Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the retirement of high school baseball coach Dan Dulchinos from Chicopee, Massachusetts. Mr. Dulchinos is retiring after fifty-years of coaching at Chicopee Comp High School. His accomplishments over the course of a career have been remarkable. Mr. Dulchinos helped create the Chicopee Comp basketball program in 1962. Under his leadership, the basketball team won a Western Massachusetts Championship. Mr. Dulchinos went on to coach the high school baseball team, earning over six hundred victories, including four Western Massachusetts Championships.

As a coach, Mr. Dulchinos excelled at teaching high school student athletes the fundamentals of the game. It is not just the decades of coaching that makes his retirement worthy of commemoration, but the impact he had on the lives around him. He has inspired many of his former players to pursue coaching positions, thus passing on the skills he taught to other generations. Mr. Dulchinos taught the importance of teamwork and instilled a strong work ethic in his players. The skills he taught his students over five decades would go on to help them become successful, not only in baseball and basketball, but also in life. Those who live in Western Massachusetts have come to know Mr. Dulchinos as a recognizable face in town, who regularly attends and is a strong supporter of local high school sporting events. While coach Dan Dulchinos may be retiring, his accomplishments and the lessons he taught his players will live on.

For these reasons I wish to recognize Dan Dulchinos for his contributions to his community. Congratulations again to Mr. Dulchinos on the accomplishments of his career.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the University of Massachusetts' popular and successful University Without Walls program as it celebrates its 40th anniversary at the end of this academic year.

The University Without Walls program was established in 1971 to give adults an opportunity to complete their bachelor's degrees at a world- class public university while simultaneously maintaining a job.

Over these past 40 years, the program has awarded degrees to more than 4,000 men and women ranging in age from 20 to 80. From the Facebook generation to the Greatest Generation, this program continues to make a difference in the lives of ordinary people.

While many colleges and universities across the country now have similar programs on their campuses, the program at UMass is one of the oldest and most well-regarded adult bachelor's degree completion initiatives in the Nation. I know many of the successful individuals from western Massachusetts who have benefited professionally from this initiative.

I applaud Dr. Ingrid Bracey and her extraordinary team at the UMass campus in Amherst for their dedication to nontraditional students in both the classroom and the workplace. As one of their strongest and most outspoken supporters, I'm happy to share their success story with the American family here today in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight a bill that I'm introducing with my good friend and colleague from Ohio, Representative Tiberi, the Update and Streamline REIT Act (or U.S. REIT Act). I think it's important to note that the precursor to today's REITs began as Massachusetts business trusts over a hundred years ago. In 1960, an Act of Congress democratized investment in real estate, an asset class that had traditionally only been available to institutional investors and the wealthy, by authorizing the creation of REITs, widely-held entities that own and operate large-scale, income-producing real estate.

Since the Congressional authorization of REITs in 1960, Congress periodically has updated the REIT rules in a bipartisan manner to enable the industry to adapt to a changing marketplace and to evolve consistent with its original mandate. The U.S. REIT Act would continue that tradition.

Among other things, consistent with a provision in the Obama Administration's FY 2012 and FY 2013 Budgets, and Congressional repeal of a similar rule for publicly offered mutual funds in 2010, the U.S. REIT Act would repeal the preferential dividend rule for ``publicly offered'' REITs. Publicly traded REITs as a whole have invested over $18 billion to date in a variety of Massachusetts properties, including malls, office buildings, health care, hotel, self-storage and other properties. As a former mayor, I recognize that these companies and their tenants are the bedrock of local economies, improving communities, advertising locally, and generating property and sales taxes that support local schools districts and first responders.

I am proud to have been a co-sponsor of legislation over the years that have refined the REIT rules to ensure that REITs can continue to provide the benefits envisioned by Congress to investors from all walks of life, and I am proud to co-sponsor this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the U.S. REIT Act.

