Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on July 25th, the Springfield, Massachusetts, Police Department said farewell to their longest serving officer when Kevin Burnham retired after 43 years and two 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 Borrero following a time-honored tradition. For the first time since 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 street 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 officers 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 well- deserved 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!

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Van Hollen.

To listen to the histrionics from the other side here today, you would think that we could run the Pentagon through charitable giving. You would think that if there was just a deduction for charitable giving, we would have people volunteering to give their money to the Pentagon.

The reality is that, in this institution, we have had time for Benghazi. We have had time for the IRS, and guess what, next week and the week after, we are going to find time to sue the President of the United States, but we don't have time to address the American Tax Code where, as Mr. Van Hollen has just described, 40 companies are lined up to leave.

Yesterday, the acting head of the VA said we are going to need $18 billion to straighten out the VA, based upon the men and women who have honorably served this Nation.

Mr. Camp said yesterday, in an email to The Wall Street Journal:

Our Tax Code is dysfunctional.

Let me refer to what the gentleman from Alaska said just a few moments ago. He blamed Democrats in this Chamber for thwarting tax reform. I guess he didn't vote for the Speaker of the House because the Speaker of the House looked at the issue and said ``blah, blah, blah'' about tax reform--even as $20 billion, in terms of base erosion, is about to abandon the United States.

If you want to do something about charitable giving--and everybody in this institution honors Tocqueville's description of what is known as habits of the heart, we do it naturally. It is the third largest expenditure in the American Tax Code.

Nobody is talking about disarming charitable giving. What we are saying is that Mr. Camp is correct in his email to The Wall Street Journal yesterday. The Tax Code is, in fact, dysfunctional, and we should be addressing it.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today with this faulty effort for one reason and one reason only: the failure of fundamental tax reform.

Now, a good-faith effort was made in terms of drafting the proposal, but it really didn't go anywhere.

I would note in this institution, known for its emotions, that the response of the Democratic minority to the Camp draft proposal was fairly muted, thinking that this might be a worthwhile start to an ongoing conversation that would be bipartisan and bicameral.

A good start, we had. The model that we embraced over 3 years really worked quite well. Without the glare of publicity, we actually had an adult conversation back and forth between the parties, the stakeholders, and heard from virtually everybody you could hear from.

Well, when the proposal was offered publicly, the response on the Republican side was one of histrionics--Well, you can't do this. And you can't do that. Well, let's not try this. And let's not do that-- even though an academic exercise had been undertaken that was worthwhile. So tax reform was killed

in the crib before there was even an opportunity to have a conversation.

Now, my friend from Illinois (Mr. Roskam) said that everybody on this side is afraid to use the word ``stimulus.''

Stimulus, stimulus, stimulus, stimulus. I am going to use it, and I am going to use it in the motion to recommit.

Stimulus has worked in America's economic history, when America actually did big things. Mr. Lincoln found time during the midst of the Civil War to do the Transcontinental Railroad. Mr. Roosevelt did the Panama Canal. Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Reagan did the Big Dig in Boston. These are worthwhile undertakings that need to be done, and not to shy away from the principle of economic growth under the guise of a remedy that has dubious economic consequences.

Now, let me say this as well. And I intend, in the motion to recommit, to speak to it.

Remember the days when tax policy here was done between the two parties? Remember when there was a healthy give-and-take, where we actually talked about our differences in the quiet of the Ways and Means room, still the most desired committee to sit on in the Congress?

The point that I make on this is very simple. We started out with a bona fide effort to do tax reform. This is not the way to do tax reform. We need to go back to the drawing table and draft a proposal that the American people will come to see as competitive and will highlight the role that optimism has always played in American public life.

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

I am opposed to it in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my comments to the other side.

Mr. Tiberi, who is indeed my friend and a terrific guy, said that there is no partner at the White House. When we undertook this very significant proposal on tax reform, it wasn't the White House; it was the Speaker of our House--the Speaker of this House--who said, ``Blah, blah, blah.''

Now, I want to tell you that I am not bilingual, Mr. Speaker, but when you tell me blah, blah, blah, I get it. It ain't going anywhere. To blame the White House when the Speaker of the House poured cold water on it is outrageous.

