Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if I recall, there was not one vote from the other side.

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

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This is another in those proposals that have become familiar around here. We call it ``government by gimmick.'' What should we do? We ought to have term limits and then spend all of our time trying to figure out on the other side how to get out of those commitments we made. Then we ought to have the line-item veto around here so that we can pray that the Supreme Court will turn it down. Then we ought to have the Balanced Budget Amendment which we were able to accomplish without disturbing the Constitution. What is the latest gimmick? The latest gimmick is, how do we tell the American people we are now sunsetting the Tax Code when there is not anybody here who believes that 5 years from now or 4 years from now that that is going to occur. This outrageous bill, which they propose and suggest would terminate our current system, is nothing more than another effort to convince the public that government solutions are all going to be easy. Nobody here defends the current tax system or says that it does not need some improvement. Nobody says that the IRS here is not in need of improvement. But what The Washington Post did say in response to this proposal was, why do we not just sunset the House? Let me give you a brief quote from that editorial. ``House Republicans have scheduled a show vote this week on what is arguably the least responsible idea in American politics. They would sunset most of the Tax Code effective January 1, 2002, without having agreed upon what ought to be the replacement.'' Now, let me suggest on this occasion, they have not told us what they are going to do with the homeowner deduction. We know that the flat tax would cost 17 percent, and that simply is not enough to generate the current support and level of services that the American people have come to accept and enjoy. The Department of Treasury believes that the tax rate needed to raise the current amount of revenue would raise taxes on middle income Americans if their proposal was to pass by $1,500, and the top 1 percent would get a tax break of $44,000. So what their proposal means is this: The wealthy are going to pay less and average Americans are simply going to pay more. The national sales tax calls for a 23 percent sales tax to replace all individual and corporate income taxes, the Social Security payroll tax, and the estate taxes. These are hidden taxes on State and local government that could result in the expenditure of up to $120 billion in new taxes at the State and local levels. These tax proposals would be nearly impossible to enforce. We should not sunset the code before we agree through consensus of Democrats and Republicans how to improve the system. We should not provide uncertainty to the system. We all agree that the current system is flawed, but we have to have worthwhile provisions that the American people will come to regard with an element of respect. I wish I had more time to go on and on about this, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a bill that Secretary Rubin called ``semi-ludicrous.'' This outrageous bill would terminate our current tax system and not set a date for enacting a new system. I do not think that one Member of this body does not think that our current tax system needs improvement. I do not think that one Member of our body thinks that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) does not need improvement. This does not mean that we should support irrational legislation. On Sunday, the Washington Post ran an editorial entitled ``Why Not Sunset the House?'' Let me give a brief quote from the editorial ``* * * House Republicans have scheduled a show vote this week on what is arguably the least responsible idea in American Politics. They would sunset most of the tax code, effective Jan. 1, 2002, without having agreed on the replacement.'' Congress is in the process of taking responsible action on the IRS. The House and the Senate are in the process of a conference agreement to iron out the differences in the House and Senate passed IRS bills. Commissioner Rosotti is committed to improving the IRS and I believe he has already made progress. The two leading proposals for tax reform are a flat tax and a national sales tax. Both these proposals have fundamental flaws. The flat tax would replace our current system with one rate and that rate would be 17%. The Department of the Treasury believes that the rate needed to raise the current amount of revenue would raise taxes on middle-income families by $1,500 and the top 1% would get a tax break of $44,000. A flat tax kills the progressivity of our current tax system. The national sales tax proposal calls for a 23% sales tax to replace all individual and corporate income taxes, the Social Security payroll tax, and the estate tax. There are hidden taxes on state and local governments that could result in $120 billion in new taxes for state and local governments. This tax would be difficult to enforce. We should not sunset the code before we have a solution to fix the system. We should not provide uncertainty to the system. I agree our current system is flawed, but we do have some worthwhile provisions that provide protections that many taxpayers rely upon. Let me talk for a second about the home mortgage interest deduction. This provision has benefited millions of Americans. Twenty-eight million Americans benefit from this deduction and more than 50% of these taxpayers earn less than $75,000. This deduction has helped many of us with the American dream of owning our own home. Scrapping the code leaves this deduction uncertain. Also, the deduction of state and local property taxes would be uncertain. This deduction helps make it easier to own a home. We also have many other valuable deductions such as the deduction for health insurance of the self-employed and charitable deductions. Retirement savings receive preferential benefits from our current tax system. Scrapping the code does not protect retirement savings. Why should we encourage investment in Roth IRAs if they may no longer exist in 2002? Let's stop this nonsense and address real tax reform. The Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means have introduced a series of bills to make it easier for taxpayers to compute their taxes. These bills address the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT), individual capital gains, and the calculation individual phaseouts and deductions. I urge my colleagues not to be part of this outrageous proposal. We should get back to work and work together to simplify our current tax system.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Rangel and I are introducing legislation to help taxpayers. In the next few months, both the House and Senate will vote on legislation to sunset the tax code by 2002. Instead of engaging in rhetoric and unrealistic solutions, I think we should be working on legislation that simplifies our intricate tax code. We should not be wasting time on an unworkable proposal to repeal the current system. Today, we are introducing legislation which would make the calculation of individual taxes that require complicated calculations simpler. This legislation would replace two worksheet schedules with a total of 19 lines and replace with them with one line. This legislation simplifies the individual income tax by repealing the adjusted gross income (AGI) limitations on itemized deductions and the personal exemption. Under current law, personal exemptions are reduced by 2 percent for each $2,500 by which the AGI of the taxpayer exceeds $181,000 for joint filers and $121,200 for single filers. If an individual's adjusted gross income exceeds $121,200, certain otherwise allowable deductions are reduced by the lesser of 3 percent of the excess of adjusted gross income over the applicable amount, or 80 percent of the itemized deductions otherwise allowable for the tax year. This legislation repeals the complicated provisions described above and replaces them with an additional income tax of 1.59 percent. The bill simplifies the calculation of current phaseouts and removes the marriage penalty of these provisions. In order to remove the marriage penalty the new additional income will affect individuals with lower AGI in order to remove the marriage penalty imposed by the provisions. The additional income tax of 1.59 percent applies to individual taxpayers with adjusted gross income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers. These