable personal credits. This number is expected to increase drastically because AMT thresholds are not indexed for inflation. By 2007, the AMT will cause approximately 8 million people to lose some of the benefits of the nonrefundable personal credits. The following example shows the interaction between the child credit and the AMT. A married couple with 3 children and 1 child in college have a gross income of $67,000. They claim the family credit for a $1,000 and the Hope credit for $500 and this totals $1,500 in credits. They are required to pay the minimum tax and the minimum tax disallows $1,477 of their credits. My legislation simplifies the child tax credit and other personal nonrefundable credits such as the new education tax credits in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 by eliminating their interaction with the AMT. The legislation allows nonpersonal refundable credits against the minimum tax. Under current law, a taxpayer with three or more children is allowed a partially refundable child credit and my legislation also simplifies this partially refundable credit by repealing the provision which reduces the credit by AMT liability. In order to eliminate the complexities of the AMT for nonfundable credits and the child credit for families with three or more children, and to have revenue neutral legislation, the income limits for the beginning of the phase-out of the child credit have to be reduced from $110,000 to $89,000 for joint filers and $75,000 to $60,000 for single filers. Even with this reduction in the thresholds for the child credit, the thresholds are still higher than the thresholds which were included in last year's House Democratic substitute. My legislation simplifies the child credit for all taxpayers. The vast majority of Americans will have a modest tax reduction or will not be affected. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation. Proposing such legislation is not without risk--opponents can distort it for political purposes. However, I believe that it is important to propose constructive solution to problems. The complexity of the child credit is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, during the past year the President has engaged Americans in a dialogue about the reform of Social Security. This dialog is a precursor to the President and Congress addressing Social Security reform next year. Last week, President Clinton participated in dialog in Albuquerque, NM, and he outlined five fundamental principles with are essential to Social Security reform. These principles are: universality and fairness, provide a benefit people can count on, continue to protect the disabled and low-income beneficiaries, fiscally disciplined approach, and strengthen and protect the guarantee. Social Security was created as part of the New Deal and it benefits 44 million elderly and disabled Americans. The system needs to be reformed, but there should not be a shift away from its fundamental principles. Without making changes, the system will be insolvent by 2032. Many of us in Congress differ on how to fix Social Security. Even a commission assigned with the task of reforming Social Security could not reach a unanimous consensus and instead, reported out three very different solutions. The concept of allowing individuals to place a portion of their payroll tax in a private account has been suggested and serious deliberation needs to occur to understand the consequences such a change would have on the guarantee of the benefit provided by the system. On July 25, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare released a study which was conducted by Peter Hart Research Associates which surveyed a sample of 1,094 adults and 326 of these individuals were aged 18-34. The survey focused on Social Security and proposals to reform the system which included private accounts. The crux of the survey was Generation Xer's want the Social Security system fixed but oppose tax increases, benefit cuts, and a higher retirement age. Generation Xer's share the same sentiment as their parents and grandparents in agreeing that ``Congress should fix Social Security by strengthening its financial condition, so that future retirees will be guaranteed a reasonable level of benefits.'' Many believe that younger Americans would like Social Security privatized and invested in individual accounts. This study showed that most Americans including younger Americans want the system fixed and do not think privatization is the answer. Of all the adults surveyed, 73 percent believe the Social Security system can work for young people when they retire if Congress will strengthen the system's finance and 69 percent of the adults surveyed that were between 18 and 34 years old agree. The survey inquired about private accounts and only 39 percent of those surveyed between 18 and 34 years of age supported allowing individuals to invest their Social Security contributions in the stock market, so that people can manage their accounts. Only 32 percent of all individuals surveyed support private accounts. This survey helps us realize that Americans are concerned about Social Security, but they do not want the guarantee that is the fundamental principle of Social Security changed. Social Security has become a safety net for retirement for all American workers and we should not take action to weaken this safety net. We should consider all aspects of the Social Security system as we moved forward with the debate on reform.