Richard Neal

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am, in its present form.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the essential point to remember here today, as the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] has accurately said, in March of this year 204 Democrats came together to offer a tough and fair alternative. I helped to convince the Democratic caucus that this debate had shifted and we should move it to the center. But the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] is also correct, and I disagree with my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], this proposal that we are being asked to vote on today is indeed extreme. Now, do not take it from me as one who has been immersed in the detail of the welfare legislation debate for the last year. Take it from Arlen Specter, take it from John Chafee, take it from Bill Cohen, from Olympia Snowe and Jim Jeffords, who have said in a letter to Senator Dole dated yesterday, ``We are therefore dismayed at the significant changes made to the Senate bill in conference and are writing to let you know of our strong reservations about this agreement.'' The bill that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] offered here 9 months ago was a good strong piece of basic legislation. It involved a work requirement, it involved a time limit, but it also offered transitional assistance in the amount of $10 billion to women who were trying to get into the work force. Yes, this debate has shifted, but it has shifted to an extreme element that is trying to change the contours of this debate. The truth is that the bill that this Democratic caucus voted for was the right bill, that was in the center, where all Americans are on this debate.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, this simply would give the Democratic caucus the chance to vote for the bill that they voted for last March.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair. motion to table offered by mr. shaw

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

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 boy's 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 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, Juniors, Robe 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 a 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, let us call this what it really is. This is an effort to precipitate a crisis in this institution. This is an effort to coerce the President of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury into doing something that is purely and simply bad public policy. What do Bill Simon, William Miller, Paul Volkmer and Alan Greenspan all have in common? They have suggested that this is bad public policy. They are unified on that principle. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith], however, is correct on one thing: What about some camaraderie in this House of Representatives? I recall when Nick Brady was the Secretary of the Treasury and the S&L crisis was around us. This kind of legislation was not proposed by an overwhelmingly Democratic majority in this institution. We did not attempt to tie the hands of the Secretary. We worked together in a bipartisan manner to shape a reasonable solution to the S&L issue. What is the answer today? Let us extort from the Secretary of the Treasury what we have not been able to do with numbers in this institution. This is fundamentally flawed public policy. Mr. Speaker, let me move on to one other quick issue which is the steady erosion of congressional authority that this represents to manage the budget. That is the same group that believes we ought to do it through the line-item veto; we ought to turn that power over to the Executive. However, now, in this instance, we do not like short-term policy, so let us, under the circumstances, attempt to tie the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury, from Alexander Hamilton to Douglas Dillon, to Brady, to Bentsen and to Rubin. This country has been well-served by the quality of people who have held that job. Secretary Rubin is on the right track in attempting to honor our obligations. That is the way that this country should be run, and we should not be moving down this road to poor public policy to solve a short-term political problem.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I think that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery], who is my friend, summed the issue up very well. He said that their role is to put the President between a rock and a hard place. The truth is today this debate is about the American people; it is not about putting the President between a rock and a hard place. That is the political solution, and that is what makes this option so unpalatable to all of us. Mr. Speaker, once again we are here on the House floor debating the debt ceiling. And once again, we are not debating the right solution. We ought to be debating a clean debt ceiling extension. Instead, we are debating legislation that contains provisions that already have been vetoed by the President. We should be using this time to send a bill that the President can sign. Last week, the Treasury Department issued a statement assuring that the Treasury will not use Social Security trust fund for any purpose other than to assure the payment of benefits to Social Security recipients. These funds will only be used for Social Security. Treasury has acted responsibly and has taken options to avoid