Now, we heard of several companies that have been proceeding with inversions. For those of you paying attention to this, it simply means that a company moves offshore, they declare that they are no longer a corporate citizen of America, but instead, they will reincorporate to a foreign address for the express purpose of avoiding American corporate income taxes.

Mr. Speaker, the proposal that we have here is pretty simple. As they line up, the dam is breaking. I hear in the next few weeks that up to 47 companies--as the Congressional Research Service has pointed out-- are lining up to leave. They include manufacturing, pharmaceutical, and financial services sectors.

We should be doing fundamental tax reform as Mr. Camp laid out the proposal, but the issue of inversions and depreciation before us today, while seemingly unconnected, are intimately connected.

Mr. Speaker, given the Republican opposition to Chairman Camp's proposal, we cannot move forward on a House bill that reforms our Tax Code in a current or meaningful way at the moment, but we can address a very fundamental issue right here this morning without changing the nature of this legislation.

We can, in fact, address the issue by linking inversion to the purpose of bonus depreciation, and through that, we can suggest that any company that moves offshore cannot take advantage of corporate inversion and bonus depreciation simultaneously. That is what we are proposing today.

Now, I have a history with bonus depreciation. Remember Nancy Johnson, a Republican Member; and Phil English, a Republican Member? I supported with them the use of bonus depreciation--as Mr. Roskam wanted to

hear me say, stimulus, stimulus, stimulus.

On a short-term basis, bonus depreciation makes some sense, but not to make it permanent at the cost of $867 billion.

Friends, to do bonus depreciation separate from fundamental tax reform is economic nonsense. We need a comprehensive look at the Code and remind ourselves that bonus depreciation is but the following: a tool in the toolbox to make economic repairs.

Now, this proposal that our Republican friends have today with this cost attached to it is the least defensible of all of the extender proposals that they have offered.

Our own Congressional Research Service says that you do bonus depreciation for a short-term purpose to provide an economic stimulus during a recession. It is ``a temporary investment subsidy that is expected to be more effective than a permanent one for short-term stimulus . . . Its temporary nature is critical to its effectiveness.''

Now, this is important to remember here today. Chairman Camp repealed bonus depreciation, period. Now, we are bringing it back to be made permanent on a Friday morning, with no thoughtful or deliberative discussion other than the Speaker of the House saying, ``Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.''

What I am suggesting here today is that we cannot afford to spend $825 billion on this hit-or-miss chance that we are taking to do fundamental tax reform in this way.

Mr. Speaker, let me get right to the nub of what we are proposing. What this motion to recommit does is it keeps bonus depreciation as always intended, a temporary tool in our toolbox in an economic downturn.

This motion is a commonsense piece of legislation that extends bonus depreciation for 2 years--2 years--in a thoughtful and deliberative way, then we go back to fundamental tax reform, and then we take it up in a much more integrated way.

Now, lastly, if you voted yesterday for the DeLauro amendment, you need to be consistent today and vote for this motion to recommit which addresses the DeLauro amendment and puts behind us this conversation of ad hoc tax reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to recognize the Holy Trinity Church of God in Christ in my hometown of Springfield, Massachusetts for celebrating their sixtieth anniversary this month. Since its founding in 1954, Holy Trinity has become an important part of the cultural and spiritual identity of the Mason Square area of Springfield.

With its commitment to community outreach, Holy Trinity has become a vital part of the revitalization of the Mason Square area. For decades, Holy Trinity has worked to make Mason Square a better and safer place for everyone. Their parishioners help serve the people that are most in need by donating clothes and working at shelters on a regular basis. They have sponsored many initiatives including Community Olympics and offering different scholarships. Notably, Holy Trinity headed up a project, working with other churches and the city of Springfield, to renovate the gym at Deberry Elementary School for those students to enjoy.

I want to congratulate Holy Trinity Church of God in Christ for reaching this important milestone and I wish them all the best with their future endeavors.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think what I would like to offer to the chairman at this moment is to pose the following question: Are you going to surrender this morning, or are you going to surrender in November? Because, really, those are the two options that are before us today.

Let me retrace where we have been on tax reform. The chairman gets credit for a valiant effort at tax reform. Mr. Levin has acknowledged it; Mr. Van Hollen has acknowledged it. For 3 years, we studiously and aggressively undertook a genuine effort to do tax reform.