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 120 which denies President Clinton's waiver for Vietnam from the Jackson-Vanik freedom of emigration requirement of the Trade Act of 1974. On June 3, 1998, President Clinton notified Congress of his intention to extend Vietnam a Jackson-Vanick wavier for an additional year from July 3, 1998 to July 3, 1998. Vietnam's trade status is subject to the Jackson-Vanik amendment to Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974. This provision of law governs the extension of normal trade relations, as well as access to U.S. government credits or credit or investment guarantees, to nonmarket economy countries ineligible for normal trade relations tariff treatment. A country subject to the provisions may gain MFN treatment and coverage by U.S. trade financing programs by complying with the freedom of emigration provisions of the Trade Act. The Trade Act authorizes the President to waive the freedom of emigration requirements with respect to a particular country if he determines that such a waiver will substantially promote the freedom of emigration provisions. Extension of the Jackson-Venice waiver for Vietnam gives Vietnam access to U.S. government credits or credit or investment guarantees such as those provided by Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and Export-Import Bank support for U.S. businesses in Vietnam. Vietnam has not yet concluded a bilateral commercial agreement with the United States and therefore, Vietnam is ineligible to receive normal trade relations tariff treatment. Recently, the Subcommittee on Trade held a hearing on Vietnam. U.S. Ambassador Pete Peterson and Senator John Kerry eloquently testified about the importance of having a policy of engagement with Vietnam. Both of these men heroically served our country during the Vietnam War and they strongly believe that we should work with the Vietnamese government and form a stable, fruitful relationship between the two countries. Vietnam has made consistent progress on its commitments under the Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese Returnees agreement. The United States government has made it its highest priority to obtain the fullest possible accounting of missing U.S. citizens from the Vietnam War. The Vietnamese government has been extremely cooperative. Human rights in Vietnam need to be improved and hopefully, engagement will do this. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution. We should not forget about the past or the dedication of our servicemen who fought in Vietnam, but we should move forward. If those who were prisoners of war in Vietnam believe that it is time to engage Vietnam and normalize relations with Vietnam, we should listen to their advice. It is time to move forward with Vietnam and build a relationship that benefits both the United States and Vietnam.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged today to have the opportunity to acknowledge and honor Kavanagh Furniture of Springfield, MA, for its 125th year of business. In 1873, Mr. Dennis Nelen opened his establishment as a ``wholesaler and retailer in elegant furniture, hair and husk mattresses'' and before 1900 he partnered with Mr. William Kavanagh. Today, Kavanagh's is the largest furniture store in Western Massachusetts and has three sister stores with a fourth on the way. It is Springfield's oldest family owned business still in existence and one of the oldest operating furniture stores in the entire United States. In an era where retailers often sacrifice quality service for quantity sold, Kavanagh's has remained a testament to the beauty of the family business. in their establishment, quality service is a trait passed down through the generations. Mr. Jack Nelen, who became Kavanagh's president in 1965 and is the grandson of the original founder, began making deliveries for the store when he was just a teenager. The success of a family business can be measured, in part, by the duration of its existence. Kavanagh Furniture has survived and flourished through two world wars, the Great Depression, and several other fluctuations in the economy. They were also able to last during the recession of the early 90s even though furniture was considered a luxury by many. Perhaps more impressive has been Kavanagh's ability to survive the local ``big chain'' competition, while located in an area not supported by mega- mall traffic. In this regard, the Nelen family business can be considered a huge success and a strong example for other family businesses. Only 1 out of 30,000 retail stores makes it to be 100 years old, and Kavanagh's has now reached its 125th year in the business. Not only has Kavanagh's created lasting personal success for its owners and employees, it has been an enormous asset to the community and neighborhood as well. Its list of civil activities and commitments includes being a catalyst for and taking part in fund raisers for The Children's Miracle Network, Shriner's Hospital, the Red Cross, and the United Way. Kavanagh's once even held a free picinc for over 2,500 city kids. The Kavanagh Furniture store is an anchor for the community. It has taken care of its customers and has been rewarded with 125 years of business. I wish the Nelen family and all of the folks at Kavanagh's success in continuing a great tradition of excellent service to their customers and the community at large as they embark on the 21st century and another 125 years.