Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today it brings me great pleasure to recognize fire drillmaster Norris James Quinn who devoted 40 years of public service to the people of Springfield, MA. In his first 20 years of commitment to the city, Quinn was promoted through the ranks first to lieutenant, and then to captain, culminating with his appointment as permanent drillmaster (chief of training). In this capacity, Chief Quinn greatly contributed to the establishment of a new fire training center. In 1968, Chief Quinn began the search throughout the city for a site for land to construct the new facility. After weeks of planning and preparation by Quinn, his dream of a state-of-the-art fire training center was realized. Since its completion, the training center has instructed countless firefighters. His commitment to the safety of his fellow firefighters has in turn greatly aided the community as a whole. I served as the mayor of Springfield when Chief Quinn retired in 1987 and was proud to have such an outstanding citizen serving the city. His legacy shall carry on as future generations of firefighters benefit from Quinn's achievement. On Tuesday, September 17, 1996 this facility will be renamed the ``Norris J. Quinn Fire Training Center''. It is fitting that this institution be named after a man that devoted much of his profession in the training of Springfield's firefighters. I salute Chief Quinn for his distinguished career and offer my heartfelt congratulations for this great honor of which he is so deserving.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, and, like the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], I want to thank him for the many remarkable years of service in this institution, and for those of us on the minority side of the Committee on Ways and Means, we want to thank him for the leadership he has provided during the past 18 months. I also want to thank Chairman Archer for the provision in this legislation that deals with the New Bedford fishermen, which was a contentious issue for many years. I am grateful we were able to resolve this issue in an amicable manner. I want to ask the following rhetorical question, if I can, for just a second. Last year in this House we voted more than 1,000 times. Here we are now, in the middle of the Olympics, with a tangible accomplishment for the American people in this piece of legislation. Why do we not ask ourselves this: What did we accomplish in this institution last year with 1,000 votes? Well, we certainly satisfied the psychology of an element that got elected. We made them happy that they were able to go home and point to some headline-grabbing news that really had little consequence for the American people, but we spent 5 days a week and sometimes 5 nights a week on this floor and in this institution talking about things, again, that had little relevance to the American people. So here we are on the day before the House recesses, with a tangible piece of legislation, and it is in the middle of the summer Olympics, so we cannot report back to the American people on what we have done during the last week. We have a good increase in the minimum wage. What did the majority leader of the Republican Party say? He was going to do everything he could to stop that bill from ever happening. That is what we did last year. There is an improvement here in spousal IRA's, which I have sponsored and pushed hard for. That should have been done last year. We, in fact, should have done a more expansive individual retirement account piece of legislation that we all could have taken satisfaction from its passage having occurred. One thousand votes last year. We should ask ourselves, what did we accomplish?

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today we are voting on a piece of legislation that is long overdue. We are increasing the minimum wage by 90 cents over 2 years. The value of the minimum wage has dropped to a 40-year low. Today, by increasing the minimum wage we are doing something tangible for the American worker. Two days ago on this floor we passed a tough welfare bill. The major goal of this bill is to move individuals off of welfare and to work. Increasing the minimum wage goes hand in hand with welfare reform. To encourage individuals to work we have to make work more attractive. Increasing the minimum wage is a step in making work a better alternative. By earning more there will be less of a need for Federal assistance such as food stamps. We are helping workers become more self- sufficient. The Small Business Job Protection Act includes many tax provisions that many of us have been working on the past few years. Many of these provisions have been long awaited. The tax provisions do not include everything I would have liked, but I believe it's a good package that will go along with helping small businesses. This bill includes a provision which would assist the fishermen of New Bedford, MA. I cannot think of a better example of a small business. I am a strong supporter of IRA's and believe we should provide tax incentives to encourage savings. This legislation includes a provision which increases the availability for spousal IRA's. The provisions permit deductible IRA contributions of up to $2,000 to be made for each spouse, including those who do not work outside the home. This will help women to increase savings for their retirement. It corrects an inequity that existed in our Tax Code. This legislation extends the exclusion for employer provided educational assistance. This provision allows for exclusion from income up to $5,250 for tuition paid for by an employer. As a former professor, I have seen how helpful this provision can be. Unfortunately, the exclusion only applies to graduate-level education until June 30, 1996. I plan on continuing to work on including graduate education. Education is important to increasing our competitiveness in this global economy. We are creating more high wage jobs and we need education workers. The exclusion for education workers helps more than lawyers and doctors. This legislation provides an extension of the R&D credit. The credit is reinstated for July 1, 1996 to May 31, 1997. This is the first time the credit has not been extended retroactively. I am pleased the credit has been extended and I will continue toward making the R&D credit permanent. We need to assist corporations with research and development. R&D is necessary for global competitiveness. The R&D credit will help keep high wage jobs in the United States. This legislation contains a package of S corporation reform provisions. The package includes a provision I have worked on the last couple of years. This package will help small businesses that are organized as Subchapter S corporations. The legislation includes pension simplification provisions. The purpose of this package is to strengthen and simplify the pension provisions of the Tax Code. The package includes provisions which make it easier for small businesses to offer pension plans. Church pension simplification provisions were also included in this package. This pension package takes a step toward making retirements more secure. These provisions will help increase the access to retirement savings for many American workers. We have to continue to work to make it easier for more American workers to have pensions. Today is a good day for the American worker and small businesses. The bill is a good compromise and it should make a difference.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation which would reduce the excise tax on beer from $18 to $9 a barrel. The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990 doubled the excise tax on beer to $18 a barrel. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 included provisions commonly referred to as ``luxury taxes'' on high- priced items such as boats, furs, and automobiles. All of these luxury taxes have been reviewed by Congress. For example, today we passed the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 which includes a phaseout of the luxury automobile excise tax. The automobile excise tax is the last luxury tax still in effect. I believe it is time for Congress to look at a repeal of the beer tax. The tax increase of 1990 doubled the tax on beer. Currently, consumers pay 32.6 cents per six pack. This legislation would reduce the tax to 16.3 cents a six pack. The beer tax is an example of an excise tax which affects the average working American. Congress has repealed and reviewed the luxury taxes which mostly affect the wealthiest of all Americans. We should now review a repeal of the increase on the excise tax on beer. This type of excise tax is regressive and it affects the average American. If we can repeal excise taxes on items that affect the wealthy, we should look at items that affect the average working person. Forty-three percent of the cost of beer is taxes. This is simply too high. Lately, there has been a lot of talk about tax reform and tax fairness. Repealing the excise tax on beer would help make the Tax Code more fair. Mr. Speaker, I urge Congress to take another look at the beer tax.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] for yielding me this time. Let me offer a statistic this evening that I think is the most compelling number that has surrounded this debate for the better part of 18 months. There are 12.8 million people in America who receive AFDC. Of that number, between 8 and 9 million of those recipients are children. That is the issue that we can never lose focus on. That is the issue that ought to motivate, and that is the issue that ought to drive these deliberations. And yet after 18 months there has only been one bipartisan initiative that deals with welfare. The authors having been the former Governor of Delaware, Mike Castle, and the Congressman from Tennessee, John Tanner. Only one bill had the support of Democrats and Republicans alike in this institution, and it was the piece of legislation that Bill Clinton said ``I will sign if you put that on my desk.'' But the posturing that has taken place over this issue has delayed getting to a bill that withstands the scrutiny that we all know welfare reform deserves. Let me just read one sentence from a letter that was sent by the Speaker of the House to the members of the Republican Conference. He said, in suggesting they oppose the bipartisan bill, the following: ``It is critical that Republicans maintain the upper hand on this issue by rejecting the Gephardt substitute.'' That they maintain the upper hand, because that is what this debate has been about. This debate has been about November. This debate has been about trying to get a bill down to the White House that they know the President of the United States cannot sign. That is how policy has been made, and that is how it has evolved in this institution. And remember those words, it is important that the Republicans maintain the upper hand on this issue.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, there is a great verse from the old folksong that goes like this: When will we ever learn? Two years ago, one side in this institution learned that they would be unsuccessful in imposing their will on the other side when it came to the health care debate. And for the better part of 18 months, the majority in this House has failed to successfully pass welfare reform. The truth is, today, and Members will never hear them give any credit to this gentleman, but Bill Clinton forever changed the culture of the welfare debate in this country when he said we would end welfare as we currently know it. There is but one piece of legislation in front of this House today that commands the respect of Democrats and Republicans alike. That is the Castle-Tanner legislation. That is legislation based upon the hard- won experience of the former Governor of Delaware and the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, because they worked diligently to come up with a piece of legislation that Republicans and Democrats alike could support. No Member of this institution supports or defends the status quo when it comes to the current welfare system in America. We reject the notion that one out of three children being born out of wedlock in the long run ensures the social viability of this Nation. But as Al Smith used to say, let us take a look at the facts. Members will never hear it from the majority in this House, but today there are 1.3 million fewer welfare recipients across this Nation. Bill Clinton has granted 67 experiments in 40 States. Seventy-five percent of the welfare recipients in this country today are in work programs across this Nation. But let us not lose sight of this fact. I reject the suggestion of the previous speaker on the Republican side, when he said that this debate was not about children. There are 12.8 million AFDC recipients in America today; 8.8 million of those AFDC recipients are children. Despite the mistakes of parents who may well have been involved in antisocial behavior or, through no fault of their own, receiving welfare benefits, we ask ourselves today, what do we do about those 8.8 million children? Is there anybody of the Jewish faith or the Protestant faith or the Catholic faith today or other faiths in this institution that would reject the instruction of those religious creeds and say that we have an obligation to those children to move them through this difficult time in their lives? Their only mistake was to be born into circumstances over which they had no control. But what is ironic about much of this debate today is that we have an opportunity in this Chamber to reject the status quo, to do it as Democrats and Republicans alike and, indeed, everybody would acknowledge how far the Democratic Party has moved during the last 18 months on this issue. Do my colleagues know what else is extraordinary? As the Democratic Party has moved to the center in this debate, the Republican Party has moved more to the right. The goal of welfare reform has been elusive because there is an element on the other side that does not want to change in policy. They want a campaign issue for November. And the nominee of the Republican Party really had very little interest in coming to terms with a welfare bill that he knew that the President of the United States would sign. We have a chance in the next hours of this day to create a welfare bill that Republicans and Democrats can go home and point to as a tangible achievement and to remind the American people that the system really does work when there is an element of goodwill that governs our lives. The choice is relatively simple today. Will we vote for a piece of legislation that protects 8.8 million American children, or will we be caught up in a political issue for the fall? I would remind all that, again, it was Bill Clinton who changed the culture of the welfare debate in this country and has said repeatedly, if a good, sound welfare bill is put on his desk, he will sign that legislation. Do Members know what else is interesting? He has already stated he will sign the Castle-Tanner bill if put on his desk. We can accomplish that in the next few hours. Vote for Castle-Tanner and to welfare say farewell.