thresholds are indexed for inflation. This additional tax does not apply to estates or trusts. This legislation is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1998. This legislation is revenue neutral. The purpose of this legislation is to make it easier for individuals to compute their taxes and to remove unfair marriage penalties included in phaseout provisions. I urge my colleagues to join us in sponsoring legislation to simplify the tax code. Instead of talking about strapping the tax code, we should be taking concrete steps to simplify it. This legislation builds upon other legislation offered by Democratic Members of the Committee on Ways and Means. These bills address complexity of the code in areas such as the individual AMA and capital gains. I look forward to working together to reduce the complexities of our current code. I urge you to consider cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged today to have the opportunity to acknowledge and honor Kavanaugh Furniture of Springfield, Massachusetts 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 Kavanaugh. Today, Kavanaugh'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, Kavanaugh'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 Kavanaugh'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. Kavanaugh 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 Kavanaugh'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 Kavanaugh's has now reached its 125th year in the business. Not only has Kavanaugh'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. Kavanaugh's once even held a free picnic for over 2,500 city kids. The Kavanaugh 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 Kavanaugh'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. Mr. Speaker, along with Representatives McDermott and Kennelly, I am introducing legislation which addresses the marriage penalty of the earned income tax credit (EITC). Recently, there has been a lot of talk about reducing the marriage penalty. Several bills have been introduced to reduce the penalty. In addition, the House Budget Resolution includes a provision to reduce the marriage penalty. The focus of reducing the marriage penalty has been geared toward middle income and upper income families. Senator Phil Gramm was the first Member of Congress to bring attention to the marriage penalty of the EITC. Senator Gramm is attempting to amend the tobacco legislation. His amendment addresses the marriage penalty for families with lower incomes and the marriage penalty of the EITC. Today, we are introducing legislation which addresses part of the marriage penalty in the current Tax Code by increasing the phase-out of the EITC for joint filers with qualifying children. This legislation increases the phase-out by $3,500. In 1999, the current law phase-out is $12,520 and this bill increases it to $16,020. The substantive effect of this bill is the same as the EITC provision in Senator Gramm's amendment. This legislation complements legislation introduced by Reps. McDermott and Kleczka. Their bill increases the standard deduction for those filing joint returns. The bill I am introducing today and the McDermott/Kleczka bill provide a realistic solution to the marriage penalty that addresses the issues at all income levels. I urge you to join me in reducing the marriage penalty associated with the EITC. This legislation will help working families who are trying to stay off welfare.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged today to have the opportunity to acknowledge and honor my constituent, Mr. Chester J. Mackowiecki, on the occasion of his retirement from the field of education. Mr. Mackowiecki, resident of Auburn, Massachusetts, has been an educator, administrator, and leader in education in the over 30 years that culminate his career in education. His dedication to improving children's lives through education is evident by his past involvement in and progression through the school system in Webster, Massachusetts. Mr. Mackowiecki began his career in 1959 as a fifth grade teacher at the School Street School. He then moved to the Webster Intermediate School in 1961 where he served as a fifth grade teacher until he was appointed Assistant Principal. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Mackowiecki served as Principal of the Intermediate Annex and Filmer School until he was appointed to his present position of Principal of the Park Avenue Elementary School. He has served as a leader and mentor to all those students and teachers that have had the opportunity to learn and flourish under his administration at Park Avenue Elementary over an astounding 28 year period! Mr. Mackowiecki's 39 year commitment to education and to providing quality education to the children of Webster is a most admirable achievement that should serve as an inspiration to all who enter the field of education. The loyalty and pride that is felt toward him by his colleagues and all teachers who have served under his leadership is indicative of the positive atmosphere for learning that Mr. Mackowiecki fostered within the classrooms of the Park Avenue Elementary School. Mr. Mackowiecki will be greatly missed by all those who he has touched and influenced, both young and old. I wish him many years of health, happiness, and peace during his retirement and am assured that the legacy he has left in Webster Education will not be forgotten.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity today to honor Jimmy Sturr and His Orchestra, a musical group whose name in synonymous with polka music in America. As a Member of Congress with a large Polish American constituency in Western and Central Massachusetts, I have learned first-hand from the people who I represent of this group's popularity and intergenerational appeal, and I am pleased to share their accomplishments with the House of Representatives today. The rise in popularity of polka music in America is due in large part to the contributions of Jimmy Sturr and His Orchestra. Sturr's style of polka music embraces musicianship. This Americanized genre of polka music, which features the trumpet, saxophones and clarinets, is their trademark and is enjoyed by generations around the globe. Having just recorded their 99th album, the excellence of their recordings has earned the group 9 Grammy Awards and 13 consecutive Grammy Nominations. The Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) has awarded Jimmy Sturr its most valued award, the ``Commendation of Excellence''--the only one ever awarded in the polka field. Voted the ``Number One Polka Band in the Country'' for the past ten years, their recordings have earned both ``Album of the Year'' status in the polka music industry. With his many successes, Jimmy Sturr still lives in the house where he grew up, and his office is located across the street from the high school he attended in the upstate village of Florida, New York which has a population of 1,800. America is a melting pot that celebrates the richness of the cultures within its borders. Jimmy Sturr and His Orchestra bring this richness into our modern lives. As we dawn on the 21st Century, I take this unique opportunity to honor Jimmy Sturr and His Orchestra for their accomplishments. I look forward to learning of their many more accomplishments in the future.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged today to honor one of my constituents, Mr. Albert Cournoyer, as he celebrates his 40th year of hard work and dedicated service to the Publick House Historic Inn in Sturbridge, Massachusetts. The Publick House has been successfully operating and thriving in Sturbridge for 227 years. I have to think that part of the reason for the Inn's long and prosperous presence in this area of Massachusetts is due to the work of fine employees such as Albert Cournoyer. Mr. Cournoyer first began assuming responsibility at the Publick House in 1958, at the young age of 14. His work ethic and positive attitude were quickly manifested and noticed as he performed the duties of handyman and dishwasher. Mr. Cournoyer's commitment and skill allowed him to move on from these jobs to other facets of the Inn's operations so that by age 21, he was promoted to Head Chef. Albert Cournoyer's career in the culinary arena continued to grow until he was made Executive Chef and later to the point where he was entrusted with the duty of overseeing food service operations at Old Sturbridge Village. One of Mr. Cournoyer's greatest achievements, the fruits of which we witness today, came when he served in the capacity of Director of Maintenance in the early 1980's. At this time he directed and supervised all renovations and construction to the Country Motor Lodge and adjoining restaurant. In June of 1997, however, Albert Cournoyer's accomplishments, experience, consistent maintenance of the highest quality standards, and hospitable demeanor received their crowning recognition in an announcement which named him the newly appointed Innkeeper of the Publick House. Based on Mr. Cournoyer's record of excellence it came as no surprise that such a worthy candidate received the Innkeeper position. The qualities that Albert Cournoyer has exhibited for 40 years and continues to reveal in his work at the Publick House are those that all citizens should strive to emulate. For the Publick House's frequent patrons, celebrants of special occasions, and travelers stopping off at this landmark, Albert Cournoyer, for 40 years, has been making their experiences both memorable and enjoyable. I am fortunate to serve such an outstanding citizen and I am proud and honored to congratulate him today.