Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Colonel James J. Keefe on his promotion to the rank of Brigadier General and his assignment as Assistant Adjutant General for Air at the Massachusetts Air National Guard at the Joint Force Headquarters at Hansom Air Force Base. He has dedicated his life to the defense of our country and I would like to take the time to express my gratitude to him.

Jim Keefe has been a constituent of mine throughout my tenure in Congress as a resident of Northampton and Southampton, Massachusetts. He graduated from Norwich University in Vermont and was commissioned into the United States Air Force in 1987. During his time in the active Air Force, Colonel Keefe proved to be an effective F-16 Fighting Falcon pilot and instructor at bases in Florida, Georgia, and Washington, DC. In May of 1999, Colonel Keefe returned home and joined the Massachusetts Air National Guard at Barnes Air National Guard Base in Westfield, Massachusetts. In the course of his service, Colonel Keefe has flown in over 3400 flying hours, as well as 330 hours of combat in missions Operation Southern Watch, Operation Northern Watch, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Noble Eagle. In addition to his pilot duties, Colonel Keefe has served as Flight Commander, Squadron Commander, and Vice Commander at the 104th Fighter Wing. Since 2013, he has faithfully served as Wing Commander of the 104th, where he is charged with directing over a thousand military and civilian personnel in support of the wing's mission to defend against any air threat to the homeland.

Throughout his career, Colonel Keefe has been recognized many times for outstanding service to this nation. These awards include the Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Force Commendation Medal, Air Force Combat Medal, Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Air Force Expeditionary Service Ribbon, and the Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal to just name a few. Needless to say, Colonel Keefe has been an asset to the Air Force and the Air National Guard for decades.

Mr. Speaker, as Colonel Keefe moves onto the next step in his career and continues to serve the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and his country, I want to thank him for his service. Barnes Air National Guard Base has been the example all Air National Guard bases look to in terms of excellence. That is partly in part to the exemplary leadership that Colonel Keefe has brought to Barnes. I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 42, a measure disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor regarding drug testing unemployment compensation applicants. This legislation would overturn a Department of Labor regulation which, as directed by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, defines the occupations in which States may require unemployed workers to take drug tests as a condition of collecting earned unemployment benefits. Consistent with the Fourth Amendment, which protects us against searches without reasonable cause, the regulation limits drug testing to occupations where drug testing is required, like pipeline safety, some transportation operators, and jobs that require carrying a gun.

Many communities are facing a rising rate of drug use, including my hometown of Springfield. Congress could and should do more to help people struggling with addiction, but the legislation that we are debating today has nothing to do with fighting drug abuse. It is about allowing States to put one more time-consuming, humiliating obstacle in the way of Americans who work hard and were laid off from their jobs and need unemployment insurance to pay the bills while they look for new jobs. As a reminder, in the aftermath of the recession, the unemployment rate in America went to 10 percent.

There is no evidence that unemployed workers have higher rates of drug abuse than the general population. In fact, logic suggests that rates of serious drug abuse are lower. To be eligible to collect unemployment, a worker must have substantial, recent work experience. He or she must not have been fired for cause. And workers can only collect unemployment insurance if they demonstrate they are actively searching for work.

Instead, it appears that some States may be trying to limit the number of workers who collect unemployment insurance when they are laid off as a way to reduce pressure on underfunded unemployment trust funds. More than half of the State unemployment trust funds are still insolvent, years after the Great Recession.

Dozens of States have changed their eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits, imposed administrative hurdles to filing for unemployment, or cut the number of weeks benefits can be received while individuals search for a job. Partly because of those changes, only about one in four unemployed workers in the United States receive unemployment benefits, even though the vast majority of them worked for employers who paid unemployment payroll taxes on their wages. That is the lowest level of benefit receipt among laid-off workers since the Federal-State unemployment insurance program began.

Instead, we should be here crafting bipartisan policies to strengthen unemployment insurance protections to help workers who genuinely want to work to pay their bills while they are looking for new jobs. I remind our colleagues to look at the worker participation rate, not encouraging States to create more obstacles.