default, because of Congress' failure to act on a clean debt extension. This legislation will make it harder for payments to be made. This bill would stop payments under Medicare, stops payments, under SSI, stop payments to military personnel, and stop payments to other Federal beneficiaries. Any prioritization scheme would necessarily imply that other obligations of the United States might be defaulted upon. By repealing the debt management provision of current law relating to the civil service retirement and disability fund, this bill would increase the risk of default by severely limiting the ability of the Secretary of the Treasury to assure that crucial Government payments including benefit payments such as Social Security. A Republican administration was in charge when debt management provisions were enacted into law. The Secretary should always have options to relieve pressure and avert default. The bottom line is this legislation would push us closer to a default. It is time to stop this game and vote on a clean debt ceiling extension.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the distinguished career of one of my constituents, Mr. Frank Tudryn, Jr., of Northampton, MA. Mr. Tudryn, a longtime teacher and football coach at Northampton High School, is currently engaged in his 25th consecutive season as the head football coach at that school. During Coach Tudryn's tenure, the ``Blue Devils'' have consistently fielded strong teams. In fact, under his leadership, they have won four league championships and a western Massachusetts crown. As a testament to his team's continued success, Coach Tudryn was named ``Coach of the Year'' in 1995 by the Valley Advocate. A graduate of both Northamption High School and the University of Massachusetts, Coach Tudryn has dedicated his life to making Northampton High School a better place to go to school. Since 1971 he has not only coached football, but taught history and worked as an assistant principal. Many students, including his own children, have benefited from his guidance on the playing fields and in the classroom. Mr. Speaker, on November 17 of this year, a celebration will be held in Coach Tudryn's honor at the Elks Club in Northamption, MA. I ask my colleagues to join me today in paying tribute to Coach Frank Tudryn and his impressive record as a coach, a teacher, and a friend to the city of Northampton.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, last week on this floor I wanted the Congress to enact a clean debt ceiling extension; we failed to do it. We did not act responsibly. Once again, we have a chance to enact legislation. Instead, we are voting on a motion [[Page E 2171]] that is unnecessary and totally irresponsible. We are trying to avert the normal legislative process. We should not delay action on this issue. It is our responsibility to take action and we must do it now. This motion is nothing more than Congress ducking its responsibility and losing its credibility. We have to face the debt issue head on and not hide. This motion would place the burden solely on the shoulders of the administration. This motion would make Secretary Rubin take desperate action to keep us from facing a default. Our credit rating has been placed on a credit rating watch for the first time ever and we can not sit idly for 30 days. Last week, on the floor we heard over and over that trust funds especially Social Security would be at risk. Well this motion does the opposite. It would require Treasury to use the trust funds. Let's stop this now and act responsibly. Americans are sick and tired of this game of chicken. It is time for us to take the high road and send the President a clean debt ceiling extension. Unfortunately due to a delay in my flight, I missed the vote on this motion. If I was present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, actions being taken by this Congress are a frontal attack on Medicare. By continuing to insist on a short-term debt increase that ties the hands of the President, Congress is putting the U.S. Government and its good name at risk. Repeatedly, we have heard that the House passed budget would protect and save Medicare. Well, the actions taken here the last few days put Medicare at great risk. Medicare does not need to be put at risk or even involved in this debate. The solution is simple. Bring a clean debt extension to the floor. This legislation includes a payment priority system, which is nothing but an unnecessary political ploy. And yes, this ploy can harm Medicare. The reason for this scheme is to protect Social Security. Social Security is already protected. The Social Security trust funds will not be used for any purpose other than to assure the payment of benefits to Social Security recipients. Medicare should be protected. If Treasury is forced to prioritize payments, the nonpriority payments such as Medicare will not be paid. Why are we pulling the rug out from under seniors? They rely on Medicare and they expect payments to be made. If you really want to save and protect Medicare, you will pass a clean debt extension. Isn't it ironic that we are here on Veterans Day and we are debating legislation that could result in the failure of benefits being paid to veterans. The debt ceiling legislation before us plays a dangerous game that is deadly to seniors. This legislation will put the U.S. Government in default if the President does not sign the budget. We all know very well that the President cannot sign this budget. Congress [[Page H 12109]] is way behind. The budget conference has not had one public session. Conferees on my side of the aisle are waiting to be contacted. Over half the 13 annual appropriations bills have not been sent to the President. The Republicans are putting Medicare at extreme risk. This legislation will put the United States into default. Once the Government defaults, Medicare benefits will not be paid. Treasury has been acting responsibly and already taken steps to avoid default, because of Congress' failure to pass a debt limit increase.