Mr. Speaker, we just heard a moment ago from the gentleman from South Carolina that there was an illicit or perhaps illegal initiative that was taking place across the country in the Midwest. So the answer in that instance is to notify the U.S. Attorney's Office if it's fraudulent. The answer there is to notify immigration authorities.

But this argument right here is not about illegal immigration. This argument today is about once again asking the wealthiest people in our society just to sacrifice a bit.

When the gentleman talks about $4 billion of fraud, there isn't anybody on the Democratic side that encourages or countenances the idea of fraud. Tell the American people where the expenditures go.

A million new veterans have been created between Afghanistan and Iraq. You're 20 years old, and you've been wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan, you're going to be in the care of the VA system for the next 50 or 60 years. We are obligated to take care of them. That's where the money goes.

We cut taxes in this country by $2.3 trillion during the Bush years, and my Republican pals were all culpable in that argument. You can fight two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, now both north of $2 trillion, and cut taxes by $2.3 trillion, and people wonder why we're in the predicament that we're in.

Twelve successive years of tax cuts, and at the same time asking nothing of the people at the very top, who, incidentally, during the Clinton years were not even asking for a tax cut. Their argument was: Pay down the debt.

We are being asked to revisit with this budget what went awry during the Bush years. We are being asked with this budget to go back to the policies that got us into this predicament during the Bush years. We are being asked at this time, once again, to ask the poorest people in our society to shoulder the burden of tax cuts for the wealthiest in America--tax cuts that have not paid for themselves, tax cuts that will not pay for themselves, and tax cuts that do not take us on a sound path to fiscal stability in the near- or long-term future.

This conversation should be about balancing the budget, and it should be done by Democrats and Republicans, not with a sledge hammer, as is being proposed early this afternoon.

I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill in that it reauthorizes the Export-Import Bank for 3 years. It ends uncertainty for business and provides the resources necessary to keep American manufacturers competitive in the global market--$32 billion in financing to thousands of companies, which supports 290,000 jobs.

In Massachusetts, the Ex-Im Bank works with InteliCoat Technologies, a manufacturer of coated paper in South Hadley, that employs 100 people. It also has an important role with Wyman-Gordon, a manufacturer in the aerospace industry located in North Grafton, Massachusetts, with almost 600 employees.

This is critical support that is offered for American employers who seek to level the playing field against global competitors. It's supported broadly by labor and business, and I urge all of us to support H.R. 2072.

Thank you, Mr. Levin.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to this proposal today.

I have just a couple of thoughts, having had long-term membership here.

This is not the way to write legislation, and the Members on the other side know this.

The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee should be here with us today to discuss this. This should have been vetted into the full committee. This should have had an active markup with full participation.

I revere this institution, and I revere that committee. Members spend their careers trying to become members of the Ways and Means Committee. To bring this legislation to the floor today without a hearing is ill- considered.

From a historic perspective, why don't we talk about how we got into this situation?

This bill today adds $46 billion to the deficit. Without a hearing? Why don't we just do these proposals by unanimous consent and bring them to the floor? We missed the point of what the vetting process does, where people stand in front of that committee and they offer expert testimony. But our friends on the Republican side, they call this a small business tax cut. This is about the theater of the election year, and everybody knows it.

This is the same group that would have you believe, incidentally, that tax cuts pay for themselves, even though you can't find an economist who will adhere to that position.

They have run up the deficits in this country recklessly, and in the name of a political campaign, they're prepared to do it again. They want to pour syrup on the plate and not even bother to serve pancakes with it. In our current fiscal situation, to have not vetted this sort of proposal in front of the committee is a mistake.

You want to talk about helping small business with tax policy? Count me in. We've worked on some good bipartisan legislation over the last 20 years to help small business, not to do it in this manner where this legislation has been brought to the floor.