I hope that both sides of the aisle will vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis) control the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the doctor for that Webster's dictionary. That dictionary was published in Springfield, Massachusetts, and I am glad that the doctor from Tennessee sees it as the last word.

Mr. Speaker, let me rise in opposition to the CRA resolutions we are debating today that would block Department of Labor regulations on State-run retirement programs. Our country is in the midst of a retirement savings crisis, as duly noted. To address this issue, we should be working together to help people get into a responsible retirement savings plan. Half the people who get up to go to work every single day in America are not in a qualified savings plan for retirement.

This opportunity here is to begin a history lesson. In July of 2007, a decade ago, I introduced the Automatic IRA Act with my Republican Ways and Means colleague, Phil English. That same year, Senators Bingaman and Smith introduced a companion bill in the U.S. Senate. The Brookings Institution and The Heritage Foundation scholars jointly developed my auto IRA concept. So conservatives and liberals came together on a commonsense proposal to make it easier for working families to save.

However, fast forward to 2017. I can't find a Republican to join me in sponsoring the auto IRA legislation. Remember, The Heritage Foundation worked with me to construct this initiative. If we can just keep it amongst ourselves here, being a Democrat from Massachusetts and having a plan that is endorsed by The Heritage Foundation is not one of our easier endeavors. But between Brookings, a liberal think tank, and Heritage, a conservative think tank, we came up with a pretty good plan.

Today American families struggle to prepare for retirement. To make matters worse, 55 million Americans work for employers who don't offer a retirement plan. As I noted earlier, that is half the workers between 18 and 64.

Because of Congress' failure to act on any legislation and address the retirement savings crisis, many States implemented their own auto IRA plans based upon the Neal-English bill. In fact, 30 States have moved to implement or are considering a State-facilitated retirement plan. Credit unions would love this, community bankers would love this, and insurance agents would like to sell these plans, but here we can't find a Republican to sign on.

So today they are trying to block the guidance that provides clarity and flexibility to States that want to launch their own initiative. This is troubling. If these resolutions become law, it would have a chilling effect on State efforts. The States are the laboratories of experimenting on these retirement plans because the Federal Government doesn't get it done. If Republicans are looking for a single national effort, let's work together to develop a Federal auto IRA legislation piece that would work in the interim and work in the future and help people set up, Mr. Speaker, a responsible retirement savings plan.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that the last speaker said this was rushed through Congress. It took 2 years to write this legislation. Even by congressional standards, this was not rushed through Congress.

We have waited 7 years to hear the alternative, and the gentlewoman from Tennessee has all of these plans over there, and she says: we have got plans right here. How about one plan that we might have a chance to focus on?

They have had the luxury of saying: we are going to do a better job without telling us what the better job entails.

The Governor of Massachusetts recently wrote to our delegation and to the leadership in the House and said: During the ACA repeal-replace deliberations, it is important that coverage gains, patient protections and market stability be maintained.

Let me give you some numbers from Massachusetts. 97.2 percent of the residents of Massachusetts have health care. 100 percent of the children in Massachusetts now have health care.

This is an effort at rhetoric. We want to hear what the plan is. We want to understand what the alternative is. We want to know precisely what is going to be included and, just as importantly, what will be excluded from the benefits that this Affordable Care Act has given to the American people.

Twenty-two million Americans now have healthcare insurance who didn't have it. Nine percent of the American people are without adequate health care. We should be fixing that.

I have heard this, in the 29 years I have been in Congress, time and again. Till an honorable effort is put forward, you know what the Republicans should be saying to us right now? Let's get on, together, with making it all work, instead of saying repeal and replace. How empty is that rhetoric?

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Levin for yielding to me.

I want to speak specifically to what the previous gentleman has just stated. I had not intended to speak because I am going to offer the motion to recommit on our side, but the gentleman appeared in his commentary to belittle the notion of procedure.

Procedure in this institution is sacrosanct based upon the rules that we adopt in the earliest moments of the new Congress. I was struck by the notion that we should just cast aside and denigrate procedure. That is how the institution operates, based upon procedure, established precedent, and settled law.