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking and we still have not increased the debt ceiling. It is time to act responsibly. We should not play chicken with our financial markets and more importantly the good name of our country. We do not want to remember November 15, 1995, or December 13, 1995, as the day the United States defaults. Instead we want to remember November 9, 1995, as the day the 104th Congress came together and acted for the best of the country. We can end this game of chicken today. We can end the threat of default. This is very simple. All we need to do is pass a clean short- term extension of the debt ceiling. Better yet, we could take the most responsible choice and increase the debt limit to $5.5 trillion and this should keep the Government running well into 1997. Almost every House Republican has improved increasing the debt ceiling to $5.5 trillion three times. We have no choice but to increase the debt limit. Even if this short term extension passes, we will still need a long-term increase. Mr. Speaker, why don't we enact a long-term increase now? What are you waiting for? If we fail to increase the debt limit, the Social Security trust funds will not be used for any purpose other than to assure the payment of benefits to Social Security recipients. Social Security has been protected and will continue to be protected. No additional legislation is needed to protect Social Security payments. The legislation before us adopts a payment priority system for benefits due to various Government trust funds. This type of scheme would not be made effective for many months. Any such prioritization scheme would cause other obligations to be defaulted. This type of scheme would put Medicare at risk. We would no longer have the funds to make Medicare payments. Repeatedly, we have heard the debt ceiling should not be increased until we have a balanced budget in place. We all agree deficit reduction is a number one priority. However, we differ on how to do it. Increasing the debt ceiling should not be held hostage to the budget. Raising the debt ceiling does not increase the deficit. Raising the debt ceiling allows the United States to pay obligations that are due. The debt ceiling is unrelated to the current budget debate. No good comes from failing to increase the debt ceiling. Let us get over the hurdle of the debt ceiling and pass a clean extension. Then, we can work on a budget to decrease the deficit. I just do not understand why we want to risk the good name of our country just so we can play a game of political blackmail. Congress should not resort to these types of tactics. This is serious business. We need to stop the rhetoric. We must act responsibly.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a provision that was included in budget reconciliation. This provision would allow [[Page H 11978]] corporations to remove excess funds from overfunded pension plans for any reason. There is only one way to describe this provision and that is the raiding of pension plans. This issue has received much attention across the Nation and the general consensus is this is a bad idea. In the September 25, 1995 edition of the Chicago Tribune there was an article entitled ``Keep Paws Off Pension Fund Assets.'' Let me read you a quote from this article: Well-heeled financial backers of the majority in Congress-- perhaps sensing that the good days won't last much longer for them, either--are busy grabbing for everything they can get as fast as they can get it. Under cover of the high profile debates about budget deficits, welfare reform and Medicare, they are stuffing their cheeks with smaller morsels that don't get media attention. The latest is a proposed raid on corporate pension funds, which represent the storehouse of retirement savings for millions of American workers. This article is right on target. We cannot allow corporations to siphon off excess pension assets. These pension assets are prudently invested and they should remain in the market. The corporate pension reversion provision does not belong in budget reconciliation. The Senate took a vote to remove it from their budget legislation. We should follow their lead. We cannot allow pension funds to be used as tax free corporate checking accounts.