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, sometimes in this Chamber we act as though we have a collective sense of amnesia. I want to stand in opposition to the Baker amendment today, an issue that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) and I engaged in some years ago, as well, and with great regard for the gentleman's abilities. But I would like to point out that oftentimes we forget what has occurred here. In 1991, I offered this amendment on the House floor that would call for the opportunity for lending institutions to do a better job of keeping track of the loans that they made to small business and to small farms. At that time, I had the support of Andy Ireland, who was the ranking member on the Committee on Small Business, but in the end we were able to come to an agreement that allowed the call report to be amended so that we could do a better job of tracking this information as it applied again to small business and to small farms. Now, the FIDICIA act of 1991, in the midst of the magic words that some of us also might remember here, the credit crunch, where we had regulators arguing that there was no credit crunch, what the real argument was about was they were unable to secure the necessary data that accompanied that information so that we could have done a better job beyond anecdotal evidence, as highlighted by the previous speaker. We need to be in a position where we can secure this information so that we can act accordingly. Now, let me talk, if I can about that FIDICIA markup. At that time my amendment was included in the final package, and to this day we are able to go and retrieve that information in a timely manner. I offered that amendment at the time to collect evidence that small banks were not lending to small businesses. I was pleased at the time that the data was included, and I believe it encouraged banks to make loans to small businesses, which we oftentimes celebrate here as the engine of economic growth. Now, I know the economy today is not in the same state that it was in in 1991. The banks are reporting record profits. And I do not think anybody here would argue that there still exists a credit crunch. But who in this chamber knows how long that is going to last? We should reject the Baker amendment, stick with the CRA requirements, and retrieve this information in a timely manner so that we can make better decisions.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced legislation along with several of my colleagues of the Massachusetts Delegation to correct the tax treatment of real property tax reduction vouchers received in exchange for volunteer work. The House of Representatives in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has passed legislation that would exempt real property tax vouchers received in exchange for volunteer work from income for state tax purposes. Similar legislation is pending in the State Senate. Many towns in Massachusetts have implemented a program which allows senior citizens to volunteer in exchange for a voucher of $500 to be used towards their property taxes. Seniors can volunteer to work in libraries, recreational centers, parks, and senior centers in exchange for a voucher to be applied to their property tax. This program benefits both the community and the individuals volunteering. My legislation would allow vouchers received in exchange for volunteer work to not be included in gross income. The legislation also exempts these voucher from employment taxes. Senior citizens who are age 65 are eligible for this legislation. The effective date is for payments made after January 1, 1999. This legislation enhances an important program that is currently taking place in many towns in Massachusetts. I hope that we can address this issue this year and that there will be an appropriate legislative vehicle.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to have the opportunity to honor two outstanding constituents, Rabbi David Edelman and wife, Lillian Edelman. Their 48 years of devotion to the Jewish community is an inspiration to us all and reminds us of our responsibilities to serve one another. As leaders in education, community outreach, and religious stewardship, both Rabbi and Mrs. Edelman incorporate in their work the fullness of their Judaic faith so as to enhance the quality of Jewish life in the Greater Springfield area and elsewhere. At Yeshiva Academy in Longmeadow, MA, Rabbi and Mrs. Edelman have laid the foundation for one of the finest Jewish educational institutions in our nation. Having been involved in the establishment of Yeshiva from its beginnings, the Edelmans continue to be central figures at this thriving Academy that they so dutifully helped create. Both Rabbi and Lillian Edelman have collaborated in sharing administrative duties at Yeshiva while making their own unique contributions as well. Rabbi Edelman has been active in strengthening the Academy's commitment to community service through his involvement in outreach programs, adult education, and after school activities. Equally notable are Mrs. Edelman's efforts in founding a sisterhood at Yeshiva which became the Parent-Teacher Association and as innovator, designing the concept of the Auction to support the school's fundraising initiatives. In extending their ministry beyond Yeshiva, Rabbi and Mrs. Edelman have been able to enrich the quality of Jewish life for a host of citizens outside of their immediate community who reside in other areas of Massachusetts and Connecticut. Rabbi Edelman has shared his knowledge of the Judaic tradition with students of Chassidic philosophy at the University of Massachusetts and in classes at the Jewish Nursing Home. As visiting clergy at Baystate Medical Center and spiritual leader at both Knesser Israel and Beis Medrash Lubavitch, Rabbi has been similarly generous in spreading the teachings of Judaism. Lillian Edelman's activism and memberships include the Hebrew Free Loan Association, the Mizrachi, and the Kesser Israel sisterhood. Just as they have spread Judaic values within the community, so too have Rabbi and Mrs. Edelman instilled the spirit of this religion in their home. Perhaps the greatest reflection of any couple and surely the Edelmans is their remarkable achievement in raising eight fine children. In their sons and daughters, Rabbi and Mrs. Edelman have laid the roots of their legacy of service and commitment to the Jewish tradition. Together this family manifests through their vocations and good works a deep understanding of Jewish morality and generosity. Indeed two individuals who have made every facet of their lives work within the foundation of Judaism in a spirit of communal devotion, I am proud to honor Rabbi and Mrs. David Edelman on 48 years of service to the Jewish community.