To suggest that somehow we could just offend procedure, we remind ourselves of what has happened to this institution during the last two decades when virtually all the Members on both sides got elected by running against the institution. They could never step away from the campaign rhetoric to get on with actual governance of the institution. Procedure in this institution means that we adhere to a prescribed set of rules and orders and, yes, goodwill.

Now, again, I had not even intended to get up and talk about this issue, arcane as it might seem, but it underlies the whole notion of a representative democracy and a duly elected legislative institution. Procedure, the basic tenet of which is, oftentimes: Shall the institution simply concur with a motion to proceed? That is the antecedent of the term, ``procedure.'' That is how the body works.

Today, fundamentally what is being proposed here and what we object to in no small measure is the violation of the whole notion of procedure.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill in its current form. I would remind my colleagues that this amendment to the bill will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

Now, I must tell you that I, having served on the Ways and Means Committee for a long time, think that we should label tax reform as ``Chairman Ryan's tax reform by ambiguity.''

I can't figure this out. We have a set of final decisions that are putting ours in front of the discussion and the debate. Mr. Ryan stands and says: You are supposed to stick to your principles; you are supposed to stick to your beliefs; you don't need bipartisanship. And the majority leader addressed the House 10 minutes before, blaming the President because he sticks to his beliefs and he sticks to his principles and he adheres to some basic policy tenets.

Well, this is Friday the 13th. What an appropriate way to discuss tax reform. But I have figured out what the problem is. They, on the Republican side, are now afraid of doing tax reform. They must be afraid of what they see as the luck that might come to the Democratic Party based on tax reform.

Let me say this today, right now. Every Democrat in this institution favors 179 and favors expensing for small businesses. If anything, we would extend the principle beyond its current form so that we might include even more individuals.

But like garlic to the vampire, the permanent unpaid-for extension of these tax bills harms bipartisan tax reform because it goes out of its way to violate not just procedure, but something that is elusive and hard to put our arms around in this institution, and it is called the principle of goodwill--which, by the way, used to exist, particularly on the Ways and Means Committee. It was the hardest committee to get on. There was deep thinking that you had to adhere to at virtually every tax measure. People spent careers trying to get on and, once they got on, spent careers trying to perfect legislation that might come to the aid of the American family. But not in this instance.

I heard my friend, Mr. Tiberi--and he is my friend--say a few moments ago, he addressed the issue of the framework. Democrats do not object to the framework that David Camp used--or as Mr. Tiberi called him, Saint David Camp--to do fundamental tax reform. We strongly endorse the principle offered by Chairman Camp of framework and procedure. He included Democrats right through the whole discussion. And then when it failed--and incidentally, as I told you it would. When it failed, Mr. Camp said: Well, we have to do the extenders.

So there is a bit of amnesia at work here today. They were in charge when we had to do the extenders in, what we might call in New England with Super Bowl champions, the 2-minute warning. That is precisely what happened. We had to do this at the very end after the referee came in and said: If we don't get this done quickly--and, by the way, another group that they disdain, the IRS, because the IRS said, for the 2- minute warning, what? They simply said to us: You will not be able to prepare tax reforms for April if we do not get this done right now. So succumbing to what had been a very good framework, we had to do tax extenders because the Republican Party rejected David Camp's tax reform proposal.

Now, our proposal here is essentially the same. And Mr. Tiberi is correct when he says everybody here favors 179. What we object to is you are going to borrow the money to end up paying for it because you violate the principles that in one moment you adhere to and in the next moment you relinquish.

We might think, on this side, tomorrow is Valentine's Day. There could have been some goodwill established here today. There could have been some common ground as we go forward on tax reform.

I saw how Mr. Rostenkowski did it when I joined the committee; I saw how Mr. Rangel did it. And do you know what? I saw how Mr. Archer and Mr. Camp did it. They were institutionalists by nature. They would not have done what is being done today. All four of those individuals would have said: Well, first of all, to make it work and to make it great, it has to be bipartisan in nature as you relate to tax reform.

When you hear about tax reform in '86, one of the things that comes to mind immediately is the fact that it was done with President Ronald Reagan and Speaker Thomas O'Neill.