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight to discuss a provision that was included in budget reconciliation. This provision would allow corporations to remove excess funds from overfunded pension plans for any reason. There is only one way to describe this provision and that is the raiding of pension plans. Ten years ago we were faced with a similar situation. Let me read a quote from the Nov. 3, 1985 edition of the New York Times. The article was entitled ``Raking in Billions from Company Pension Plan.'' At an increasing pace, some of the most familiar names incorporate . . . have already withdrawn or are trying to withdraw, $8 billion in surplus pension money. They are diverting this money to other corporate use, such as take over financing and capital investments and offering their employees substitute pension plans . . . Workers across the country are growing increasingly concerned that the stream of retirement income generated under the present pension system might disappear by the time they retire . . . Some blue-chip companies have been accused of cynically using pension funds bank accounts and tax exempt savings account. It is almost eerie how this quote from 10 years ago applies today. This quote could have been in today's New York Times. During the 1980's, approximately $20 billion in pension funds were drained by companies. Congress acted responsibly and passed legislation to protect pensions. The pension provisions in the House budget would undo all the good Congress had done in one fell swoop. It has been estimated that this provision could result in $40 billion leaving pension funds. Once again corporations are looking to take money from pension plans to use for their own whims. We cannot allow pension funds to be used as tax free corporate checking accounts. I have been reviewing the newspaper clippings on this issue and all across the country it is perceived as a bad idea. I want to share with you some of these headlines. ``Leave Those Pension Funds Alone'' Business Week October 23, 1995. ``The GOP Had Better Get Business Off The Dole, Too'' Business Week October 16, 1995. ``Pension Pirates'' New York Times, October 27, 1995. [[Page H 11916]] ``The Great Pension Fund Raid, Part II'' Los Angeles Times, October 17, 1995. ``An Unconscionable Raid on Pensions'' Chicago Tribune, October 2, 1995. ``Keep Paws Off Pension Fund Assets'' Chicago Tribune, September 25, 1995. ``The New Tax-Free Corporate Checking Account'' Newsday, September 21, 1995. ``Cut Now, Pay Later'' Plain Dealer, Cleveland Ohio, October 3, 1995. ``Protect Pension Fund Assets'' Sunday Patriot, Harrisburg, PA, October 1, 1995. I could go on and on but I think I have made my point. Congress should protect pension plans. The Senate has heard this message. The Senate voted overwhelmingly by a vote of 94 to 5 to delete their more restrictive corporate reversion provision. Mr. Speaker, why has the House not yet heard this message? The headlines have made it clear. This provisions is an unconscionable provision. Why is this provision needed? The House budget provides a huge tax cut to the wealthy and tax benefit to corporations at the expense of the middle class. Our No. 1 economic problem is our low national savings rate. We have to encourage individuals to save for retirement. This provision does the opposite. One of the main reasons for the Republican tax reform proposals is to increase the national savings rate. Our decline in savings can be attributed to declining private-sector contributions to employee pension plans. The provision in the budget is contradictory. This provision will allow corporations to immediately suck money out of pension funds. The proponents of this provision argue this provision will free up money and put it to work for job creation. An analysis done by the General Accounting Office [GAO] shows that most pension money is invested such as stocks and bonds that yield a financial return and provide capital to other companies. Plan fiduciaries are required by law to invest plan assets for the exclusive benefit of participants and to seek the highest rate of return for a given level of risk. The provision in budget regulation has no such safeguard. I served on the Banking Committee during the S&L crisis and this is the ghost of the S&L crisis. We cannot afford to put the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation [PBGC] at risk. We cannot afford a taxpayer bailout of the PBGC. I cannot think of one logical reason to include this provision in reconciliation. We cannot have a provision that is bad retirement policy. This provision does not belong in budget reconciliation. We have to protect the pensions of hard working Americans. We cannot let corporations siphon pension funds. I have with me several editorials, letters to the editor, and articles about the corporate pension reversion which I will place in the Record. The information referred to is as follows: [From the Arizona Republic, Nov. 1, 1995] Proposal Benefits IRS, Wall Street, Not Pension Plans No better time than right now for pension-dependent retirees to contact Senators McCain and Kyl about a House- passed measure that would permit employers to withdraw ``excess'' assets from pension plans. The measure is prompted by the taxes that will be due on the monies withdrawn from pension plans by employers encouraged to do so by the prospect of plump after-tax windfalls to strengthen their balance sheets. This revenue-raising idea starts with today's high-flying financial markets: plan asset valuations are looking fatter than needed to meet future benefit obligations. This, however, assumes that the stock market will continue to fly high. Returning today's paper-value cushion to employers transfers the risk of tomorrow's market-value loss to pensioners. Botton-line-driven corporate managers will be hard-pressed not to regard an immediate balance-sheet windfall as more important than a potential pension shortfall. It is naive to think that these decision makers, pressured by the demands and expectations of Wall Street, are likely to forego a windfall in deference to the best interests of a constituency of powerless retirees, when management can order up from its CFOs conveniently rosy, asset-value prognostications to justify its actions. Dependent as I am on my pension, I am loath to accept the risk of this high-flying market crashing and burning just so my former employer can enjoy that one-shot balance-sheet windfall. The (transitory) budget benefits gained through taxation of pension-asset drawdowns is an incipient threat to the financially weak Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, a federal insurance fund that protects pensioners from plan failures. This ill-advised House measure--as short-sighted as all the past careless measures that have placed the Medicare and Social Security trust funds in jeopardy today--awaits Senate approval. Now is the time to write.