We had a markup in the committee yesterday where cuts are being proposed to senior citizens, to low-income families, eliminate funding for Meals On Wheels, and yet they bring this proposal up today with a straight face.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, everybody has heard of Gloucester and Boston, and certainly connected it to the Mayflower. The most famous ports in America perhaps are located in Massachusetts, so I want to be supportive of Mr. Boustany's amendment today.

Today, Massachusetts seaports continue to play an important role. The Port of Boston's overall activity supports 34,000 jobs. It contributes more than $2 billion to the local, regional, and national economies. America's ports provide a vital gateway to international trade by facilitating the transport of cargo around the world; yet many ports around the country, including those in Massachusetts, are in need of maintenance.

In fact, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates that the dimensions at the Nation's busiest 59 ports are available less than 35 percent of the time. Even though users of our Nation's waterways are paying significant amounts of money into the trust fund to maintain our ports, these dollars are not being spent on the ports, and the trust fund has a surplus of $6.4 billion.

Mr. Boustany's amendment addresses this situation. It makes a good deal of sense. We have held a hearing at the Ways and Means Select Revenue Subcommittee, and there was bipartisan support for his legislation.

I urge support for the Boustany amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Van Hollen.

What's striking about the debate that we're having today and this discussion is that essentially our Republican friends and colleagues are asking us to go back to the policies that got us here in the first place, the folly of those 6 years when they controlled the Presidency, when they controlled the Senate, and when they controlled the House of Representatives. So let me reacquaint all with their number forecast.

They offered $1.3 trillion worth of tax cuts in 2001, and then came back in 2003 and said that wasn't enough; let's cut taxes by another trillion dollars. The underlying argument that they offered at the time was that this would jump-start growth, despite the fact that as we came off the Clinton years with the greatest spurt of economic growth in the history of the world--a budget that was balanced for 4 successive years and 22 million jobs--their argument was: We can outdo that growth if we simply cut taxes by $2.3 trillion--and, incidentally, not for the middle class. These tax cuts overwhelmingly went to people in the 1 percentile. Remember the theory that tax cuts pay for themselves?

So, let's contrast January 19, 2001 with the end of the Bush years-- $15 trillion worth of debt, deficits as far as the eye could see, all under the guise of economic growth. So, let me give you a number--not an opinion, but a fact. Those 8 years offered the most anemic economic growth at any time since Herbert Hoover was President of the United States. And what they ask for today in this budget is to have bigger tax cuts for wealthy people and eviscerate the guarantee of Medicare.

This is the party, on the Republican side, that tried to privatize Social Security during those years, and all they want to do is shoehorn these legislative proposals into tax cuts for wealthy people. Their argument today, despite these record deficits, is, with revenue at 14.7 percent of GDP--headed toward the Eisenhower years-- when the town has argued for years about revenue being between 19 and 21 percent, they're going to cut Medicare to give tax cuts for wealthy people.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I certainly rise in support of this legislation, which confirms that the Commerce Department can continue to apply countervailing duties on subsidized imports from countries with nonmarket economies such as China and Vietnam.

In fact, this legislation strengthens the opportunity to use an international forum for the prescribed purpose of resolving disputes. If our trading partners are not playing by the rules, it's imperative that the United States have the tools to challenge these unfair practices. Countervailing duties level the playing field for U.S. employers and workers and allow them to compete against imports that are subsidized through unfair trade practices, emphasis on the word ``unfair.''

Since the Commerce Department started applying these duties in 2007, it is estimated that countervailing duties have protected an estimated 80,000 jobs in the United States. At the same time, it's important to point out this is not a protectionist measure. It strengthens our hand in dealing with negotiations.

Let's pass this commonsense legislation and keep American jobs defended against unfair trade practices.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a piece of legislation that I'm introducing later on in the afternoon, the Automatic Individual Retirement Account Act of 2012.

According to Boston College's Center for Retirement Research, the United States has a retirement income deficit of $6.6 trillion. This is the gap between what Americans need for retirement and the amount that they've actually saved. This amounts to more than $90,000 per household. This is a staggering number and demonstrates that we, as Americans, need to do more to prepare for a financially secure retirement. One area that I think we need to focus on is getting more low- and middle-income workers into a retirement savings plan, and the auto IRA would do just that.