Let me say something, Mr. Speaker. As upset as I am today by the manner in which this is being offered, I want to say to our Republican colleagues, Happy Valentine's Day.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed to the bill in its current form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill in its current form.

I want to remind my colleagues that this amendment to the bill will not kill the bill or send it back to committee if adopted. It will simply allow us to proceed to final passage, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Chairman Ryan, spoke a few moments ago about the notion of goodwill and confidence. But he used a peculiar term as a substitute. He called it the ``baseline.''

What about a baseline of some goodwill and confidence building and a measure that acknowledged that, in terms of procedure, this is a violation of the confidence that we have all tried to establish as we proceed to tax reform?

Some of us who have been around for a long time and have participated in actual tax strategy, we would offer the following: the last time that the Tax Code was changed in America, the Internet had not been invented, Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States, and Tip O'Neill was the Speaker of this House.

Now, in terms of procedure, why we object is the following: if you recall, the gentleman from Michigan, Chairman Camp, waited until tax reform last year was completely dead and then asked us to go through the motion. And that, in the end, is exactly what it was, to have gone through the motion of trying to pass some permanent extended tax bills.

Well, in New England 2 weeks ago, we were talking about deflated footballs. Now we are talking about deflated tax reform expectations.

Six weeks into this Congress, and we are doing this procedural instead of substantive achievement that might lead to some tax relief, as the President has acknowledged, for American corporations or tax relief for individual and family filers?

We are doing this with the argument that, somehow, Democrats don't support charitable giving? Our objection today is based on the following: Fiscally, this is reckless; procedurally, it violates the notion of goodwill in the House; and lastly, and just as importantly, I think it pushes apart the two parties from getting to tax reform.

Mr. Speaker, this is a positioning amendment: How might we embarrass the minority? Do you know what? They are saying here, as they go forward in this argument, that this keeps everything the way it is, it extends charitable giving.

You have to borrow the money eventually to pay for this. That adds to the deficits. Mr. Speaker, that is the argument that we are having here today. We want to know how this is paid for. We are not objecting to the thrust or mission of what is being offered. Under different circumstances, these bills would pass without any problem with broad support.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have any personal quarrel with the merits of this policy, but when it is unpaid for, it means more borrowing. We all support the work of public charities and private foundations in our communities. We support the good works of charitable communities, and we strive to provide these charities with the resources that they need to carry out their mission.

Let me ask you this: Why would they try to masquerade this notion that somebody from Massachusetts is against charitable giving?

Universities, hospitals, and foundations, they abound throughout my State. Like the rest of our Caucus, I favor charitable giving and object to the procedure in which this is being offered today. We object to the procedure.

Why are we taking up this time debating these bills? We should be coming together on tax reform, as promised, for middle class families that grows the economy. If the goal of Mr. Ryan is to eventually remove all deductions, preferences, and exclusions in the Code to get to a lower rate, that should be stated, but not to do it this way.

We are debating bills that the administration has already said they will veto and the Senate has given us no indication they will take them up.

So to fix this moment, our motion to recommit offers the following: a 1-year bridge to tax reform. By the way, my predictions of this in terms of the extenders have been far more accurate over the years than their proposals on the extenders.

We are suggesting here a proposal that does not add to the deficit and addresses the longstanding problem of corporate inversions. By the way, why are companies inverting? Because of the tax system in America.

We are suggesting today that there is a difference and a distinction to be drawn between tax evasion and tax avoidance. They are avoiding taxes in some cases and evading them in the others.

We have an opportunity to do something about this Tax Code that would help bring that about. We pay for our provision. It gives, I think, a measure of comfort for the Democratic minority today to vote for this motion to recommit, and I urge Republican support for this provision.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the tremendous service of Raymond E. Cook of Brimfield, Massachusetts who received the Congressional Gold Medal along with his comrades of the First Special Service Force on February 3, 2015.

The First Special Service Force was an elite military unit during World War II comprised of volunteers from the United States and Canada. This unit was specifically trained to fight behind enemy lines in the most inhospitable conditions. They distinguished themselves on multiple occasions, most notably for their critical role in Allied victories in Italy, North Africa, southern France, and Anzio Beach. The unit became known as the ``Black Devils'' because they would blacken their faces for nighttime missions.