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this amendment offered by Chairman Bunning is nothing more than a classic example of traditional Republican union bashing, and a backdoor assault on President Clinton's executive order to improve labor/management relations through the use of Partnerships. Every Member of this Congress is concerned about preserving and strengthening the Social Security Trust Fund. We all want to ensure that monies in the Trust Fund are being used to provide benefits and services to seniors in the most efficient and cost effective means possible. And efficiency and cost effectiveness is exactly what the ``union activities'' at Social Security are set out to achieve. Efficiency at the Social Security Administration goes to the heart of the way in which individual cases are handled. As the Social Security Administration is being downsized, and as systems are being redesigned, the input of the Social Security employees--the caseworkers--is, and should be, an invaluable contribution to management decision making. Management alone can not be expected to know everything about how work is done, or how it can best be done. Consultations with Social Security workers are key to creating the best systems possible. And these consultations are what we are talking about today when we discuss union activities. The union activities at the Social Security Administration are far less mysterious than the Republicans want to make them appear. In fact, union activities at Social Security are very similar to those at many private companies, including General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler-- companies where it is common practice for workers to be paid for official union time. As a former mayor, I've been involved in many negotiations with unions over the years. I've learned that unions are rarely 100 percent accurate in their positions, and management alone seldom has all of the right answers. The best solutions to common workplace problems are those that are crafted with input from both labor and management. Union activities at Social Security, which make up--mind you--only three one-hundredths of 1 percent of the total administrative costs for the Social Security Administration, are geared at improving the way in which benefits are delivered to senior citizens and the disabled. In full compliance with the law, union activities at Social Security are paid for by a combination of funds derived both by general revenue funds and the trust funds. Mr. Chairman, in a time when we are all trying to make government smaller and more efficient--less bureaucratic and more like the private sector--it seems to me that we should encourage government agencies to use the same innovative management techniques and partnerships that have been embraced by successful companies like Saturn, Corning Glass, and Harley Davidson. It seems as if everyone except the Republicans in this House knows that old fashioned top-down management is a thing of the past. We owe America's senior citizens the most efficient Social Security Administration possible. This amendment is nothing more than a politically motivated attempt to scare America's senior citizens, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. In full compliance with the law, union activities at Social Security are paid for by a combination of funds derived both by general revenue and trust funds, and we are correcting that in our substitute. I have been involved in union negotiations time and again, and unions are never 100 percent correct. And, something else, management is never 100 percent correct. Social Security is in the midst of downsizing. Their systems are being redesigned. There is anxiety in the workplace. That is not unlike what is happening across the rest of America tonight. The result of a healthy workplace where people have high morale is consultation. What we have here is a frontal assault on union activities, which we attempt to address in a reasonable substitute.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today it is with great pleasure that I pay tribute to the largest history museum in the northeast on its 50th anniversary, Old Sturbridge Village. Nestled in the small New England community of Sturbridge, MA, Old Sturbridge Village is an outdoor history museum and recreated village that tells the story of everyday life in a rural New England town during 1830's. Old Sturbridge Village is a composite New England town displaying the various aspects of several communities of the 1830's. The museum was founded by Albert, Cheney, and George B. Wells as an outgrowth of the family's extensive collection of antiques. Old Sturbridge Village first opened to the public on June 8, 1946, with 81 visitors touring the village. Today the nonprofit educational institution boasts more than 435,000 visitors yearly and 100,000 pieces in its collection of antiques documenting New England's past. Mr. Speaker, this year Old Sturbridge Village is celebrating its first half-century as the region's premier living history museum recreating in lively fashion the important period in American history between 1790 to 1850. For nearly 50 years a historically costumed staff has reenacted the daily work activities and community celebrations of a rural 19th-century town for thousands of children and adults alike. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize the achievements of Old Sturbridge Village in its attempt to provide modern Americans with a deepend understanding of their own times through a personal experience with New England's past. By visualizing what moved the men and women of prior generations, Old Sturbridge Village has for 50 years shed light on Americans as they attempted to act, believe, and build the future of America. Congratulations to Old Sturbridge Village on its 50th anniversary.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I stand her today to voice my opposition to the disapproval resolution for MFN. Once again, the House is going through it annual summer ritual of debating MFN for China. Each year this is a difficult decision for me. I decided last Congress that we should renew MFN and continue to pursue other course of action to improve human rights in China. I continue to believe at this time it would not be the right approach for the United States to revoke MFN for China. The relationship between United States and China is complex and involves many issues: human rights and democracy, nonnproliferation, Taiwan, Tibet, trade and intellectual property rights. This relationship is very fragile and a balance needs to be struck. This relationship is like walking a tightrope. One missed step could throw the entire relationship off balance permanently. A sound relationship with China is in our national interest. China is the world's largest country. Years ago, we tried to isolate China and that policy failed. We should not repeat mistakes of the past. Engagement with China is the best solution. We cannot isolate China. We need to continue engaging China in a dialog to promote our interests, especially human rights. The behavior of China in the past few months has been far from exemplary. Human rights abuses continue. Commitments to intellectual property enforcement were broken. Aggressive military actions toward Taiwan occurred. Communist military, Chinese military industries attempted to sell AK-47 rifles to United States law enforcement officers conducting a sting operation. These are important issues that should be addressed in another manner than revoking MFN. Revoking MFN would punish the United States more than it punishes China. Revoking MFN would harm our security, political and economic interests. American exports and jobs depend on decent relations with China. In 1995, $12 billion in exports to China supported 170,000 high- wage United States