It is estimated that 75 million Americans--half the American people who get up and go to work every day--are not in an employer-provided retirement plan or other opportunity to save through workplace contributions. The Auto IRA Act offers a commonsense solution to dramatically expand retirement savings in the U.S. Under this proposal, tens of millions of workers would be eligible to save for retirement through a payroll deduction. And it has been estimated that the auto IRA proposal could raise net national savings by nearly $8 billion annually.

This legislation would create automatic payroll deposit individual retirement accounts, or auto IRAs, for workers who do not have access to employer-provided qualified retirement plans. The bill would require employers to automatically enroll employees in the auto IRA unless the employee opts out. These are ``set it and forget it'' payroll deposit accounts.

I am sensitive to the increased burden on small businesses, so the bill provides for a tax credit for employers with less than 100 employees in order to offset the administrative costs of establishing this initiative. Furthermore, only employers with at least 10 employees, who have been in business for at least 2 years, would be covered by the bill. And the bill does not mandate any matching contributions by employers or other fiduciary responsibilities for the management of the accounts.

It's my hope that once employers start participating in the auto IRA program, they will decide to convert these arrangements to the broader 401(k) plans. The IRA contribution limits are lower than the 401(k) limits, so business owners may see incentives to switch to bigger plans. And we've also enhanced the small employer pension plan startup credit, so if an auto IRA employer switches from auto IRA to 401(k) plans, they would get the credit for 3 years instead of 2.

Listen to this, this proposal was jointly developed working with me through the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation. It has garnered widespread support, including AARP, the United States Black Chamber of Commerce, the Women's Institute For a Secure Retirement, and the Aspen Institute Initiative on Financial Security. You should join in supporting this legislation.

I am also highlighting another retirement plan bill that I'm introducing today, the Retirement Plan Simplification and Enhancement Act. Our current retirement plan rules are very complicated. This bill includes a number of commonsense reforms that will simplify the rules while we still protect participants.

Under current law, small businesses that adopt a new retirement plan are eligible for a tax credit to cover some of their startup costs. We are tripling the credit to $1,500 to cover all of these expenses. I hope this will encourage more small employers to sponsor retirement plans.

Currently, employers can exclude some part-time workers from participating in their 401(k) plans. As women are more likely to work part-time than men, these rules can be quite harmful to them. So my bill would require employers to allow certain long-term, part-time employees to make elective deferrals to their 401(k) plans.

Both of these bills are commonsense reforms that will help Americans prepare for a good and financially secure retirement. I hope you will join on to the Automatic IRA Act of 2012 and the Retirement Plan Simplification and Enhancement Act.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge and celebrate the victory of the Easthampton High School's AP United States History class in the statewide ``We the People'' academic competition held recently at Harvard University. The team skillfully answered a series of eighteen difficult questions relating to American government on their way to prevailing over a number of highly qualified competitors across Massachusetts. The team has now earned the distinction of representing the Commonwealth in the National Finals in April of this year.

Easthampton High School's team was led by teacher Kelley Brown, who has gone above and beyond the call as an academic instructor to be a skillful coach for her class in this competition. The outstanding knowledge of United States History displayed by her class is a testament to the value of quality teachers in the Massachusetts public school system. The victorious students included Taylor Dadmun, Tristan Koopman, Brianna LaRose, Zachary Lewis, Bayleigh Murphy, Michael Palaschak, Thomas Palaschak, Willow Ross, Felicia Therrien and Olivia Tones.

I am tremendously proud of Easthampton High School's academic achievements. Strong civic education is the foundation of our representative democracy and these students have exemplified the finest qualities of informed citizenship. I wish them the best of luck in the 25th Annual National ``We the People'' competition here in Washington DC this April.