Raymond served as an United States Army Ranger before joining the First Special Service Force in early 1944 and remained with them until the unit was disbanded at the end of that year. Raymond continued to serve in the Army until he was honorably discharged in October 1945. During his tour of service, Raymond was awarded two Purple Hearts for the injuries he sustained during combat.

Mr. Speaker, Raymond Cook fought courageously for the ideals of freedom and peace that our nation holds dear. I want to thank him for his service and congratulate him on receiving the highest award that Congress can bestow.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Anna E. Barry School of Chicopee, Massachusetts for the honor of being named a National Blue Ribbon School for 2014, and to recognize their achievements both in academic excellence and in narrowing education gaps between students.

The Anna E. Barry School currently enrolls students from kindergarten through fifth grade. In its mission statement, the school states that its purpose is ``to educate children . . . in order that they may successfully continue with their education, pursue their aspirations and eventually become contributing community members.''

The National Blue Ribbon School Program was established in 1982 to honor elementary, middle and high schools which have excellent performance, or which have substantially reduced the performance gap for disadvantaged student populations. Created under Secretary of Education Terrel H. Bell, the program was designed to celebrate achievement among public and private schools alike, as well as to encourage the sharing of successful teaching strategies.

With just fewer than 7,900 educational institutions having been named National Blue Ribbon Schools, it is an extraordinary achievement for the Anna E. Barry School to be recognized with this award. The uniting feature of National Blue Ribbon Schools is their commitment and dedication to outstanding educational outcomes for their pupils, and I am proud to count a school from the First District of Massachusetts among them.

In being named a National Blue Ribbon School, the Anna E. Barry School has been recognized for their outstanding work improving the results of both students with special educational needs, and those who have English as a second language. The school's accomplishment has been the product of tailored student teaching, the integration of technology, and the engagement of the community. By focusing on individual achievement and establishing positive lines of communication with families, the Anna E. Barry School has not only improved educational outcomes, but has made learning a collaborative exercise between students, parents and teachers.

The success of the school can also be attributed to the dedication of its teachers and administrators in promoting and advancing the students' education. I wish the school, its staff

and the students well in their future endeavors, and again congratulate them on this remarkable achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed to the bill in its current form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill in its current form, and I want to remind colleagues that this amendment to the bill will not kill the bill, nor will it send it back to committee, and, in fact, if adopted, we will immediately proceed to final passage.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today debating this faulty effort for one reason and one reason only: the failure fundamentally to change the Tax Code.

Now, let me say to my friends, the praise delivered on behalf of Mr. Camp is well-earned. But I also want to say something today. We all love to say, ``I hate to say I told you so,'' but we really like to say, ``I told you so.''

I told you so. The staff would be rich if they took that bet that I offered not long ago on the very floor of this House.

Now, Mr. Camp, the wily sorcerer of tax policies that he is, he employed every bit of magic at his disposal to bring forth tax reform. He put together a great model and, for 3 years, without the glare of publicity, we actually had an adult conversation between the parties, principals and the stakeholders, who listened carefully to what everyone had to say.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership was not spellbound by the sorcerer's good deeds. When he was pleased to release his tax proposal, the leadership of the Republican side said, Blah, blah, blah.

Well, one blah in support of continuing uncertainty for the American family and for business; two blahs, or a second blah, for cutting economic growth and business investment; and finally, a third blah to the lowest worker participation rate in 36 years.

Seven to 8 million Americans still looking for work, but we can't do tax reform.

The last time we reformed our code, the Internet didn't exist, but we can't do tax reform.

Economic growth at 2 percent, but we can't do tax reform.

Forty percent of the Business Roundtable's major alliances said this week they plan on hiring new employees. That means 60 percent don't-- but we can't do tax reform.

Thirteen percent of these companies said they are committing to investing in buying new equipment, but that means 87 percent are not.

Our inaction on tax reform is harming this economy, and it is not Mr. Camp's fault. Rather than working on this bill and staying with it, with wage stagnation, low worker participation rate, depressed business investment, instead of addressing these problems, we are debating a bill that, once the President signs it, we will immediately see it as being outdated, and we are going to start the process all over again, maybe in just a couple of days.