jobs. Many of China's most prominent dissidents including leaders of the pro-democracy movement at Tiananmen Square do no support revoking MFN for China. Recent actions by China made many of us angry, but revoking MFN is a knee-jerk reaction which might provide instant gratification, but over the long run we would regret our actions. The repercussions of revoking MFN are great. President Clinton stated: We have to see our relations with China within the broader context of our policies in the Asian Pacific region. I am determined to see that we maintain an active role in this region . . . I believe this is in the strategic interest, economic, and political interests of both the United States and China . . . I am persuaded that the best path for advancing freedom in China is for the United States to intensify and broaden its engagement with that nation. I completely agree with the President's statement, United States interests are best served by a secure, stable, open and prosperous China. We need to encourage China to embrace international trade and proliferation rules. We need to pursue improving human rights through diplomatic contacts and with the assistance of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. The Clinton administration issued voluntary principles for the conduct of American business globally, including those conducting business in China. The Clinton administration has pressed for the release of political dissidents and religious prisoners. These are the type of actions we need to be taking. We need to improve our relationship with China. Complex areas of the United States-China relationship can and should be addressed. House Joint Resolution 461 offered by Mr. Cox provides an opportunity for these issues to be addressed by the House. Revoking MFN would make this impossible. Engagements is our best approach. Mr. Speaker, these are issues that cannot be swept under the rug, but the question is how best to resolve them, how best to speak to them, and that is to engage the Chinese.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this evening we are debating the Small Business Job Protection Act. The basic provisions of this bill are good measures which would help small businesses. Most of the provisions in the bill are bipartisan. The reason we are debating this bill today is to provide a sweetener to small businesses because of the minimum wage. I have no problem with passing tax legislation to assist them, but I think we should have had the opportunity for a clean minimum wage bill. During this Congress, we have not passed much tax legislation and there are many noncontroversial provisions where there is bipartisan agreement that should have been included in this package. Last night, I went to the Committee on Rules to testify about an amendment which I offered during the Ways and Means markup. This amendment would have allowed a $5,000 deduction for expenses associated with the higher costs of education. The deduction would be phased out for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income [AGI] between $70,000 and $90,000 for single filers and $100,000 and $120,000 for joint returns. This amendment proposed originally by President Clinton would help with the high rising costs of education. The costs of a college education have risen steadily in the past 15 years. However, the average family's income has not increased at the same rate. I realize the purpose of this legislation is to assist small businesses. Our business will be greatly assisted by this type of provision. The need for higher education is more important than ever. The world economy mandates the necessity of education and training for workers. This provision assists 14 million families and this results in 17 million students. We should have used this opportunity today to help the middle class with the rising costs of tuition. The bill is weak on education. Under the bill, the provision to provide tax-free employer- provided educational assistance would be extended from January 1, 1995, through December 31, 1996. However, educational expenses for graduate studies would not receive the exclusion after December 31, 1995. As a former college instructor, I taught many students in continuing education programs. These students worked hard to increase knowledge and greatly benefited their employer. I am pleased the legislation included pension simplification provisions. Pension security is an extremely important issue. I wish this bill included additional provisions which would assist with pension portability. We have to make it easier for workers to keep their pension when they change jobs. Additional provisions could have been added to make pension more portable. True pension reform needs to include the expansion of Individual Retirement Accounts [IRA's]. Expanded IRA's will allow an additional 20 million families to utilize the tax advantages of IRA's. More individuals would benefit from a tax incentive to save for their retirement. Expanded IRA's would encourage individuals to become more personally responsible for their savings. IRA's would make pensions easier for employers. This bill contains a provision which affects the economy of Puerto Rico. I am concerned with the changes to section 936 and I encourage Congress to continue to work with the Governor of Puerto Rico and the administration to improve this provision. I support this bill, but I wish it could have been a better product. We need to work in a bipartisan manner to enact the proposals that we can agree on such as education, IRA's, and the R&D tax credit. Let me close by saying, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Archer this evening for addressing an issue that has been long held for the community of New Bedford, MA. I want to thank the chairman for the manner in which he addressed that legislation and helped to secure its passage. It was long overdue. And while I wish we could have spoken to education, IRA's, and the R&D tax credit, I am indeed grateful that we were able to address the needs of the New Bedford fishermen.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, a few months ago we were all engaged in a tough debate commonly referred to as the ``battle of the budget.'' Once again, we are here debating the budget and lines are being drawn in the sand. While the budget which is before us is not as outrageous as the budget resolution before us last year, however, this budget resolution is still out of touch with the average American. This resolution harms programs that benefit many of our constituents and represent values which I think should define America. For the past few years, I have been very active on the debate on welfare. We all agree with President Clinton that ``we have to end welfare as we know it.'' The welfare provisions of this budget resolution are better than the budget which was passed Congress, but the structural changes this provision makes are fatally flawed. All individual guarantees for assistance to needy families would be replaced with block grants to the States. The States would receive funding but there is not enough guidance from the Federal level to determine how these funds will be spent. Also, the maintenance of effort requirements are weak. The cornerstone of welfare reform should be work. The only way to successfully reform welfare is to move individuals toward work. This cannot be done without having a successful work program which is adequately funded. Not only does this budget resolution not provide funding for work. It cuts the earned-income tax credit by $20 billion over 7 years. President Reagan referred to the earned-income tax credit as ``the best, antipoverty, the best