Now, what is interesting about it is the Democratic response to the chairman's draft was fairly tepid. Let's continue the conversation. Republicans released letters to the media, the Speaker poured cold water on the initiative, and a pretty good effort was cast aside. So we are back here this morning.

Let me offer a couple of, I think, economic facts that might defy consideration around here because, sometimes, they don't square with opinion.

There has been little wage growth for the average American worker since

2002. Downward pressure on wages is what we should be discussing.

In addition, a company located not far from where I live submitted a tax form last year of 19,000 pages. They have 11 full-time Internal Revenue agents on site daily. If this isn't a reason to go back to the table and negotiate tax reform, I don't know what is.

The chairman kind of cleverly suggested here this morning that, if we were to accept what is being proposed by the Democratic minority, might that be a path forward? It is a path forward. We are offering a 2-year extension of these provisions.

I hope Mr. Reichert or Mr. Camp returns and says: indeed, Mr. Neal has voted for these repeatedly. We are counting on you, Mr. Chairman, to point out how many times I voted for them.

Guess what? You are right, and we are going to vote for them again in November. This exercise in futility ill-serves the American people, other than to perhaps get to some messaging points.

I don't disagree with these. I disagree with the idea of breaking the budget to make them permanent this morning, but I, more importantly, disagree with the whole notion that we are giving up on tax reform if we make these permanent.

Some of the provisions in the Code need to be discarded. Mr. Chairman, I would remind you and the Republican staff that you removed 300 provisions, exclusions, deductions, and preferences from the Code. So we come back here this morning in this ill-conceived effort to embrace a couple of favorites?

The Tax Code in America has not been touched since 1986. I would remind you this morning, for all of you out here today, that was before the Internet was invented.

That is the question before us. A Tax Code for a modern economy, or do we go back to, well, Mr. Neal voted for this 8 times? Yes, he did. In fact, Mr. Neal has been on the Ways and Means Committee longer than the three previous speakers, so you can probably say Mr. Neal has voted for them 11 times because I think many of them work, in the absence of fundamental reform.

The last point, the chairman said he was going to 25 percent. The Democrats said go to 28 percent on the corporate side. We could have done all of this, had we gone to 28 percent, but ideology reigns, so we go to 25 percent. Even President Obama was at 28 percent.

This is not the way this institution is supposed to function, Mr. Speaker. The Ways and Means Committee is a privileged perspective on complicated issues. You don't do them like this when it comes to items in the Code.

So accept the notion that everybody dislikes the Code. Specificity in terms of what we are going to wean out becomes the problem.

Here is our last position--a 2-year extension.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to seeing you after the elections. You and I are going to shake hands, and as much as we all like to say, ``I hate to say, `I told you so,' '' I am going to say, ``As much as I hate telling you this, I told you so.''

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.

In its current form, I am opposed to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit must be pretty powerful with that confab that had to take place on the other side.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my friend, Mr. Tiberi--and he is my friend--and I am going to remind all that Mr. Camp did a pretty good job with the draft that he put out. That is not what this is about today.

This is about short-circuiting a long tradition in the Ways and Means Committee as to how tax reform ought to be handled. A reminder, again, 1986 was the last time that we spoke of tax reform in an earnest manner. Mr. Tiberi was, indeed, very animated. I understand the point that he is making.

The problem is, if you do a piecemeal approach to tax reform, you will never do fundamental tax reform. It is like the temptation of repatriation. If you repatriate those dollars, you will never do tax reform. People will just wait for another tax holiday. That is the weakness of the argument that we just heard. A 2-year extension makes a good deal of sense--let some of this economic morass clear up.

Now, Mr. Tiberi was correct when he quoted Jack Lew, an old friend. Economic growth is very weak. The number of people working is the real issue; 200,000 jobs a month won't do it. So why can't we find common purpose and expand the runway in terms of economic growth for all members of the American family? Are you telling me that this austerity package has worked?

By the way, Mr. Tiberi's comment when Mr. Tiberi said the investing class in America and the business class, they are looking for stability, they look at this institution every day and think that they are finding stability, with the arguments that take place here?