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 121, the disapproval of normal trade relations with China. This debate in this Chamber today is entirely legitimate. There are people here of goodwill who strongly disagree about the manner in which we are about to proceed. But the argument comes down to whether or not we should move forward with some faith or it be turned back by fear. There is obviously a new twist to this debate this year as we now move to the statement of normal trade relations with China. But that statement is, indeed, a more accurate description of this trade relationship. Currently the United States holds normal trade relations with all but seven nations. We all acknowledge that the relationship between the United States and China is complex. There are many issues, such as human rights and democracy and nonproliferation and Taiwan and Tibet and trade and intellectual property rights, that make this relationship at times confusing. But the relationship at the same time is fragile, and we have to carefully strike an intelligent balance. This relationship is like walking on a tight rope, because one misstep on either side could throw the relationship into imbalance permanently. A sound relationship with China at the end of the day is in our best national interest. China is the world's largest country. We tried isolation for the better part of this century. Is there anybody here who would argue that that policy worked? We tried it and that policy failed, and we ought not on this occasion to repeat the mistakes of the past. Engagement with China is the best solution. China in this modern age cannot be isolated. We have to continue to engage China in a dialogue that promotes mutual interests and obviously a continued focus on human rights. President Clinton, in what I think is one of his best moments during the last 6 years, has just returned from a very successful visit to China. That relationship was advanced during Bill Clinton's visit as he offered a nationwide broadcast that offered his views in a candid moment. The broadcast of President Clinton enabled Chinese citizens to see the President of the United States on live TV, and everywhere across this globe people are marching to the drumbeat of democracy or at least embracing its concepts, and that will be true in China shortly as well. While Bill Clinton was there, he aggressively addressed human rights issues. He spoke to the notion of democracy and he spoke eloquently about religious freedom. The Dalai Lama, in a New York Times interview, referred to the President's press conferences as, quote, one of the best things that has ever happened for the Tibetan cause. We can build upon what President Clinton started on his visit and continue to engage the Chinese in a dialogue about human rights and freedom. Normal trade relations go beyond just the trade of goods. It is about exchanges of ideas and democracy and human rights as well.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and honor the town of Holland, Massachusetts on the dedication of its new Town Hall and the celebration of its 215th anniversary. In 1730, the Town of Holland was settled by Joseph Blodgett, whose descendants still live in the town today. The Town was named after Lord Holland, an English statesman who lobbied for independence for the American colonies. The town was incorporated on July 5, 1783, and is rich with history. Holland is located in the southeast corner of Hampden County in Western Massachusetts. The town is four square miles in area. It contains the Quinnebaug River and the Hamilton Reservoir, one of the largest reservoirs in southern New England. It is nestled amongst two hill ranges, where elevations reach up to 1,100 feet. Throughout the years, Holland has remained an example of the charm and beauty of the traditional New England village. At different times, it has sustained industries such as farming, the manufacturing of cloth, and brick making. To this day, Holland is known most for its recreational opportunities. There are extensive recreational facilities at the Hamilton Reservoir, which is stocked with trout each year by the state of Massachusetts. There is also a park and a swimming area at the very picturesque Lake Siog. This small town remains as alive and healthy today as it was 215 years ago. Unfortunately, the 200-year old town hall was destroyed in a horrendous fire in December of 1995. The new Town Hall, which was dedicated on July 11, 1998, stands as a testament to the courage and character of the 2,300 residents of this wonderful town. I want to acknowledge this town and its residents as they celebrate their new Town Hall as well as their 215th anniversary.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today Congressman Gejdenson and I are introducing comprehensive pension legislation which focuses on the four major themes of accessibility, security, portability, and equity for women. Almost 51 million American workers have no pension coverage. In my state of Massachusetts, only 29 percent of employers with fewer than 100 employees sponsor pension plans. Small businesses with fewer than 100 employees make up approximately 36 percent of the workforce in Massachusetts. The Retirement Accountability Security Portability Act of 1998 will make it easier for employers to offer pensions and for employees to keep their pensions when they change jobs. Now is the time for us to focus on pensions. We are beginning to face what has been commonly referred to as the ``graying of America.'' Within thirty years, one out of every five Americans will be over age sixty-five. In thirteen years, the baby boomers will begin turning sixty-five. The baby boomer generation