I rise today to speak about the New Markets Tax Credit program and the positive impact it has had on western Massachusetts.

I've been a leader of New Markets since its enactment in 2000 because it's a cost-effective way to create jobs and drive investment in low- income communities. Today, I want to highlight a few New Market Tax Credit initiatives in my State.

New Markets Tax Credit is designed to stimulate investment and economic growth in areas that are traditionally overlooked by conventional capital markets. This program attracts capital to low- income communities by providing private investors with a 39 percent Federal tax credit for investments made in businesses or economic developments located in those areas.

In 2010, New Markets generated $9.5 billion in capital for projects and businesses in low-income communities. This capital resulted in the development of 15 million square feet of manufacturing, retail, and community-related space throughout the country.

Last year, New Markets Tax Credits investments resulted in the creation or retention of 70,000 jobs, including 38,000 construction jobs.

Unfortunately, New Markets is a temporary program that expired on December 31. I am now and have been the lead Democratic sponsor of this legislation to extend the program for a predictable 5 years. I've now been calling on our colleagues to extend this initiative. So let me share with you a few successes from back home and explain why I think New Markets works so well.

Hot Mama's Foods in Springfield, Massachusetts, my hometown--it's a great success story. The company was created in the 1980s, and they manufacture and package fresh and frozen gourmet salsa and other spreads that are all natural and, indeed, organic. Hot Mama's was originally located in Northampton, but thanks to New Markets, they were able to purchase a larger USDA-certified food production facility on Avocado Street in Springfield. It has added 10 new jobs and retained 50 jobs in the current workforce.

Another success story is the River Valley Market in Northampton, Massachusetts, which moved into a former granite quarry. No one wanted this space because it was prohibitively expensive to renovate; but through New Markets and other financial support, they opened a food cooperative that features local farmers and employs neighborhood residents.

Finally, let me highlight a more recent New Markets project that's currently under construction, the Massachusetts Green High Performance Computing Center in Holyoke, Massachusetts. Holyoke is a city in western Massachusetts with a population of about 40,000 people. From the late 19th century until the mid-20th century, Holyoke was known as the world's biggest paper manufacturer.

The High Performance Computing Center is a $168 million technology hub that is being built at the former Mastex Industries site on Bigelow Street in the heart of Holyoke. Construction of the center began in the fall of 2010; and the two-story, 90,000 square foot complex is expected to be completed next year.

This facility will be New England's first high performance computing center. It will feature computers with high speed and the capacity to process extraordinary amounts of data. When it's complete, it will be among the 500 most powerful computer centers in the world.

The Holyoke Center is a partnership between local universities-- University of Massachusetts, Harvard, MIT, Boston University, Northeastern University--and two private sector companies: the EMC Corporation, based in Hopkinton, and Cisco Systems.

The center also received a $14.5 million New Market Tax Credit allocation, which is the critical component to financing this important project.

I believe the Holyoke Center will be a catalyst for economic development in Holyoke and in western Massachusetts. It will employ 13 permanent jobs and 130 research positions at various universities. It is expected to create 600 construction jobs.

Without New Markets and the leadership that I've tried to offer in this program, Hot Mama's Foods, River Valley

Market, and the Green High Performance Computing Center probably would not have been possible. New Markets is a good example of how public and private investment can be used to spur community and economic revitalization.

I hope that we will stop wasting time, and with the other tax extenders that have to get taken care of, we will include an extension of the New Markets Tax Credit program as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the accomplishments of former Mayor of Northampton, Massachusetts, Mary Clare Higgins. Born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and raised in Brooklyn, New York, Mary Clare Higgins was the eldest girl among her six siblings. Mayor Higgins later settled in Northampton in the late 1970s where she followed in the footsteps of her father and became involved in local politics.