There are enough men and women in this institution and on the Ways and Means Committee of good will to continue the conversation that Mr. Camp has begun on tax reform. This is piecemeal. It is an ill-conceived manner and way to do tax reform.

Again, a reminder, the last time we did tax reform, the Internet had not been invented. That ought to tell us the story.

Here is what tax reform might look like: acknowledging that fossil fuel is not going away in the near future, we can still build a path to the renewables by using the Tax Code.

Let's expand the earned income tax credit. Let's embrace new markets tax credits. They have worked in every nook and cranny of this country. Let's take a look and embrace, again, build America bonds.

In reference to Mr. Tiberi's commentary, let me say this as well: yes, we need a permanent R&D credit, but let's make it even more robust. We heard a presentation yesterday in Massachusetts that, in Cambridge and Boston today, you have the greatest concentration of R&D in the world. Do you think I am not for a more robust research and development credit?

Again, good minds ought to be able to find this path forward, and I challenge the Republicans today: let's get on with renewing the Export- Import Bank. That makes a good deal of sense as well, and you know why--because it is sound economic policy.

This idea that theology takes over all in tax debate is a mistake. Embrace what works, not just the rigid ideology of the intransigence that keeps us from finding a common path.

We started out 3 years ago with Mr. Camp's work. For 3 years, we sat together, talked, took substantive testimony, and listened to what people had to say. Come in and defend your preference, come in and defend this deduction. Actually, the conversation was very good.

I can't understand the logic of that very sound conversation bringing us to this intersection of public debate. Are we to throw all of that good will over the side? In this simple moment, are

we going to cast aside a deliberative process that really was much of the better that I have had a chance to witness in almost 25 years on the Ways and Means Committee?

That is what you are doing today. You adopt these piecemeal approaches to tax reform, you will never get tax reform.

Think of these numbers: there is more than $2 trillion sitting offshore in cash and tangible assets. The bottom lines of corporate America are stronger than they have been in years.

My last point, downward pressure on wages since 2002 ought to be what motivates us to do tax reform.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the world prepares to celebrate St. Patrick's Day and this afternoon we welcome the Irish Prime Minister of the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, here to the Capitol, I want to pause for a moment to recognize the anniversary of a pivotal event in the peace process in the north of Ireland.

Twenty years ago, against the advice of his own State Department, President Bill Clinton granted a visa to the leader of Sinn Fein and its president, Gerry Adams, to visit the United States. It was at the time an unpopular decision, but history has proven it to be a catalyst for the peace process which, again, has proved to be most durable. It helped to bring an end to the longest standing political dispute in the history of the Western World. Simply put, Bill Clinton took an extraordinary risk that has paid huge dividends.

I was one of a handful of Members of Congress at the time who urged President Clinton to approve the visa. When Gerry Adams arrived in the United States after stopping in Boston, he made his way to my hometown of Springfield, Massachusetts, and addressed a core group of thousands at the John Boyle O'Reilly Club, and he thanked them for their support.

During his campaign for President, we had urged then-candidate Clinton to make peace in the island of Ireland a top foreign policy priority if he was to be elected. After his inauguration, to our great and pleasant surprise, he sent his National Security Adviser at the time, Tony Lake, to Capitol Hill to tell us that they were to elevate Ireland to the same category of priority as the Middle East.

A year later, on January 31 of 1994, the visa was issued to Gerry Adams, and the American dimension to the Irish peace process was born. Fourteen years later, the Good Friday Agreement was signed, and a society in the north of Ireland was transformed overnight.

On the night that Mr. Clinton offered that visa--it was one of the more memorable events in my career--I defended the Clinton administration that night on the BBC's Newsnight Hour, which would be the equivalent of Nightline here in America. I debated the leader of the UUP, Ken Maginnis.

Later today, I am hosting a briefing with Gerry Adams and the Congressional Friends of Ireland, and I urge our friends to visit with him if they can, and later on to meet the Irish Prime Minister at 3:30 this afternoon.