consists of 76 million members and will result in the Social Security beneficiaries doubling by the year 2040. Pensions are an integral part of retirement. Retirement can be compared to a three-legged stool and the legs of the stool are savings, pensions and Social Security. Forty percent of retirement income comes from Social Security, nineteen percent comes from pensions, and the remaining comes from private savings. Last year, we enacted the Taxpayer Relief Act which created the Roth IRA which has made IRAs available to millions of Americans. The response has been overwhelming. The Taxpayer Relief Act has jump-started personal savings and now we need to do the same for pensions. Our society changed greatly over the last few decades and these changes have affected the workplace. It is now more common to change jobs than stay with one firm for an entire career. This makes it extremely important for us to address pension portability. Portability allows the employee to transfer the benefits of their pension when they change jobs. Changing jobs should not drastically affect one's pension. Five million people with pensions change jobs every year. One-third of employees leave their job before reaching five years of employment. Under current law, an employee does not receive the employer's contribution until he or she has been employed for five years. This legislation will reduce the vesting period from five years to three years for employer contributions to defined contribution plans or allows benefits to become vested in increments of 20 percent for each year beginning after two years of service, with full vesting after the employee has completed six years of service. This legislation allows employees of non-profit entities and public schools to take their retirement savings when they change jobs and put these savings into the retirement plan of their new for-profit or state or local government employer when they switch jobs. Participants of 457 defined contribution plans would be permitted to rollover their account balance into an IRA. The current 60-day rollover period is extended in cases of natural disaster and military service. Individuals faced with disaster will be able to avoid substantial tax penalties. This legislation creates a new simplified tax-favored pension plan entitled Secure Money Annuity or Retirement Trust Plan, commonly referred to as the SMART Plan. These plans would provide participants with a minimum guaranteed benefit at retirement with Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation insurance. Employees would immediately vest in the benefit contributions made and earnings that accrue under the plan. Funding would be provided either through an annuity or a trust. This type of funding allows SMART plans to be portable upon a job change. The SMART plan is a simplified defined benefit plan which contains the best attribute of a defined contribution plan which is portability. I urge my colleagues to join us in protecting pensions for American workers.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference agreement on the Internal Revenue Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. There is no question that this legislation will provide better oversight, greater continuity of leadership and improved access to expert advice from the private sector, and additional management flexibility. There has long been agreement of the need for fundamental reform of the IRS, and I commend the work done by the National Commission on Restructuring. I supported the majority of recommendations made by the National Commission, and I am pleased that further improvements have been made to this initial legislation introduced by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). Mr. Portman and Mr. Cardin did work diligently to modify the original bill to reflect the concerns of many of us on the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Constitution requires that the IRS commissioner be appointed, hired and, if necessary, fired by the President. The legislation before us today keeps the President ultimately responsible for the actions of the IRS and the decisions of its commissioner, while the Department of Treasury would still have a role in the oversight and management of IRS. A key component of the bill is a section referred to as Taxpayer Rights III. These provisions will provide new protections and assistance to millions of taxpayers. During passage of the bill I was specifically concerned about two additional provisions. First I was concerned about the authority given to the newly-created IRS Oversight Board. This board has the authority to review and approve strategic plans at the IRS and review and approve the commissioner's plans for major reorganization. The bill was not clear on what happens to our tax administration system under these new authorities if a consensus is not reached among board members or the IRS commissioner and Treasury Secretary in disagreement with views of private sector individuals. I am pleased that the conference has addressed this issue. Second, I am concerned about the provision in the shift of the burden of proof which should not be treated lightly. The conference agreement shifts the burden of proof to the Secretary of Treasury in any court proceeding with respect to a factual issue if the taxpayer enters credible evidence with respect to the factual issue relevant to ascertaining the taxpayer's liability for income estate and gift taxes. Under current law, a taxpayer is generally required to maintain records substantiating the calculation of his or her income tax liability. In civil matters, the burden is placed on the taxpayer because the taxpayer controls the facts and the record. Now this shift in the burden of proof could have unintended consequences, and we should acknowledge that today. It could result in the IRS conducting more intrusive examinations and the IRS issuing more subpoenas and summonses to third parties in search of evidence, and I am concerned that this provision would induce taxpayers not to keep records. But I am pleased that the conference agreement requires a taxpayer to keep records in order to be eligible for this provision. Our tax system is voluntary, and we have an overall compliance rate of 85 percent. The individual compliance rate is 97 percent, and we should never lose sight of those respective achievements.