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) for yielding me this time. In this Chamber there is a tendency to toss around mind-numbing statistics, and in the best of debates that occur here we attempt oftentimes to convince each other through the use of abstraction. But the truth is that there is one point that must be emphasized today above all else, and that has been the success of Mr. Roosevelt's experiment offered to the American people in 1935. There are millions of people watching right now, at this very moment across this country, this debate, who enjoy the benefits of Social Security. We should fully acknowledge that Social Security fundamentally changed the way seniors across this Nation have lived out some of the best years of their lives. So it was not an abstraction, Mr. Speaker, when President Clinton almost exactly 3 months ago walked into this Chamber and in his State of the Union address said, ``Let's fix Social Security first.'' Now, I know there is a tendency to think that that is some catchy political slogan, but I must disagree. Because saving Social Security first is a generational promise that must be continued into the next century. Fortunately, due to the President's budget in 1993 and the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, we are showing a surplus for the first time in many years. But we should use that surplus to buy down the debt and to save Social Security first. Social Security remains the lifeline of support for many Americans as they grow older, and our obligation is to strengthen that lifeline. Now, I know there is talk in this Chamber about offering personal savings accounts. Let us examine that. There can be no harm from a thorough examination. But let us not forget the goal of community that Social Security offers and generational obligation that it compels from all of us. President Clinton had it right: Let us have a dialogue. And the dialogue, indeed, has already started. Even yesterday, as we reviewed new numbers, we know that there will have to be fundamental examinations of Social Security in the coming years. But, most importantly, let us point out that retirement savings is a three-legged stool and the three legs are private savings, pension and Social Security, understanding that almost 40 percent of retirement income for most Americans comes from Social Security. We want to encourage people certainly to take more responsibility for their retirement but again not to forget the essential element of Social Security, and that is the interlocking notion of community. Our society has changed in the workplace dramatically, and I know it is common for individuals to change jobs many times over. That makes it more important now than ever to address the issue of pension portability. Social Security should be addressed this year, and pension portability should be enacted this year. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) for taking up this debate once again.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I have this opportunity to stand on the floor of this great Chamber and acknowledge the celebration and occasion of the 80th Birthday of my constituent, Joseph Giguere. Mr. Giguere of Southbridge, Massachusetts was born in St. Aimee in the Province of Quebec, Canada on March 19, 1918. His early years on his family's homestead in the countryside surrounding Montreal instilled within him a sense of hard work and determination, and loyalty to friends and family. These admirable qualities were carried with him when he emigrated to the United States at the age of eleven and helped him to persevere and fully acclimate himself to the American society that he proudly became a citizen of. His eagerness to learn a new language, while still observing and respecting the strong French- Canadian heritage that had been ingrained in him, enabled him to attain an education and skills necessary for trade of a woodscraftsman. Though it was the Depression, his father was an entrepreneur and successfully started numerous enterprises, including broom factories, butcher shops, and woodworking establishments. The skills that Mr. Giguere learned allowed for him to always find work to sustain and contribute to his family. Mr. Giguere married his sweetheart, Dorothy, with whom he celebrated a 50th wedding anniversary and each day of their life together. They shared a love and friendship that many would envy, as well as the blessing of six children and many grand-children and great- grandchildren. Mr. Giguere and his wife ensured that all of their children, Richard, Marguerite, Roland, Therese, Paul, and Michael, were raised appreciating the value of education, discipline, and tradition, all which they in turn have passed on to their own children. Mr. Giguere also extended his good fortune and the warmth of his home to members of his community and the parishioners at Notre Dame Church. In fact, stories abound of the crowds of neighbors and friends who would come to Mr. Giguere's home to watch Milton Berle, Jackie Gleason, and Art Carney since he owned the first television in the area. The laughter and happiness continues from those nostalgic days, and ``Pepere'', as he is affectionately referred to by his grandchildren and great-grandchildren, is always there to extend a helping hand or a listening ear and his own perspective and encouragement. It is a great pleasure to acknowledge Mr. Giguere today on the occasion of his 80th birthday. May he have many more happy and healthy years ahead of him.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, for the third year in a row we are now debating a resolution to pass a constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds majority for any bill making a change in the revenue laws unless it is, ``determined at the time of adoption in a reasonable manner prescribed by law not to increase revenue by more than a de minimis amount.'' The resolution failed to receive a two-thirds majority for passage the past two years, and last year the defeat was by a greater margin. All I can say about this resolution is that we have said enough about it and it is time to move on, instead of this waste of time with the gimmicks that are typically associated with these efforts in this House. Let us get away from the gimmicks. Mr. Speaker, if I can, we ought to call this the ``Republican Straight-Faced Amendment.'' There are Members of this House that vote for term limits after they have served for 20-plus years and do not retire. That constitutionally we ought to take the line-item veto and pass it down to the White House, because somehow they believe that there is more wisdom at that end of Pennsylvania Avenue than this end of Pennsylvania Avenue. And, Mr. Speaker, instead of doing our work, we ought to have a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which we balanced without disturbing the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, it is gimmickry and it speaks to the lowest instincts of the American voter when these proposals are repeatedly put in front of them by people who lack the fundamental sincerity on most of these issues. If they are for term limits after 12 years or 6 years, pick up and go. If they pledge at home that they are going to do that, they ought to take advantage of it and leave the institution. But no, we come back with this kind of a gimmick time and time again. Since this is the third year in a row, Mr. Speaker, that this proposal is brought before us, let me give my testimony from the last 2 years as well and submit that for the Record: Mr. Speaker, today is a day that is dreaded by most Americans for one reason or another. Today, April 15th is commonly known as ``Tax Day.'' Anxiety is high and many Americans are scrambling to meet the deadline. People across America are concerned if they have to pay or if they did their taxes right. Today, the House is participating in a publicity stunt to try to ease the anxiety and fear about our current tax system. We went through this exercise exactly a year ago today and rational minds prevailed. The resolution fell 37 votes short of the two-thirds majority required to endorse a change in the Constitution. We should not waste our time by having this debate again and hear Mr. Speaker would like to have it every April 15th. Instead of holding this publicity stunt, Congress should be working towards balancing the budget. This resolution will not help individual taxpayers. A balanced budget will benefit us all. If we want to help taxpayers, we should enact targeted tax breaks such as expanded individual retirement accounts (IRAs). IRAs will provide a tax incentive for savings. We need to increase our national savings rate. Today, we are debating an amendment to the Constitution. Any time we amend the Constitution it should be done in a serious manner. Amending the Constitution should not be taken lightly. This proposed amendment to the Constitution would require a two-thirds majority for any bill making a change in the revenue laws unless it is ``determined at the time of adoption, in a reasonable manner prescribed by law, not to increase internal revenue by more than a de minimis amount.'' This resolution does nothing but compound our current budget debate. As a former history teacher, I value the Constitution and I have tried to pass this on to my students. Currently, the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority vote in the House