--Arnold E. Buchman, Scottsdale.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a renowned world leader. Yitzhak Rabin's unwavering commitment to the security and future of his people leaves a legacy worthy of emulation. He lead his country to victories on the battlefield and paved the way for peace with his former enemies. Just minutes before his death Prime Minister Rabin reminded his country of the momentous crossroads at which it stands. ``I was a military man for 27 years. I waged war as long as there was no chance for peace. I believe there is now a chance for peace, a great chance, and we must take advantage of it. * * *'' The Israeli democracy he crafted and protected so vehemently will continue to bring stability and peace to the land in his death. This is Israel's inheritance. His courage and leadership proven in war and displayed in peace earned him global respect and admiration. The outpouring of leaders and friends to his funeral, many of them former enemies, is a testament to his leadership and accomplishments. He will be sorely missed.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one of the most onerous provisions in this bill that is before us, and this motion to instruct corrects it, would take away, I think, an issue, if I might remind viewers of tonight, similar to the S&L issue when I first came here. There is a threat to pensions across this country offered by this reconciliation proposal of the Republican Party. Simply put, their provision allows corporations to raid the pension funds of their hard- working employees. We should not allow this to stand. Allowing corporations to use their excess pension funds is bad retirement policy, and pension funds would unnecessarily be put at risk. A corporation could take funds out of a pension fund that should be used to improve employee benefits. Some companies have excess current liability in their pension funds and cannot currently pay all of the benefits owed to their employees if the plan is terminated. Ask yourself tonight what would happen if $40 billion came out of the stock market tomorrow. That represents a real threat to the pensions of hard-working Americans. The PBGC could be faced with a bailout of pension funds that not only would lead to a taxpayer bailout but it would be the ghost of S&L past. We can protect the pension funds of American workers, as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] said, by taking this motion to instruct seriously and instructing the conferees to leave the pension benefits of hard-working Americans alone.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, just a quick point of reference to a statement that was made by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson] before. The gentleman said that he did not work for the Federal Government of the United States, that he worked for the people of the Seventh District of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we all come here based upon the district we represent, but what the gentleman suggested represents the very threat to the national principle that many of us on this side of the aisle are fearful of. Mr. Speaker, let me call to specific attention tonight to the viewing audience an issue that I think that they ought to be concerned about. Last Friday the other body overwhelmingly removed a corporate pension.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are considering today expresses the sense of Congress that the Social Security earnings limit should be increased. The timing of this concurrent resolution is very interesting, and very telling of what is really happening here today. Did the Republicans not promise senior citizens across Ameica that this year, this year, they would increase the Social Security earnings limit from the current $11,200 to an eventual $30,000 per year in the year 2000? Was not increasing the Social Security earnings limit part of the original reconciliation package? Why now is it being pulled at this moment? The answer as to why this provision has been pulled from the bill we are considering today is quite simple: The Republicans have made a promise that they cannot and will not keep. They are finding a difficulty associated with saying on one hand they can quickly and easily balance the budget while saying on the other they can deliver on the many promises that they have made. Today the veneer is peeled off. We are witnessing exactly what is really happening.