What we have before us, in terms of process, is the pinnacle of congressional nonsense. This bill does not incentivize companies to invest more; no more for research. We are rewarding companies for their past behavior.

You cannot find any economist with credibility that will suggest that retroactivity in the Tax Code is sound policy.

Pick up the newspaper and you are going to find very quickly that, as we released this draft, over that same period of time, more companies inverted. The sound of the dam breaking is all around us.

Recent reports have stated that the United States stands to lose $2 billion next year alone, and since the first inversion in 1982, we have lost more than $9 billion. Sadly, these inversions are a part of an epidemic that started a decade ago.

CRS points out that at least 47 companies have inverted since the beginning of the last year, 19 inversion deals are still pending, and 14 more are sure to come in the coming year alone.

The Joint Committee on Taxation says now it is costing us $33.6 billion in lost tax revenue because of our inability to deal with corporate tax inversions.

I understand the argument about tax avoidance versus tax evasion. We have done a reasonably good job at cracking down on Switzerland and Liechtenstein and other places, but we need to address this question of Bermuda and these other tax havens where corporate residents of America pay their fair share, and those who invert to escape taxes--while, incidentally, we are engaged militarily across the globe with a substantial bill--they feel as though they don't have to deliver anything.

Now, my motion to recommit today is very simple. Those companies that have inverted cannot take advantage of the very tax benefits that we are going to vote upon in a few minutes, which, by the way, I favor extending. If you have inverted, you should not be allowed the same credits and deductions and exclusions that American businesses who have stayed here dutifully, respectfully, and with great patriotic fervor continue to pay.

I don't understand, for the life of me, why Republicans can't support doing something about corporate tax inversions.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the 25th anniversary of the Spirit of Springfield. Since incorporated on December 21, 1989, the Spirit of Springfield has entertained approximately eight million area residents and visitors with events that bring the community together in celebration and provide community vitality. These events currently include the World's Largest Pancake Breakfast, Spirit of Springfield Golf Classic, MassMutual Star Spangled Springfield, Tower Square Parade of the Big Balloons, City of Bright Nights Ball, Bright Nights at Forest Park and annual free holiday concert by the 215th Army Band of the Massachusetts Army National Guard.

Bright Nights at Forest Park is the largest event the Spirit of Springfield presents and it is in conjunction with the Springfield Department of Parks, Buildings & Recreation Management. The three-mile drive through magnificent lighting displays has been honored by the American Bus Association as one of the Top 100 Attractions in North America for multiple years. 2014 marks the event's 20th season.

The Spirit of Springfield is also pleased to provide event services to the City of Springfield for events that include the mayoral inaugurations, building dedications, swearing-in ceremonies, police academy graduations and September 11th Remembrance Ceremony.

To produce the events, the non-profit organization, which is governed by a Board of Directors and employs three-full time employees, raises approximately $450,000 in corporate contributions and an additional $450,000 in donated goods and services. The magic is all made by three full-time employees, college interns, volunteers and a dedicated board of directors.

Mr. Speaker, as a longtime supporter of the Spirit of Springfield, I am very proud to congratulate them on their 25th anniversary and wish them many more years of success with their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, this year the Hampden County Massachusetts Bar Association celebrates its 150th anniversary, having been officially incorporated on October 20, 1864. For all those years, this group has been one

of the pre-eminent organizations in my district and beyond. The association is much more than a group of lawyers looking out for the interests of their profession. The association is now over 1,000 members strong and out of its membership over the years have emerged some of the most outstanding lawyers and jurists in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. For a century and a half the association has been a proven leader in providing legal assistance for the poor, educating the public on our legal system and seeking improvements in our courts.