in only three instances--overriding the President's veto, submission of a constitutional amendment to the states, and expelling a Member from the House. These instances differ substantially from the issue before us today. The proposed Constitutional Amendment is similar to a House rule which was adopted last Congress. The rule required a three-fifth majority for ``carrying a Federal income tax rate increase.'' This rule change was narrower than the proposed Constitutional amendment. The Constitutional Amendment would affect all taxes and would also prohibit revenue increases through eliminating loopholes or other base broadeners. The experience with the House rule demonstrates the unworkability of the proposed Constitutional Amendment. This rule was narrowed at the beginning of this Congress and the rule is basically meaningless. The issue of requiring a two-thirds majority is not a new issue. This issue plagued our Founding Fathers. This proposed amendment would gravely weaken the principle of majority rule that has been at the heart of our system for more than 200 years. The Constitutional Convention rejected requiring a super-majority approval for basic functions such as raising taxes. James Madison associated majority rule with ``free government.'' He believed a person whose vote is diluted by super-majority rules is not an equal citizen and his freedom is not fully enjoyed. The arguments of James Madison still hold true today. With the adoption of this amendment, power would be transferred to the minority. A minority would be able to prevent passage of important legislation. Our Founding Fathers recognized the difficulty of operating under a two-thirds majority. The Articles of Confederation required the vote of nine of the thirteen states to raise revenue. We should learn from the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. The proposed Constitutional Amendment would change how the House currently functions. This amendment would require any bill closing loopholes for deficit reduction to require a two-thirds majority. However, the amendment would permit tax increases on one group of taxpayers to pay for a tax break for another group of preferences. This proposed amendment would require a two-thirds majority to reinstate funding of the Superfund program. A supermajority would be required to reinstate the trust fund for the airport and safety and improvement program. Deficit reduction should be our primary focus and this proposed amendment would make it harder to enact deficit reduction. The Coalition Budget which was a responsible balanced budget would require a two-third majority by closing unnecessary tax preferences. We should take a hard look at the action we are about to take today. Last year the Washington Post ran an editorial entitled ``False Promises.'' This editorial hit the nail on the head. It reminds us that damage done to the Constitution cannot be undone. We simply cannot waive the Constitution. We should realize that we are elected to make hard decisions. A majority of major legislation passes with less than a two-thirds margin. Our job would be easier here if two-thirds of us could always agree and this is not supposed to be an easy job. We have to make tough decisions which often result in close votes. Between 1982 and 1993, five bills that raised significant revenue were enacted. President Reagan signed three and the other two were signed by President Bush and President Clinton. All five of these bills did not receive a two-thirds vote on the House Floor. Raising taxes is never an easy decision. I voted for President Clinton's budget in 1993 and parts of this budget were hard to support enthusiastically. But as a package, it was the right thing to do. President Clinton's budget in 1993 tackled the deficit. In 1992, the deficit was equal to 4.7 percent of the gross domestic product. The deficit will drop to 1.4 percent of GDP. The difference is money available for investment in the private economy. I cannot predict the future, but based on past precedents, I believe it will be extremely difficult for any President to have a budget pass Congress if this amendment is enacted. So many of us hear the complaints from our constituents about gridlock. This amendment could add to the gridlock. We would not be able to pass the budget deals of the past without a supermajority. We should all know from this year's budget process how difficult this could be. We will hear today that this amendment is important because it will help reduce our taxes. If we really want to help the American taxpayer we can do better than this legislation today. Our energy should be focused on deficit reduction. This amendment would make deficit reduction more difficult. We all want to make our tax system more fair and simpler. This amendment will not help reach that goal. We have not studied the effects of this amendment closely enough. The wording of this amendment is not clear and could result in years of litigation. The resolution is not specific enough to address questions such as the length of the budget window or what constitutes a tax or a fee. I urge you not to support this proposed amendment. We do not know enough about its effects. Just because it is Tax Day, we should not support a Constitutional Amendment that sounds good at first. In reality, this amendment will create numerous problems and will change the concept of majority rule. With this Amendment, we are turning back the clock of history and not moving forward. Mr. Speaker, what we should be doing here today, according to the Certified Public Accountants of America, is speaking to the 10 big taxpayer headaches that could be cured through a little tax simplification. We could use our time to correct legislation that would make the tax burden easier for the American people. Number two and three are individual alternative minimum tax and individual capital gains. Democrats on the Ways and Means subcommittee have introduced two bills that would address these important issues. But let me talk if I can about AMT. The accountants refer to the individual AMT as the ``iceberg on the horizon sneaking up on unsuspecting middle income taxpayers as fast as the Titanic went down.'' The individual AMT is a tax on the individual taxpayer to the extent that the taxpayer's minimum liability exceeds his or her regular tax liability. The AMT imposes a lower marginal rate of tax on a broader base of income. The nonrefundable credits available to an individual to reduce his or her regular tax liability generally may not reduce the individual's minimum tax. But starting in 1998, individuals who take advantage of that tax credit enacted as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 will now have to fill out the complicated AMT form. In 1998, 856,000 people will pay the AMT, and this will increase to 3,000,822 taxpayers in the year 2008. The AMT will affect middle-income earners and result in the individual not being able to fully benefit from the new credits. An example would be a married couple with three children, including one in college, with a gross income of $63,000 would be affected by the AMT. This couple is entitled to $2,300 in credits, but $620 of that amount would be disallowed due to the alternative minimum tax. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) has introduced a good piece of legislation that would fix that problem. Many of us have spent hours upon hours of filling out schedule D. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 provides for five different rates. An additional tax rate is scheduled to take place in 2001 and another in 2006. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne) has introduced a very simplified Capital Gains Tax Act of 1998. This legislation would require a taxpayer to include 60 percent of their total capital distributions on appropriate tax lines. My argument here today is simply this. The other side knows that this is not going to pass, and they are trying to position Members of this House again in an election year over this issue. Leave the Constitution alone. The Constitution works fine as we have demonstrated with the balanced budget amendment, as we have demonstrated internationally with the demise of the Soviet Union. The rest of the world envies this system and they view it with a great deal of envy. Yet we sit here and come up with gimmicks rather than speaking to the real issues that confront the American citizen every single day, whether in the workplace or in other avenues of their lives. It is time to move on from this gimmickry, Mr. Speaker, and get to the real issues that confront this Nation.