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. This budget includes many provisions that harm hardworking Americans. Several of these provisions do not belong in reconciliation. They deserve a separate vote. The House should have a conversation on these provisions. An example of these provisions is the earned income tax credit [EITC]. The EITC will be drastically cut. The incentive to get off welfare and to work will be gutted. Jack Kemp testified on October 19 before the Senate Small Business Committee and stated ``I hope you guys do not go too far on removing the EITC because that is a tax increase on low income workers and the poor which is unconscionable at this time.'' Another example is the corporate pension reversion provision. I went to the Rules Committee with several of my colleagues and requested that we have a separate debate on this provision. We were denied. Corporations should not be allowed to raid pension funds. There are many provisions in this budget that are unconscionable. Let's go back to the drawing board and come up with a budget that we can be proud to present to the people we represent.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to a Massachusetts institution celebrating its 60th anniversary, a restaurant with old world charm and atmosphere, the downtown Springfield landmark that features German food specialties known fondly as the Student Prince and the Fort. Since 1935, the Student Prince has opened its doors for business each day for its fiercely loyal patrons. From its familiar Fort Street location, owner Rupprecht Scherff and his family have hosted a generation of satisfied customers who have made dining at the restaurant a continuing tradition. Known for its fine food and service, the Student Prince and the Fort has become a destination point for those accustomed to a good meal in good company. With its signature stein collection, one of the largest and most interesting in the United States, the Student Prince offers its guests a unique dining experience. From the stained glass windows and original woodwork of the bar area, to the quaintness of the Heidelberg room, the restaurant evokes images of an earlier age. And whether you're enjoying such traditional German fare as Sauerbraten or sipping a boot of Octoberfest, a visit to the Student Prince is always memorable. Named after Sigmund Romberg's lighthearted operetta of student life, the reputation and lore of the Student Prince and the Fort continues to grow. In September, Rupprecht Scherff celebrated his 81st birthday surrounded by family and friends all of whom look forward to the restaurant's next 60 years. Mr. Speaker, the face of downtown Springfield has changed dramatically in the last half century, but the Student Prince has thankfully remained the same. An enduring testament to excellence and tradition. On behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives, I congratulate the Sherff family and the entire staff of the Student Prince and the Fort on their 60th anniversary. Ein prosit.

Mr. NEAL

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, I join with Representatives Rangel, Johnson, and Kennelly to express my concerns about the tax changes to section 936 included in budget reconciliation legislation. The bill recognizes that section 936 cannot remain in effect indefinitely and must be terminated within a reasonable time. However, the termination of section 936 in this legislation would eliminate totally all Federal incentives for new job creation in Puerto Rico. This provision provides protection for the companies doing business in Puerto Rico, but not for the working people of Puerto Rico. The Governor of Puerto Rico has suggested an economic incentive program that would replace section 936 with a wage credit provision to help spur job creation in Puerto Rico. The provision included in budget reconciliation was not debated thoroughly and the Governor did not have time to submit an alternative proposal. The Conference Committee on budget reconciliation should adopt the Governor's proposal or some other reasonable replacement program to help with investment and job creation in Puerto Rico. I urge the House to thoroughly review this issue.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I stand here before you today to oppose this budget reconciliation package. We are beginning this historic debate on the future direction of our country. This budget heads the country in the wrong direction. It is a shame that we could not be here today debating a bipartisan budget which has a sole purpose of meaningful deficit reduction. This budget harms the American people. The Medicare cuts totaling $270 billion go too far. These extreme cuts are needed in order to pay for $245 billion in tax cuts to wealthy Americans. We debated this tax cut back in the spring and I still believe it is not needed. I have been traveling throughout my district and I have heard angry complaints about other aspects of this budget. Seniors are scared about drastic cuts to Medicare. They fear what will happen to them if they are struck with a catastrophic illness. College students are afraid about the changes to student loans. Will they be able to afford to finish college? Parents are afraid they will not be able to pay for the college tuition of their children. Individuals who have worked their way off of welfare are angry about changes to the earned income tax credit. The EITC has been an extremely successful incentive for work. Even President Reagan was supportive of the EITC. In 1986, he stated that EITC was ``the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job-creation measure to come out of Congress.'' Hard-working Americans do not understand the corporate pension reversion provision. Why should corporations be allowed to raid pension plans? I look at this provision and all I can see is the ghost of the S&L crisis. How do we explain this onerous provision to the American people? We cannot light a match to the pension funds of hard-working individuals. The Citizens For Tax Justice's analysis of the tax cuts included in this reconciliation package indicates that 52.3 percent of the tax cuts go to 5.6 percent of Americans with incomes greater than $100,000 a year. Less than 1 percent of these tax cuts would go to the 40 percent of families earning $20,000 or less per year. This budget heads the country in the wrong direction. We need to be responsible legislators. This legislation is not responsible. I urge you to vote against budget reconciliation. We owe the American people more than this budget. It is our obligation to do better.