pro-family, the best job-creation measure to come out of Congress.'' Why are we cutting this successful programs that provides an incentive to get off welfare and work? The proposed cuts go beyond eliminating the EITC for childless workers. In Massachusetts, 8 percent of the taxpayers will benefit from the EITC in 1996. This resolution is less harsh on Medicaid than the resolution before us last year. But once again, the proposal calls for a massive restructuring of the current Medicaid Program and this will hurt the elderly. The proposal does not guarantee low-income seniors who cannot afford Medicare that their premiums and copayments will be covered by Medicaid. This jeopardizes guaranteed health coverage for nursing home residents. Why are we attacking the elderly in this budget? We are hurting those who need our help the most. Deficit reduction needs to be accomplished and we need to address many complicated issues. We need to continue to talk about these issues. The budget resolution that will be before us tomorrow is not the right solution. Spending in certain areas can be reduced and programs can be reformed, but this budget just goes too far. We need to continue to work on a path to balance the budget and this should be done in a bipartisan manner.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize the Parish of Sacred Heart Church in Feeding Hills, MA which will be celebrating its 50th anniversary on Sunday, May 19, 1996. For the past half century, Sacred Heart Church has been an integral part of the Springfield Catholic Diocese and a mainstay in the town of Agawam. The church began as a small mission chapel for Mount Carmel Church in Springfield and was run by the Stigimatine Fathers. In 1946, Bishop Thomas M. O'Leary declared Sacred Heart a territorial parish in Feeding Hills to be run by the Stigimatine Order. Sacred Heart had 175 families in its parish in 1946 but its chapel could only accommodate 125 people. The need for a new larger church was immanent and the parishioners immediately began working together to raise the necessary funds for the new construction. After more than ten years of hard work, the diligence of these parishioners was rewarded in 1959 when Bishop Christopher Weldon dedicated the new Sacred Heart Church. The expansion did not end with the new church, however, and in 1964 the men of the parish built the Sacred Heart Restaurant at the Big ``E'' in West Springfield and the Parish Center was dedicated in 1971. During this period, an athletic program was established for the young people of the parish and a parish library was added, complete with adult bible classes. The parish had certainly blossomed into a major center for community activity in the Feeding Hills area and was a source of tremendous pride for the citizens of Agawam. Today the parish has grown to 2,065 families and has been transferred from the Stigimatine Order back to the Springfield Diocese. This tremendous growth and the parish's continued commitment to charitable organizations and community development have made Sacred Heart one of the true gems of the Second Congressional District. I would like to salute Rev. Kenneth Tatro, the Pastor of Sacred Heart; Pastoral Minister Sister Eileen Sullivan, SSJ; Deacon James Martone; and the many dedicated parishioners who have donated so much time and energy over the years to ensure Sacred Heart's place among the most outstanding institutions in Western Massachusetts. Sacred Heart is a tremendous source of pride for not only the Springfield Diocese but for the entire Second Congressional District. I am honored to represent the outstanding individuals who comprise Sacred Heart parish and I join with the citizens of the Second Congressional District in offering a most heartfelt congratulations on this ``golden'' anniversary. Sacred Heart has truly succeeded in its mission to foster a cooperative and inclusive spirit in the community and I wish Sacred Heart Church all the best for another successful 50 years.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House was involved in a publicity stunt because of it being tax day. Today, we are debating tax legislation that will truly help the American people. Before us today is the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The purpose of this legislation is to help those taxpayers who find themselves in dispute with the Internal Revenue Service [IRS]. This legislation will reduce the anxiety that surrounds April 15 each year. Taxpayers will have some extra assistance when they are faced with the IRS. This legislation is based on an extensive bipartisan effort of the Ways and Means Committee to assist the taxpayer. Mr. Pickle, the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight, worked long and hard on this issue. The legislation before us today is substantially the same as legislation developed by Mr. Pickle. Also, Senator Pryor has spent many years working on this legislation. One of the key provisions of this legislation is the creation of an independent taxpayer advocate. The taxpayer advocate will work to improve taxpayer services and IRS responsiveness. The taxpayer advocate will report to the tax writing committees of Congress on the progress in this area. Another key provision requires the IRS to report to the tax writing committees on the misconduct of IRS employees. This report will give Congress the chance to study the misconduct of IRS employees and the punishment for misconduct. Taxpayers will receive assistance for taxpayers who experienced difficulty with the IRS. This legislation would allow taxpayers who have been the victim of reckless collection actions by the IRS to sue the Government for $1 million up from the current cap of $100,000. The bottom line is this legislation will make it easier for taxpayers to work with the IRS. Currently, the United States has an 86-percent rate of compliance for Federal taxes. Hopefully, this legislation will help improve compliance which is already the envy of other countries. This legislation will improve the working relationship between taxpayers and the IRS. I am pleased this legislation is before us today. This legislation is a concrete way to help make April 15 a less stressful day for all Americans.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today is a day that is dreaded by most Americans for one reason or another. Today, April 15, 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. Tonight, 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. 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 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-thirds majority by closing unnecessary tax preferences. We should take a hard look at the action we about to take today. Last week 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 are all in election mode and 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 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. 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 battle 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 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. Tomorrow, we have on the schedule the Taxpayer Bill of Rights and this an example of legislation that will really help the individual taxpayer. Just because it is Tax Day, we would 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. I offer a suggestion tonight, Mr. Speaker, that we reject this foolhardy proposal.