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

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing extremely important legislation that will benefit working Americans. The focus of this legislation is pensions. Pensions are an integral part of retirement. Retirement can be compared to a three legged stool and the three legs are savings, pensions, and Social Security. We are beginning to face what has been commonly referred to as the ``graying of America.'' Within thirty years, one our 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 number of Social Security beneficiaries doubling by the year 2040. In the near future, we need to address Social Security, but in the immediate future Congress should take action to improve our current pension system. Last Congress, Congressman Thomas and I worked on ``Super IRA'' legislation and many of these proposals were included in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Expanding individual retirement accounts (IRAs) will help many save for their retirement. The Taxpayers Relief Act of 1997 created the Roth IRA which has made IRAs more available to millions of taxpayers. The response has been overwhelming. The Taxpayer Relief Act has jump-started IRAs and we need to do the same for pensions. Forty percent of retirement income comes from Social Security. Nineteen percent comes from pensions and the rest comes from individual savings. We need a more balanced approach. Pensions should provide for more than 19 percent of savings. We need to make individuals more responsible for their retirement. Our society has changed and this includes the workplace. It is now more common for individuals to change jobs than to stay with one firm for an entire career. This makes it extremely important for us to address pensions and especially the issue of portability. Changing jobs should not drastically affect one's pension. Millions of Americans have no pension access to retirement plans. Only half of full-time, private sector workers participate in an employer-sponsored pension plan. This results in 51 million American workers who have no pension plan. Pension coverage has only increased to 50 percent in 1993 from 48 percent in 1983. Small businesses are less likely to have pensions than large businesses. While only thirty percent of firms that employ between 25 and 49 employees have pensions, seventy-three percent of firms that employ over 100 employees have pensions. Only 85 percent of Americans making below $10,000 a year have pension coverage. Fewer women receive pensions than men. The percentage of the workforce covered by a pension has stagnated in the last 20 years. Many firms cite complexity and start-up costs as major reasons for not offering pensions. Portability is an issue that must be addressed as we improve our pension system. Five million people with pension coverage change jobs every year. Many workers lose out on their pensions because they leave their jobs before their pensions vests. President Clinton's budget for FY 1999 included comprehensive pension proposals. The proposals are aimed at making it easier for employers to offer pensions and for employees to retain pensions when switching jobs. The President's proposals are targeted to promoting pension plans among small businesses. These proposals build on past efforts of the President and Congress to simplify pensions. The President's measures would boost private pensions and individual retirement savings. I applaud President Clinton for addressing pensions in a timely manner. Today, I am introducing ``The Employee Pension Portability and Accountability Act of 1998'' which is based on the President's pension proposals. I have made one change to the President's proposals as described in the budget. After reviewing testimony submitted to the Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee, I have decided to make our change to the SMART plan and I will go into more detail later. This legislation will enhance workers' ability to contribute to an IRA by payroll deduction. The bill will provide a tax credit for small businesses with fewer than 100 employees for the start-up costs of a pension plan. The legislation creates a new simplified defined benefit pension plans for small businesses with fewer than 100 employees called the SMART plan. The SMART plan is a broad based approach that provides participants with a guaranteed minimum annual benefit upon retirement. An employee's benefit would be 100 percent vested at all times. I have eliminated the professional employer exclusion from the SMART plan. Under the Administration's proposal, professional employers would not be eligible to offer a SMART plan. However, I will continue to work with the Department of Treasury to improve this legislation so that it is specifically targeted to low and moderate income workers. The bill allows for faster vesting of employer matching contributions to defined contribution plans. Vesting for the employer match would occur at three years instead of five years. This should help with portability. The bill will also include the expansion of right-to-know provisions for workers and spouses; and simplification proposals. These proposals will help reduce the paper work associated with pensions. The above described legislation is targeted to improve pensions in the areas where I believe the most improvement is needed--coverage for small businesses and portability. Now is the time for Congress to act. We cannot overlook the statistics. We have to address the ``graying of America.'' I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the ``Employee Pension Portability and Accountability Act of 1998.'' I look forward to the passage of bipartisan pension legislation. Enclosed is a detailed section by section of the bill. The Employee Pension Portability and Accountability Act of 1998 Section by Section Section 1. Short Title This legislation is entitled as the Employee Pension Portability and Accountability Act of 1998. 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 in 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 contribution 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 amount 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 non-deductible 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, 1998. Section 3. Credit for Pension Plan Startup Costs of Small Employees 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 start- up costs. For purposes of the credit, an eligible employer is an employer who maintained 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 (SMART) Trusts This section creates a simplified defined benefit plan. As in all defined benefits 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 a 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 pension plans, contributions to the SMART plan would be excludable from income, earnings would be accumulated tax- free, and distributions at the time of distribution 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 plan investments 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 percentaged 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 result in some employers making additional contributions to the employee's 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 Guarantee 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 3 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 benefits contributions made and 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 contribution 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, 1998. 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 are less than 5 years the employee does not vest to any portion of 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 vesting and 7-year vesting schedules would be modified to provide for 3-year cliff vesting and 6-year graded vesting. The six-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, 1998. 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 the 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, 1998. Section 6B. Right to Know Pension Plan Distribution Information This provision would require employers who use any 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, 1998. Section 7. Mandatory 1 Percent Employer Contribution required under alternative methods of meeting nondiscrimination requirements for 401(k) plans This section modifies the section 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 nonhighly 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, 1998. Section 8. Definition of Highly Compensated Employees Under current law, a highly compensated employee is defined as an employee who was a five percent owner of the employer at any time during the proceeding 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 employers in previous years. This section eliminates the top-paid group from the definition highly compensated employee. Thus, the level of compensation earned or ownership determine whether the employee is highly compensated. This provision would be effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 1998. 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, and exempts 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, 1998. 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 deduction 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, 1998. 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 plans. This provision would be effective for partial termination beginning after December 31, 1998.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I hope today that we will not diminish one of the most successful initiatives that has come from this city in the last 30 years, and that is the President's Corporation for National and Community Service. This legislation today proposes a significant decrease in what has been domestically one of the most successful initiatives that I can recall. AmeriCorp has served hundreds of domestic violence victims throughout the State of Massachusetts. It has been enormously successful. It seems to me it goes hand-in-hand with what the other side has been talking about for the last decade about personal responsibility, a better and higher sense of citizenship, but, most importantly, and it has been inclusive, it suggested to millions of young Americans that the opportunity for some sort of tuition assistance down the road will be there if they only give back to this Nation the opportunity that the Nation has granted to them. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that in this supplemental that is being proposed today we would resist any effort along the way to curtail what I think has been an enormously successful Presidential initiative, and that has been the President's proposal for National Service Learning.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think that the arguments being applied on the House floor as I stand in support of the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Patrick Kennedy) and his amendment today is essentially this: The question of how immigration has served this Nation during the last many years, and what I am struck by in terms of this debate is that while we are asking for a narrow solution, I think it draws us to the broader argument of what immigration does for America. In the instances of Portugal and Greece where, by the way, the United States Senate has already swiftly acted on this initiative, we are not only talking about great allies, but we are talking about people who regularly visit and then regularly and faithfully return. The truth is that for many of us who have large Greek constituencies or large Portuguese American constituencies, not only is it an opportunity for families to reunite for brief periods of time, but also I think is an opportunity to once again extend the argument that America warmly welcomes and receives the idea and notion of what immigration has meant in our history. I have stood on this floor in debate in the past over the issue of immigration, and happen to believe, as one whose grandparents were immigrants to this Nation, that immigrants and immigration serves the purpose of this Nation very well. Technology allows for more instant communication, and now there is the opportunity here to allow Greek and Portuguese visitors to America to come with more regularity. In both instances, I think it is an example not only of cooperation but how in the long run this boosts the American economy. When the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) asked me today to join this debate I was enthusiastic about doing it, based upon the constituencies that I have had a chance to represent now for more than 2 decades in Springfield. We are still a Nation that honors the notion of immigration. It is hard work, it is principle, it is dedication, it is faith and family and friend that these people still celebrate. They could give all of us a lesson in patriotism and hard work. We should adopt the amendment that is offered here today that the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) is proposing, and we should do it with enthusiasm and we should do it on behalf of those millions of Americans who have come to this shore in the past, only to improve the circumstance with which we all live. I am pleased to add my voice in support of this proposal.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to honor the parish of the Evangelical Covenant Church of Indian Orchard, Massachusetts, as they celebrate their 150th year of existence. This church has a strong history of roots in the community and I am proud to share with you some important facts and unique traditions. Its origins date back to the winter of 1848 when an interested group of citizens formed the nucleus of the parish and founded what is now called the Evangelical Covenant Church of Indian Orchard. After more than a century of service, the church, in 1954, adopted a new name, becoming the First Congregational Church of Indian Orchard. However, in June of 1997, upon joining the Evangelical Covenant Church of America which was first organized in 1885, the church acquired yet another name, its current name, the Evangelical Covenant Church of Indian Orchard. From this chronology, it is interesting to see how this 150 year old Indian Orchard institution is in some ways, very new. During the past 150 years, the church has survived several calamities including fires and hurricanes. Despite this adversity, the church has been a constant source of religious inspiration and stewardship for its parishioners and community. Through this time, the church has also been able to establish and preserve many significant traditions while similarly adapting to modernity. One custom which began in 1894 and is still carried out today is that of presenting bibles to seven year old children of the Sunday school. Another practice of the church noted in the records in 1880 was the serving of communion wine by the pastor into a single cup used by all who partook. Today this convention has been altered as communion wine is now served in individual cups. The parishioners of the Evangelical Covenant Church of Indian Orchard look forward to celebrating and sharing these traditions with their newly installed Pastor, Reverend Donald Olson. There are many special plans set for the weekend of April 17, 1998 which include a hymn sing, anniversary banquet, and worship services. These events should make for a fine celebration and I congratulate the church on 150 years of religious service.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand before this great legislative body during Education Week to acknowledge the positive educational initiatives that are taking place in the Second Congressional District of Massachusetts. This month is National Middle Level Education Month, and I would like to take this opportunity to commend Mary E. Wells Junior High School in Southbridge, Massachusetts for the strives they are making in promoting academic excellence to all of their students. Mary E. Wells Junior High School, under the leadership of Principal Brian Abdallah and Vice-Principal Bryant Montigny, has submitted to me a Proclamation that epitomizes the direction that education and standards of excellence should follow across the nation. Mary E. Wells Junior High School attained the privilege and honor of being nominated by the Massachusetts Department of Education as a Blue Ribbon School for the 1997-1998 school year. This distinction gives credence to the diligence and dedication of the teaching staff at Wells and the positive outcomes that can result when challenging standards and curriculum exist and teaching and active learning partnerships are pursued. Proclamation Whereas, middle level education has a special and unique function in the nation's education system; and Whereas, young adolescents are undergoing dramatic physical, social, emotional and intellectual growth and are especially vulnerable; and Whereas, the habits and values established during early adolescence have critical, life-long influence; and Whereas, this influence affects the future health and welfare of our nation; and Whereas, an adequate public understanding of the distinctive mission of the middle level school is necessary for that mission to succeed; and Whereas, it is incumbent upon all of us in education and in the larger community to have high expectations for all students, educators, schools, parents, and community members for middle school students to achieve and develop to their fullest potential; Therefore be it Resolved, that the month of March 1998 be declared National Middle Level Education Month; and is being celebrated at Mary E. Wells Junior High School in Southbridge, Massachusetts. Resolved, that the public be afforded special opportunities to visit middle schools and participate in programs that focus on the nature of young adolescents, celebrate the ways in which our nation's schools respond to their needs and to the needs of the nation; and Resolved, that the public be encouraged to commit to working with schools to provide the highest standard of schooling and highest expectations for all adolescents and adults working with them.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take this opportunity to honor the team members, coaches, and manager of the Shepherd Hill Regional High School 1997 Girls Soccer team. Hailing from Charlton, Massachusetts, this Shepherd Hill team captured the Division II State Title on November 22, 1997, defeating Marblehead High School in a 3-1 victory. Before capturing the statewide Division II crown, this team achieved many accomplishments. While accumulating an impressive 18-5-1 record, their hard work both on and off the field secured for these fine players, coaches, and manager the Southern Worcester County League West Conference Championship, the District E Division II Championship, and the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association Academic Excellence Gold Award for having a team Grade Point Average of 3.35. In gaining these accolades, this Shepherd Hill team demonstrated that athletic and academic excellence can be achieved in tandem. For this reason in particular the 1997 Shepherd Hill Regional High School Girls Soccer Team is a model for athletic teams around both the nation and globe as they have shown that the qualities of determination, commitment, and effort are as important in the classroom as they are on the playing field. I would finally like to congratulate each and every person associated with the 1997 Shepherd Hill Regional High School Girls Soccer Team. Please let me submit the names of those dedicated individuals who helped bring the Massachusetts Division II Girls Soccer State Championship Title to Shepherd Hill Regional High School. They are Team Co-Captains Katie Brothers, Trisha Cushing, Jen Langlois; Players, Katie Bembenek, Julia Faia, Jessica Frink, Gina Gregoire, Colleen Hackenson, Danielle Houle, Samantha Kane, Melissa Kasheta, Emily Koslowski, Tracy Koslowski, Elizabeth Laplante, Kerry Malone, Kristen Malone, Angela Minardi, Amanda Muise, Jenna Murphy, Moiria Murphy, Wendy Paquin, Kelly Walsh, Megan Welch, Katelyn Weymouth; Head Coach Harry Logan; Assistant Coaches Karen Jensen and Jody McManus; and Manager Jim Rawson. From this great victory may come many more. Congratulations to you all!