Ms. Higgins' first involvement in local government came in 1990 when she was appointed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the Massachusetts Housing Authority. Distinguishing herself through her various roles in municipal government, Ms. Higgins was first elected to the Northampton City Council in 1994 and later as president of the council in 1998. Since her election as mayor in 2000, Ms. Higgins has dually served as President of the Massachusetts Mayors' Association and was a member of the Municipal Finance Task Force of Metro Mayors Coalition.

During her tenure as mayor, Ms. Higgins has served as an advocate for the preservation and expansion of Northampton in the twenty-first century. With her initiative for growth within the community, Mayor Higgins saw promise in the development of Hospital Hill and the ongoing preservation of open space throughout the city. Her accomplishments as mayor have been recognized by a number of local, statewide, and nationwide organizations for her distinguished service.

Mary Clare Higgins has been an important part of the history and the further advancement of Northampton in the years to come. She in her role as a civil servant has placed her responsibility as a municipal leader first. Her contributions to the well-being of those whom she had the privilege to represent for over a decade is a testimony of the quality of leadership Mayor Higgins has displayed. I am honored to have known Mary Clare Higgins and I offer her my warmest regards and wishes for her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the passing of one of my dear friends, former Congressman Ed Jenkins of Georgia. Ed served in the House of Representatives from 1977 to 1993. He was a strong advocate for his district and for this country. Throughout his time in Congress, Ed was a leader in protecting the South's textile industry. He was a champion for the workers in those factories and communities who depended on them for their livelihood.

Edgar Jenkins was born in Young Harris, Georgia, on January 4, 1933. He graduated from Young Harris College in 1951. Before he got his law degree from the University of Georgia, he served admirably in the United States Coast Guard for three years. He also served as an Assistant Attorney General in Georgia from 1962 to 1964.

Throughout his tenure, Ed was well-admired by many for his knowledge and devotion to the issues. He protected workers throughout the country by strongly advocating keeping textile jobs in the United States. He pushed for the Textile and Apparel Trade Enforcement Act, ultimately helping its passage in the United States House of Representatives. It was his behind-the-scenes efforts that made him one of the most admirable and intelligent members of Congress.

Congressman Jenkins represented his country with distinction during difficult points in American history. His contribution to this country and the people of Georgia will not soon be forgotten.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me call attention to some of the statements that have been offered here.

Mr. Reed, the reason you were invited to the floor to manage this time as a freshman Member of Congress is very simple. You weren't here for the reckless ride that the Republican Party took during the 8 years of the Bush administration. That's why you're here and the other freshmen who have come to the floor. You weren't here for this tirade of spending.

You said you'd cut up the credit card. So we're going to cut up the credit card for the VA hospitals after 35,000 men and women have been wounded serving us honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Now, look. I voted against the war in Iraq, and I voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Now a fact, not opinion: Bill Clinton says goodbye, and there is a $5.7 trillion surplus. He balanced budgets four times in 5 years. It has only happened five times since the end of World War II.

The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is one of the few Republicans who will come to the House with a straight face and say, Let me tell you how we got here. He knows how we got here. Mr. Gingrey is a friend, and he knows how we got here. You can't cut taxes by $2.3 trillion and fight two wars and honor the commitment we have to those men and women who have served us honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan. While I was against the tax cuts and while I was against the war in Iraq, I'm going to vote for those appropriations to take care of those veterans' hospitals. You don't cut up the credit card when they come back. You use good judgment before you send them off.

What happened here during those 8 years with the prescription drug benefit? What happened during those 8 years with weapons of mass destruction? What happened with tax cuts? By the way, the corresponding argument on those tax cuts is: Tax cuts pay for themselves? Well, guess what. We're staring at a $15 trillion deficit and debt because of those reckless fiscal practices that took place.

For the Republican Party to make these arguments today about this issue--which, by the way, Mr. Flake is correct about again--is but a charade. You meet your obligations. You pay your bills. That's what the credit card is about and not to pontificate in front of this Chamber today about reckless spending when, for 8 years, nobody had the courage on that side to stand up and say enough is enough.