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is important for me to stand here this morning and to recognize the significant influences that unions have had on our local communities. The ability and the right of workers to organize across this Nation have allowed for the most basic civil rights to be upheld. Equal opportunity and treatment, freedom of speech and certainly freedom of assembly. It is imperative that we as a Congress, acting on behalf of all citizens in this Nation, safeguard the right of workers to organize and to reap the benefits of union membership that have been given to generations in the past. This booming economy that we are now experiencing will only continue to be stimulated by an expansion of unionized workers. However, some employers have used threats of harassment, intimidation and coercion to deter employees from making the choice to join with their coworkers to form unions and, yes, to bargain collectively. Such activity cannot and should not be allowed to continue. It contradicts the core foundations of our democracy. Unions provide for and ensure equality, stability and security in the workplace. Unions guarantee that the voices of employees, regardless of their level of seniority, educational background or level of expertise, all are heard by employers. Unions afford each worker with a means to resolve disputes and to participate in the decision-making process in their workplace. It is hypocritical for Congress to fight on behalf of human rights violations worldwide without recognizing the human and civil rights violations that are committed by some employers in America. The right to organize must be observed by all employers, and fear of reprisals against workers must be eradicated. No individual should ever fear losing his or her economic existence merely for expressing an opinion or by association. The right to organize, the right to collective bargaining, are basic and accepted by the broad mainstream of this Nation. The success that unions have had have helped to lift all of us in America. We recognize these basic rights today and give thanks for the good work that unions have accomplished across America.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, writing of Sir Thomas More, Robert Whittinton observed that he was ``a man for all seasons.'' As I pay tribute today to my good friend, Michael Kane, on the occasion of his retirement from the Monson Public Schools system, the same sentiment comes to mind. Though words cannot fairly describe Mike Kane's philanthropic approach to life, I would like to detail some of the ways in which he has put his talents to use to serve others. Mike Kane began his career as a Science and Mathematics Teacher at South Main Street School in Monson. He went on to be Vice Principal of Monson Junior-Senior High School and later Principal of that same school. Totaling 37 years, Mike's career was built around a most noble pursuit--the education of our youth. While committed to instilling the importance of academic pursuits in the young minds that he has reached, Mike Kane has also consistently stressed in his teaching and by example the unique role that athletic challenges play in one's development. Mike's years as high school Baseball and Girl's Basketball coach as well as his involvement and leadership with the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association Basketball Tournament Committee and Sectional Seeding Committee for more than 25 years epitomizes this deeply held belief. In addition to his dedication to these endeavors, Mike Kane has also been seriously involved with the National Foundation of the March of Dimes. In both the Monson and Pioneer Valley chapters of this organization, Mike has served as Chairman during his tenure of membership and has also been on the Pioneer Valley's Board of Directors. Donating his time to such a worthy cause offers further testament to the quality of Mike Kane's character. An active member of the Massachusetts Teachers' Association and the National Education Association, Mike Kane has brought to the forefront of state and national organizations the same innovative ideas that he has shared with students, teachers, and administrators in Monson for 37 years. The hats worn by Mike Kane--Teacher, Principal, Coach, Volunteer, and Craftsman--are those of one singular man committed to education, to athletics, to service, and to excellence. I am proud not only to honor and to recognize his achievements today, but to know him through his good work.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, is the stock market growth that we witnessed in response to the Clinton budget that we passed in this institution without any help from the other side?