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to honor Mr. David Duncan of Springfield, MS. Mr. Duncan is retiring after 33 years as a member of the Teamsters Union. Mr. Duncan's dedication and loyalty to the Teamsters Union and his fellow workers is exemplified by his decades of service to the Union. His career began at the tender age of 9, when he would shine shoes near the Springfield train station on weekend nights. After honorably serving our nation as a Sergeant in the U.S. Army, Mr. Duncan returned from Europe to marry his high school sweetheart, Anna, with whom he celebrated his 40th wedding anniversary earlier this month. Dave began his career as a Teamster as a driver/dockman in 1965, and four years later was elected as steward. Dave began his service as an official in Local Union 404 as Business Agent and then was subsequently elected as Vice President/Executive Officer in 1988. Dave's leadership in this organization has allowed it to flourish from a nearly bankrupt union to the vibrant and healthy organization that it is today. The Union was able to move into a new and much larger facility, as well as the important existence of the Local 404 Health Benefits Fund which has experienced a dramatic fourfold increase in reserve funds to provide benefits for many years to come. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure and privilege today to stand before this body to honor the loyalty and hard work of my constituent, Mr. Dave Duncan, a man who has epitomized the ideal integration of family dedication, work ethic and diligence, and community involvement. The Local Union 404 will sorely miss the leadership of Mr. Duncan in the future, but the legacy of his commitment to workers and issues that affect all of the community will carry on indefinitely.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation which addresses an extremely important issue--pension portability. Today, there are 51 million American workers with no pension plan and there are many others who lose their pensions when they change jobs. Our society is ever changing and one of these changes is job mobility. It is much more common for individuals to have several jobs than in the past. Unfortunately, when individuals change jobs, they are not able to continue the same level of pension benefits. This fact is especially true if the individual's pension plan is a defined benefit plan. Today, I am introducing legislation which takes steps towards improving pension portability upon employment separation. The legislation improves pension portability for both defined benefit and defined contribution plans. For defined contribution plans, the legislation reduces the current vesting period of five years for employer contributions to three years. For both defined benefit plans and defined contribution plans, the legislation requires the employer to offer the employee the option of receiving a lump sum distribution to an individual retirement account (IRA). The employer has to make this offer to the employee within 90 days of termination of employment. The employee does not have to take this option because in some situations this would not be the best option for the employee. The lump sum would be directly transferred to an IRA. These funds would be subject to a higher penalty than the current law penalty of 10 percent for withdrawals made prior to the taxpayer reaching age 59\1/ 2\. Withdrawals would be subject to a 25 percent penalty for the first two years and then it would be 10 percent. These penalties are the same penalties as for simple IRAs. The 10 percent penalty would be waived for the three allowable purposes under current law which are first time purchase of a home, costs of higher education, and medical expenses. The legislation waives the 10 percent penalty for withdrawals made before age 59\1/2\ for individuals who have received 12 weeks of unemployment compensation. This provision is to help those who have lost their job and need to use their retirement savings to make ends meet during difficult financial times.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to help those who do not have employer sponsored pension plans. I agree with Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan that our biggest economic problem is our low national saving rate. Since August of 1997, Americans have been setting aside only 3.8 percent of their personal income. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 included tax incentives to increase personal saving. This new law expanded individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and created the Roth IRA. Under the new Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, an individual may contribute $2,000 to either a traditional IRA or a Roth IRA. This $2,000 limit has not been increased since 1981. This legislation would simply index the $2,000 limit for inflation in $500 increments. The $2,000 limit would just be increased just for traditional IRAs and not Roth IRAs. The reason for this is traditional IRAs have lower income limits and are designed to help those who do not have employer pension plans. It is important we do as much as possible to help individuals save for retirement. Many use IRAs as their sole source of private savings for retirement. The $2,000 limit has not been adjusted since 1981. This is a saving for retirement. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation. During the 105th Congress, I look for ward to enacting legislation which will improve our current pension system. The last provision of the bill addresses a provision of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 includes a provision which allows an employer to voluntarily cash-out employees from pension plans upon termination of employment if the amount is less than $5,000. My legislation would require this sum to be placed in an IRA. The purpose of this provision is to lock up this money for retirement savings. This sum was not taxable income for the employee because it was earmarked for retirement. This provision would allow the funds to be used for retirement. I urge my colleagues to review and cosponsor this legislation. Pension portability is a serious issue and this legislation makes strides towards improving it. Among all distributions that occur at job change, 33 percent result in an IRA rollover, 7 percent are rolled over to a new employee plan, and 60 percent are cashed out. We need to impose these statistics and the legislation I am introducing today will do this. Enclosed is a summary of the legislation. Summary of Pension Improvement Act Section 1. Short Title.--This legislation is entitled the ``Pension Improvement Act of 1998''. Section 2. Faster Vesting for Employer Contribution to Defined Contribution Plans.--Reduced vesting from five to three years for employer contributions to defined contribution plans. Allows an option instead of 3 year vesting the following schedule: at 1 year, 20 percent at 2 years 40 percent, at 3 years 60 percent, at 4 years 80 percent, and at 5 years 100 percent. Section 3. Employers Required to Permit Rollovers to Individual Retirement Plans Within 3 Months After Separation from Service.--Employer required within 90 days of termination of employment to offer employee their pension benefits to be rolled over into an IRA. The employee is not required to take this option. Withdrawals before the taxpayer reach age 59 and \1/2\ from the rollover IRA are subject to a 25 percent penalty for the first two years and then 10 percent. Current law is a 10 percent penalty on early withdrawals. As under current law, the 10 percent penalty would be waived for withdrawals for first time purchase of a home, costs of higher education, and medical expenses. Section 4. Penalty-Free Distributions from Individual Retirement Plans to Unemployed Individuals.--The 10 percent penalty would be waived for withdrawals made if the taxpayer has received unemployment compensation for twelve weeks. Section 5. Involuntary Cash-outs Permitted Only if Distribution Rolled to an IRA.--Involuntary cash-outs of less than $5,000 need to be rolled over directly into an IRA.