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to congratulate Mr. James E. Sullivan of Springfield, MA, on his retirement from the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority after more than 20 years of diligent service. Mr. Sullivan, or Jimmy, is a lifelong resident of Springfield and hails from a family with a strong tradition in public service. The youngest of five brothers, James answered the call to public service shortly after his graduation from Cathedral High School in 1949 when he joined the 104th Air National Guard. Jimmy served the Guard dutifully for 9 years, handling supplies and public relations for the 104th. Following his honorable discharge, James began a distinguished working career in a wide variety of occupations including finance, sales, media, and ultimately transportation. It was in this final area that James excelled, working his way up the ladder of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority from a toll taker to an assistant superintendent, a position he held for the past 17 years. In addition to his outstanding work for the MTA, Jimmy was extremely active in a host of community activities. He served as president of the Sacred Heart Holy Name Society and is currently a lecturer and a eucharistic minister at Our Lady of Hope Parish in Springfield. He was also a member of several organizations that have made tremendous contributions to the Springfield community. Among these organizations are the Knights of Columbus, the Archbishop Williams Council, and the Springfield Elks Lodge. James also served as the chairman of the Ward 2 Democratic Committee in Springfield. It was also from this position that he offered tremendous support for the many area politicians who hailed from ward 2, including myself. In addition to these other activities, Jimmy has been tremendously active in Irish affairs both at home and abroad. As a member of the John Boyle O'Reilly Club and the host of an Irish radio program for 25 years, he is intensely proud of his Irish heritage. These two activities have provided him with an ideal vehicle to expose several generations of Irish-Americans, in the Springfield area, to the rich traditions of song and history that Ireland enjoys. He has also been a longtime advocate of the peace process and I know he has done much to promote this sentiment throughout our region. I would like to congratulate Jimmy on a wonderful career and I wish him all the best as he enjoys his retirement with his wife Peggy, his children Margaret, Sean, and Thomas, and his granddaughter Kaila. While this retirement is a tremendous loss for the MTA, I know that it will enable him to devote even more time to a family he cares for deeply. I would also like to salute Jimmy Sullivan as a true public servant. His devotion to his family, his church, his job, his country, and his heritage have enabled him to enrich the lives of all who know him. As his Congressman, fellow Democrat, and personal friend, I join the citizens of the Second Congressional District in offering Jimmy our heartfelt congratulations. His life and service to his community are an inspiration to us all and I thank him for all that he has done.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one lesson that both Democrats and Republicans learned from the health care reform debate in the 103d Congress is that retaining access to affordable health insurance is an anxiety that plagues most American families. We exhausted the health care debate a few years ago in this Congress searching for ways to do it all--to make health care cheaper, better, and more accessible for everyone. And though we didn't pass health care reform legislation at that time, the fact that we are here today talking about limiting pre-existing condition exclusions and making health insurance portable--two consensus issues that Democrats and Republicans both support--is proof that our efforts did not fail. I'd like to take a moment today to applaud our President for choosing to act upon America's health care concerns, and for having the courage to bring the issue of health care reform to the forefront of our national agenda. The United States, and Massachusetts in particular, is home to the best quality health care in the world, and it is our job as Members of this House to make quality care available to Americans. The pre- existing condition limits and portability provisions in this bill meet this goal. We also have a unique opportunity today to make health insurance more affordable to the self-employed by increasing the deductibility of health insurance premiums. Under current law, the self-employed are allowed a 30 percent deduction. The bill before us today gradually increases the deduction to 50 percent and 50 percent is not phased in until 2003. The Democratic substitute addresses this issue in a more sensible and equitable manner. The Democratic substitute would increase the deduction to 50 percent in 1997 and 80 percent in 2002. Affordability is the greatest barrier to expanding health coverage. Increasing the deduction to 50 percent in 1997 will help make insurance affordable to those who lack coverage. Now, the self-employed may be able to fit into their budget the cost of health insurance. Equity in the tax code should be one of our primary focuses. Corporations are allowed to deduct 100 percent of the cost of providing health insurance. Narrowing the gap between corporations and the self- employed restores greater tax equity. Self-employed businesses range in spectrum from family farms to sole practitioners. These businesses are a vital part of our economy. We need to make health care affordable for them. I urge you to support the Democratic substitute which tackles the issues where there is agreement and will make a difference in the health care of Americans.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Berman-Chrysler amendment. Proponents of H.R. 2202 have argued that it is profamily. On the contrary, this legislation would eliminate whole categories of family sponsored immigration. Let me talk if I can for one moment about Mary Ward. Mary Ward emigrated to America at the turn of the century from County Down, Ireland. Mary Ward became a citizen in her late 50's and raised a family and worked as a domestic, passing on the very values that we cherish and honor in this Nation. Mary Ward was as patriotic as any American in this institution, and loved the opportunities that it brought to her family. Our goal here should be to separate legal from illegal immigration. Legal immigration serves this Nation very well. We acknowledge that illegal immigration is a problem. But where I live there are thousands of Polish-Americans and Russian-Americans and Franco-Americans and Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans and Asian-Americans. They add to the fiber and fabric and strength of this country. They do not subtract from it. In many instances they are more patriotic and more loyal than those who have been here for decades and decades and decades, and we should not forget about that in this debate. In our haste to address this crisis, let us not make the mistake of penalizing those who love the notion and idea that someday they might be called an American. Think as you vote on this about Mary Ward from County Down, Ireland. Mary Ward was my grandmother.