The Hampden County Bar Association plays a significant role in providing Pro Bono services and access to justice, as well as community outreach programs to the local community. Such programs include a legal clinic, a lawyer referral and information service, and providing for Lawyer for a Day Programs, in its Housing, Probate and District Courts. This volunteer organization of lawyers provides professional support and education to its members and advocacy on behalf of lawyers, the judiciary and the public at large. Its members have continued to provide an unwavering commitment to the legal profession, to each other and to the people they serve. One of the many noteworthy services provided by the Hampden County Bar Association occurred following the June 1, 2011 tornado, which impacted Springfield and its surrounding communities. The Bar Association served as the base and primary liaison to coordinate efforts to assist victims of the tornado, including setting up a hotline for the public as well as a FEMA hotline. Members of the Association attended various town meetings to assist property owners with legal issues resulting from the tornado devastation. This service also included representing individuals who were facing condemnation hearings because of the significant property damage to their premises. In addition, the Hampden County Bar Association maintained the FEMA hotline a few months later in 2011 when flooding from Hurricane Irene affected Franklin and Berkshire Counties, knowing that their bar associations did not have the resources.

I urge all citizens to take note of the good work of the Hampden County Bar Association as it begins its next 150 years of public service.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the 30th anniversary of New England Public Radio's weeknight program, Jazz a la Mode.

Jazz a la Mode, with its host and producer Tom Reney, started broadcasting on August 6, 1984. This exemplary program provides its listeners with some of the greatest recorded jazz, stretching from the classics to music created by emerging artists. Jazz a la Mode gives a broad offering of styles and the evolution of jazz from Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington to Miles Davis and John Coltrane and beyond. Additionally, Tom Reney has had the opportunity to interview many famous musicians such as David Brubeck, James Moody, and Wynton Marsalis. The hallmark of Tom Reney's program is special yearlong series that he dedicates to individual artists that had a substantial impact on jazz as a genre. Jazz a la Mode has done centennials for Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, and Count Basie.

In addition, Reney makes a point to highlight the jazz concerts, performances, and festivals that take part around New England. His audience will always have the most up-to-date information to be able to see live performances. Reney also acts as host for many jazz festivals around New England including the Tanglewood Jazz Festival and the Springfield Jazz and Roots Festival in my district.

Mr. Speaker, Jazz a la Mode has been a part of the cultural identity of western Massachusetts and New England for the past 30 years. As they celebrate this important milestone, I wish Tom Reney and the staff of Jazz a la Mode further success and many more years of entertaining New England.

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 40th anniversary of the founding of Project Children.

Since its founding in 1974, Project Children has brought over 22,000 children from both Protestant and Catholic communities in Northern Ireland to America, uniting them with over 15,000 American host families for a summer of peace and a lifetime of friendship. Summer vacation in the United States has given these children a break from the conflict and politics of their country and a chance to experience what many might take for granted during their youth.

Denis Mulcahy and his brother Pat founded the program together after they immigrated to New York. A retired member of the New York City Police Bomb Squad, Denis is truly the heart and soul of Project Children. His extraordinary dedication to peace and understanding has made a tangible difference in the lives of many in the U.S. and in Northern Ireland, and to the peace process on the island.

A nonprofit all-volunteer organization, the program has fostered countless friendships among communities in Northern Ireland, Ireland, and America. Project Children along with host families, coordinators, fundraising volunteers, benefactors, and alumni here in the United States have played a pivotal role in the growth of this organization.

Project Children has had a tremendous impact on the peace process along with U.S. and Irish relations. This group is one of the organizations that laid the community-wide foundation for the Good Friday Agreement, while continuing to serve as an example of the power of peace and reconciliation efforts at the grassroots level--as well as the power of individual leadership exemplified by Denis Mulcahy.

During my time as a member of Congressional Friends of Ireland Caucus, I have been fortunate enough to be a part of many significant achievements in implementing peace in Northern Ireland. I have seen firsthand what organizations like Project Children have done to offer hope and a better life for future generations. Without this organization's commitment along with the leadership of Denis Mulcahy, many young men and women from Northern Ireland would not have the quality of life they have today. Congratulations to both Project Children and Denis Mulcahy on this momentous occasion.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great personal satisfaction that I pay tribute to a remarkable individual who has spent more than 70 years working in the only profession that ever mattered to him: journalism. David Starr knew he wanted to be in the newspaper business when he was in the fifth grade, and since then, he has gone on to have a long and distinguished career with the Newhouse publications. He has been a reporter, an editor, a publisher and a president; performing each task with enthusiasm and great skill. To me, he is the quintessential newspaperman, bringing passion, integrity and devotion to his beloved craft. More importantly, I am proud to call him my friend.