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this Republican Medicare bill is a direct assault upon hospitals across America. The bill includes the largest cuts in the history of Medicare, and do not kid yourself, they are aimed at our hospitals. Do not be fooled by this rhetoric. The Gingrich Medicare bill does much more than tinker around the edges with the way hospitals are reimbursed. These Republican Medicare cuts jeopardize the ability of hospitals to continue to provide quality care. Republicans say that the cuts to hospitals included within this bill are just reductions in growth. This is simply not true. The Republican Medicare bill will bring real pain to many hospitals across America. This bill could include outright cuts to many hospitals, hospitals that are already vulnerable and in difficult financial situations. We have the luxury in this Congress today of looking at Medicare in a vacuum. Hospitals do not have this luxury. When drastic cuts to Medicare disproportionate share and teaching hospitals are coupled with outlandish Medicaid cuts that are coming, our Nation's hospitals are going to be left out to dry. Public hospitals, community hospitals, and old urban hospitals, disproportionate share hospitals and teaching hospitals, they simply cannot absorb the cuts of this magnitude, as Republicans naively suggest. The Medicare bill will damage the quality of care that our hospitals enjoy. It is that simple. Vote against this ill-conceived, unwarranted, and unwise attack.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the Massachusetts Hospital Association and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen] have rejected the Republican Medicare bill. The MHA says the spending reductions in these proposals are too fast, too deep, and would jeopardize the ability of Massachusetts hospitals to provide quality health care to patients and communities. Health care in Massachusetts is world-class. When Raisa Gorbachev and Elizabeth Dole, and as I learned yesterday, when Chairman Solomon, of the Committee on Rules, all were ill, they came to Massachusetts. If the Medicare bill was a good bill, would not the Massachusetts teaching hospitals, with the renowned reputation that they have earned over many years, take the lead and endorse the bill? We trust these hospitals with our lives. We should also trust their assessment of the Republican Medicare bill. The Gingrich Medicare cuts are simply too large for hospitals to absorb. Cuts of this magnitude will damage the quality of health care in America, especially for senior citizens and future generations. We should be investing, and not cutting research and education. These outlandish cuts to hospitals will cause massive job loss across this country. The people hurt most by these cuts will be the hard working men and women of America, all so that a tax cut can be given to wealthy Americans who have not even asked for it. It is just not right.

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Blackstone, MA, on their town's 150th anniversary. Blackstone is named after the Blackstone River which flows through the town and is one of the most significant waterways in American history. It was on the banks of this river over 200 years ago that Samuel Slater built the first American factory thus launching the American Industrial Revolution. Blackstone is also located in the center of the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Area. This is a town rich in history and tradition and is the embodiment of the New England spirit. To honor this important milestone, a series of events was held in Blackstone as part of a year-long celebration. Among the events celebrated were a village fair and parade in May, numerous Fourth of July festivities, and most recently on September 24, a parade celebrating the Blackstone Valley heritage homecoming. The parade was a grand affair with 11 neighboring towns participating, featuring Richard T. Moore, Associate Director for Mitigation of F.E.M.A., as the parade's grand marshal. Following the parade a band competition was held at the Blackstone/Millville Regional Junior/Senior High School in Blackstone. The events received rave reviews from the many who attended. Congratulations to the hardworking members of the Blackstone 150th Anniversary Celebration Committee. The tireless efforts of these citizens over the past year produced several outstanding anniversary events. Their dedication to their town truly epitomizes the kind of citizenry that has made Blackstone an exceptional American town. I am honored to represent such a wonderful community and I join with the citizens of Blackstone in looking ahead, with tremendous optimism, to the next 150 years.