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to congratulate the Cathedral High School Boys Hockey Team for their record setting year which earned them the 1996 Massachusetts Division 2 State Hockey Championship. For many years, hockey teams from western Massachusetts have not fared well against their eastern counterparts. Hampered by the lack of hockey rinks and the stiff competition that exists in Eastern Massachusetts, hockey teams from western Massachusetts have struggled. In the midst of period, Edgar Alejandro, the Cathedral hockey coach and a former standout hockey player at American International College, decided to challenge the eastern Massachusetts domination of high school hockey. Coach Alejandro recognized, however, that it would take some time before his teams could compete with the highly skilled units from the Greater Boston area. This past week, however, the Cathedral High School Panthers answered Coach Alejandro's challenge and shocked the State hockey establishment by rising from a seventh-seeded position to defeat Hingham High School 2 to 0 in the Massachusetts State Championship finals. I salute the Cathedral High School Hockey Team not only for their magnificent achievement, but also for their willingness to set a goal for themselves which many people thought unreachable. Their victory announces to the State that junior and high school hockey programs in western Massachusetts are fully capable of competing with the toughest competition in New England. In addition to Coach Alejandro, I want to also commend his assistant coaches David Fenton and Bill Christofori, team managers Jason and Justin Alejandro as well as the following members of the Cathedral High School Hockey Team who have earned this championship and the accolades which they so richly deserve: Jon Peczka, Bill La Palm, Kevin Labrie, Paul Demaria, Chris Orszulak, Mike Dias, Chris Bousquet, Brennan St. Germain, Dan Kenney, Mike Ryan, Peter Ollari, Chris Donovan, Brian Donovan, Mike Moriarty, Robbie Martin, John Miarecki, Marty Downey, James Burr, Tony Douillard, Tom Fugiel, and Mike Edgett.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to Coach Tony Goncalves and his Ludlow High School Lions boys soccer team for their outstanding 4 to 1 victory over Somerville High School to win the Massachusetts Boys Division I State Soccer Championship. The impressive performance by the Lions in the championship capped off a tremendous 17-2-3 campaign for Coach Goncalves and his team and earned them a spot in the top 25 of the Umbro Boys High School Soccer Poll. Over the years Ludlow High School has enjoyed a rich tradition of soccer excellence and this team will certainly be remembered as one of the best in Ludlow High School history. I would also like to recognize Coach Goncalves' assistants, Jack Vilaca, Greg Kolodziey, and Jon Cavallo, as well as team managers Brian Gosciminski and Tony Sanches for their outstanding efforts throughout this championship season. It is the unsung efforts of people like these that often make championships possible, and Ludlow was quite fortunate to be assisted by such able individuals. Finally, I would like to recognize the players who delivered this spectacular victory: Seniors, Bob Nascimento, Eddie Pires, Rich Huff, John Summerlin, Aaron Majka, Carlos Gomes, Adriano Dos Santos, Wesley Manuel, Chris Goncalves, Mark Eusebio, Jeff Leandro, James Ziemba; Juniors: Rob Gomes, Matthew Goncalves, Adriano Genovevo, Danny Elias, Jason Alves, Ryan Lemek; Sophomores: Alex Carvalho, Dave Garcia, Jon Haluch, and Justin Larame. The achievements of these young men are a tremendous source of pride for not only the town of Ludlow but for the entire Second Congressional District. I am honored to represent such outstanding individuals and I join with the citizens of the Second Congressional District in offering most heartfelt congratulations. I would also like to wish the returning players the best of luck as they embark on their title defense next season.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to George Ditomassi, a constituent of mine who has distinguished himself both professionally and privately, as a man of significant accomplishment and compassion. Mr. Ditomassi is the Chairman of Milton- Bradley Co. in East Longmeadow, MA, a toy and game manufacturer owned by the Hasbro Corporation. For as long as I can remember, George Ditomassi has given generously to the communities in which he lives and works. Year-in and year-out George Ditomassi is a good friend and neighbor to western Massachusetts. Though he sits on the corporate boards of some of America's largest companies, he also contributes his time to local and neighborhood organizations. In his many and varied roles, George Ditomassi has favorably impacted the lives of thousand of other people. That, in part, is why I have chosen to recognize him here today. On Sunday, March 17, St Patrick's Day, George Ditomassi will be given the Ambassador of Ireland Award by the Holyoke, MA, St Patrick's Day Parade Committee. The Ambassador's Award is given annually to an American citizen who is judged by the committee to have built an economic or social bridge between our two great nations. George Ditomassi fits this description extremely well. Raised in Holyoke, a long-time Irish enclave in western Massachusetts, George Ditomassi understands well the contributions that Irish-Americans have made to American society. As a businessman, he clearly understands the value that is added to a company by a well educated and highly skilled workforce, the type which is found in Ireland. As the chairman of the Milton-Bradley Co., Mr. Ditomassi has guided his company's decision to own and operate a manufacturing facility in Waterford County, Ireland. With over 500 people employed by Milton- Bradley at the facility, the plant is one of the largest employers in Waterford. It is a boon to the local economy and Mr. Ditomassi calls it ``a jewel in our crown.'' It is his stewardship of this investment in the Irish economy that has qualified George Ditomassi for the 1996 Ambassador of Ireland Award and also, it is the other part of why I have chosen to recognize him in the House of Representatives today. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in congratulating George Ditomassi for his upcoming receipt of the Ambassador of Ireland Award, and also, for a lifetime of service to his community.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have stood at this same place for the last few minutes and essentially talked about the same thing. There is a question of responsibility in this institution and the manner in which we should have acted some time ago by sending a clean debt extension to the President. In a legislative institution, there must be an element of goodwill. There has to be some give and take. There really has not been a lot of give and take over this issue during the last many months. I think that this opportunity, while it is not enough, is a signal that we ought to stop playing games with this issue of the debt ceiling. I have had a chance to discuss the debate in front of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services this issue with Members of the other side. But the truth is we are still here again 6 months late acting upon an issue that we should have acted upon months ago, and now what are we doing? We are extending the debt ceiling from March 15 to March 29. So we are doing something even less than putting a Band-Aid on this problem. One of the most essential elements in a democratic society is confidence. With this issue, we are not providing any degree of certainty. We are not offering a clean debt extension in the manner that we should. We are playing a game with a serious issue. Mr. Speaker, in just a few weeks, we are going to consider a long- term debt increase. I would ask today that that be offered in the manner in which we have requested, and it be a clean piece of legislation. I would hope with some accommodation the President would be able to sign it. But the point today is we are not sending a clean debt ceiling issue to the President that will establish long-term confidence. Everybody in this institution knows it. We have discussed this issue for a long time. It is time to act, and not on simply a 2- week basis.