As much as David Starr enjoys his day job, he has another keen interest, and that is making western Massachusetts a better place to live, work and raise a family. Since I first met him in 1977, few people have done more to improve the quality of life in the Pioneer Valley. Under his leadership, downtown Springfield experienced an unprecedented rebirth. He encouraged the public and private sectors to work together to bring economic development and jobs to the region. The Monarch Building, the Sheraton Hotel, the Bank of Boston Building and a new state-of-the-art high speed color press are all living proof of his tireless efforts. He had a vision for our community and it was realized. But knowing David Starr, I am certain that he believes his work is far from complete.

It should not come as a surprise that he used to read 13 New York newspapers every day in his youth. A born journalist with a curious mind, David got his start with the Long Island Press in 1940. That is where his lifelong partnership with the Newhouse family began. They recognized his talents and he quickly rose through the ranks. Following his service in the Army, he returned to the paper where he would eventually become its senior editor. His hard work was rewarded once again when the Newhouse family sent him to Massachusetts to run the Springfield Republican. He has been in his corner office at 1860 Main Street ever since.

Besides his fondness for the newspaper business, the other constant in David's life has been his wife Peggy. For more than a half century they have been a formidable team. Their philanthropic efforts and willingness to give back to our community is legendary. If you have heard the Springfield Symphony Orchestra, visited our extraordinary museums, listed to public radio or watched WGBY, you can thank David and Peggy Starr. They have continually invested in our cultural institutions and helped make a difference in the place we call home.

As his friends and colleagues gather together in Springfield this week, I want to join them in thanking David for many years of friendship. For eight decades, you have been a fixture in the newsrooms of America. You have encouraged your writers and informed your readers. Both you and Peggy have generously given your time and resources for the betterment of others. And the lasting contributions you have made to our community will never be forgotten. On behalf of the United States of House of Representatives, let me congratulate you on a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, on July 25, the Springfield, Massachusetts, Police Department said farewell to their longest serving officer when Kevin Burnham retired after 43 years and 2 months on the job. A highly respected professional, a popular colleague, and a dear friend to everyone on the force, Kevin relinquished his senior officer badge last week to Ruben Boerro following a time-honored tradition. For the first time since July of 1971, Detective Burnham would not be patrolling the streets of the city he loves.

Ask anyone in the department who their favorite co-worker was, and the reply would likely be Kevin Burnham. They admired his dedication, strength and courage. They enjoyed his sense of humor and the laughter that seemed to follow him everywhere. And his loyalty was unquestioned. At the end of the day, Kevin looked upon the Springfield Police Department as a band of brothers and sisters. To him, the force was a family working together to make our city a better place to live, work and raise our children.

From his early days as a rookie, it was obvious that Kevin was born to be a cop. He had the streets smarts necessary to be effective in law enforcement, but he also had compassion. Those two qualities were the reasons his career was so successful. Whether it was becoming one of the first detectives to work on the narcotics bureau, his service in both the uniform division and the crime prevention bureau, or the responsibility that came with the job of evidence officer, Kevin performed each task exceptionally. He was honest and trustworthy, and his fellow officers knew he had their back.

Being a police officer always comes with risks. And two years ago, one of his closest friends, Officer Kevin Ambrose, was killed in the line of duty. To Kevin Burnham, it was the lowest of low points. But with his trademark integrity and character, he led the funeral procession for his fallen friend along with nearly one thousand law enforcement officials from across the country. He helped turn a sad day into a touching tribute to a lost comrade. That's the kind of person he is.

Kevin and Barbara Burnham have been great friends of mine for many years. They are good people and great fun. As Kevin begins his long overdue retirement, I want to wish him nothing but the very best. And on behalf of the United States of America, it gives me personal satisfaction to congratulate him on an extraordinary career serving and protecting the citizens of Springfield. Well done Detective Burnham.