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to condemn in the strongest possible terms the deadly bombings that have terrorized the people of Israel for the past 9 days. In Jerusalem, in Ashkelon, and most recently in Tel Aviv, suicide bombers representing the Islamic fundamentalist group Hamas have taken more than 50 innocent lives, injured hundreds, and placed the mideast peace process in jeopardy. In this time of mourning and reflection in Israel, I extend my own personal condolences to the families of those killed in these senseless acts of violence. Just 2 years ago, Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat stood on the south lawn of the White House and signed the declaration of principles which set the historic peace process in motion. This morning, in the wake of the bombings, that peace seems as distant and elusive as ever. At this critical hour, we in the United States Congress must reaffirm our commitment to the goal of bringing peace to the Middle East, and pledge to vigorously support efforts that will swiftly bring to justice those who seek to undermine that peace through cowardly acts of violence.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a group of high school students from Shrewsbury, MA. Over the last several months this group has been engaged in the drafting and promotion of a congressional resolution calling for a greater dedication to AIDS education and prevention programs in America's schools. Led by their high school teacher Rick Marchand, these 23 students have been meeting 3 times a week for several months on this project. In that time, they have received commendations from both bodies of the Massachusetts State Legislature, the Massachusetts Commissioner of Education and also, AIDS Project Worcester, one of the leading AIDS support organizations in the State. Below, I have inserted a copy of the above cited resolution. It should be noted however, that this publication of their document is not the end of the student's ambitious undertaking. The involved students at Shrewsbury High School intend to continue promoting their resolution by circulating advocacy petitions among their peers and by posting this venture on the internet, in an effort to attract local, national and international support. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in commending this group for their laudable and industrious efforts on behalf of an interesting and worthwhile project: Concurrent Resolution Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to encourage Congress to endorse all current funding mechanisms that provide for AIDS research, support and prevention programs. Said resolution shall inspire Congress to design or support additional funding concepts that nurture innovative education and prevention concepts for teenagers across America. Whereas the teenagers of America feel that communities that do not provide HIV/AIDS education for their teenagers are at risk. The uninformed and uneducated part of America's youth will result in an increase in the number of HIV infections and the deaths of millions of innocent people. The World Health Organization predicts that by the year 2000, the virus will have attacked thirty to forty million people around the world. Whereas according to estimates provided by The World Health Organization, HIV/AIDS victims are costing an average of $150,000 each. By the year 2000, six trillion dollars will be needed to provide adequate health care for these individuals. Whereas teenagers across America believe effective education can help others make smart choices. These choices could mean the difference between life and death. Whereas HIV/AIDS education for high school students across the country is inadequate. In some communities the lack of education is caused by poor public perception, as well as misconceptions about the HIV/AIDS virus. Whereas we the students of Shrewsbury High School in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, respectfully request the Congress to form a partnership with communities across the nation. This partnership will be to assure quality and effective HIV/AIDS educational programs.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the dilemma that we face here today could be corrected in about 1 hour. All it would require would be for the Speaker of this House to bring to the floor the same resolution that Senator Dole brought on the other side and in the other body. We could put everybody back to work, ensure that Means on Wheels obligations were honored, ensure that benefits were extended to those who were deserving of them, and it could be accomplished this afternoon. But you know what the compelling truth here is today? That a radical element in this House that is out of touch with realities across this Nation, they have decided that they are going to hold Federal employees and our senior citizens hostage to their point of view, and that is precisely what they are doing today. If Senator Dole can bring the U.S. Senate Democrats and Republicans along, surely we ought to have an opportunity in this institution to simply vote on a measure to reopen this Government. That should be done today, and I guarantee if that simple measure was brought to the floor, it would pass easily.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to an outstanding individual from my district, Mr. Henry A. Dawson. Mr. Dawson will retire this month after 22 years of dedicated service as the executive director of the Springfield Girls Club Family Center. A native of Rocky Mount, NC, Mr. Dawson enjoyed distinguished military and athletic careers before arriving in Springfield in 1970 to pursue a masters degree at Springfield College and to begin his tenure at the Girls Club Family Center. For the last 22 years Henry Dawson has served as the executive director of the Family Center and has touched the lives of thousands of young people in the Springfield area. Under Mr. Dawson's direction, the Family Center established many outstanding programs. Among these projects are the Project Extra Plus and Project Extra Plus Preschool, which provided day care with a large variety of recreational activities for school-age and preschool children during nonschool hours. In addition, Mr. Dawson also established the Family Center City Camp which provided day care for 150 children during the summer months, and Camp Mishnoah, a summer resident camp that provided a quality multicultural camping experience for thousands of girls who might otherwise have been denied such an experience. Mr. Dawson's, ability to create outstanding programs for young people is possibly surpassed only by his ability to raise the funds to keep these programs in operation. Over the years, the Family Center has experienced major funding reductions, and despite this loss, the center's budget has grown and shown an average annual excess of $37,000. This is the result of proven investment practices by Mr. Dawson that have enabled the Family Center to accumulate a respectable endowment and operate deficit free for the pass 22 years. This sound fiscal management will ensure that the Family Center will continue its outstanding work for many years to come. On behalf of the citizens of the Second Congressional district of Massachusetts, I would like to offer a heartfelt thanks to Henry Dawson for his tireless work with young people and wish him the best as he begins his retirement. His contributions to the youth of Springfield are immeasurable and I am honored to represent such an outstanding individual. People like Henry Dawson are the reason the Boys and Girls Clubs of America have been able to make such a difference in the lives of America's youth for the past century. Thank you Henry and good luck.