When we contrast where America and Ireland were in this special relationship that dates back three centuries, it is important to recall what it looked like in the north of Ireland 30 years ago. There were 30,000 British soldiers in an area the size of the State of Connecticut. There was a police force that held the position that nationalists need not apply--the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The British soldiers are gone and the Royal Ulster Constabulary are gone today. The watchtowers that monitored the activities largely of the nationalist community have been taken down, and you can cross from Derry to Donegal without knowing that you have moved from the north of Ireland to the Republic of Ireland or through Newry and County Down, as well, without being stopped, searched, and, in some instances, being frisked by British soldiers.

America's role in bringing about this success story provides an argument for the reach and the role of the United States in addressing some of the most difficult issues in the world. Ireland represented the longest standing political dispute in the history of the Western World, and America's role was pivotal to helping make that change. That model has become, today, something that could be emulated worldwide, and, in fact, the people who participated travel the world to talk about how they found common ground and a path forward.

There is a representative democracy in Belfast today in what is known as Stormont, where parties sit some days in disagreement and other days in agreement, but always with the idea that they are in charge of their own destiny and their own future. That is the genius of representative democracy.

I call attention to this issue today because of many of the stubborn problems that plague the world, with the understanding that men and women of good will in the crucible of politics can indeed chart a path forward, and not to miss the fact that it was still the risk-taking of the Clinton administration that took up the notion that the nationalist voice on the island of Ireland and in the north of Ireland and six small counties should be heard, and today the result is all around us.

So as the political parties visit on the eve of St. Patrick's Day all across the island of Ireland, we can satisfy ourselves with this achievement: the notion, once again, that good will and understanding the other side's arguments can, in fact, be heralded in the sense of achievement, but also, again, in the Stormont government that has been duly elected.

So, today, we in America take great satisfaction as to the role our men and women played in bringing about this success story and also to recognize something on a personal basis. I and many others here were allowed to participate in all of these ``it can never happen'' moments. Thanks, America, for help, once again, in leading the way.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank Mr. Crowley for recognizing me, and I want to pursue the themes that he has offered a moment ago.

I listened to the gentleman from Georgia earlier speaking of debt in the years out. That has nothing to do with the argument that is being applied on this floor. This is about the basic arithmetic of the credit card that arrives at a family's doorstep for a variety of costs. This is about paying for the war in Iraq, which I was opposed to but I believe we still have an obligation to pay for, including the 1 million new veterans that were created that are currently straining our VA system.

In addition, this is a vote about paying for the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that continued right through 2010 based upon the mistaken notion, the theology that was applied, suggesting that, in fact, tax cuts pay for themselves.

This is about a turnaround of a projected surplus of $5 trillion that instead became ongoing deficits and debt noted for the ill-conceived policies that many of our friends on the other side embraced under the hubris of suggesting that you can have it all.

When else in American history, when else have we embraced the idea enunciated not long ago by the former majority leader of the Republican Party who suggested that it was patriotic in a time of war to cut taxes? Lincoln and Roosevelt certainly didn't embrace that position. You can't have it all.

What was desirable by the Republican Party during those years was essentially this: they were going to score political points on the issue of the debt ceiling. They were going to hold the debt ceiling hostage for isolated issues that placated a minority of the majority.

Now, I know most of the Republicans that have come to the floor today, and I want to tell you, my knowledge of

them is they are very responsible when it comes to budgeteering, but they are caught by a minority of their majority who now dictate the outcome of where many of those positions go. So the result of the last standoff we had over the debt ceiling was that our debt was downgraded. America's credit rating in the world was downgraded. Look at the strength of the American dollar today. Why is it in that position? I have never been anywhere where the world doesn't say, We honor the American dollar.

The point that I offered a moment ago is the following: they were prepared to default on that debt for the purpose, again, of isolated, strident political views that are outside of the mainstream. Job creation? It was held hostage. Fewer jobs were created than at any time since the Great Depression. That is not an opinion; that is a fact.

Now, this behavior was unacceptable, and the American people said so. You pay for what you spend. Raising the debt ceiling ensures that we will not be a deadbeat nation in the eyes of the world nor in the eyes of our own citizenry.

Not long ago, we passed an omnibus spending bill.

Incidentally, because of the breakdown in the regular order here, the idea that we used to spend according to the 12 to 13 appropriations bills that guided us every year, it was known as the regular order where Members had a chance to amend spending bills in committee and then on the floor, I must tell you that is a quaint reservoir of thought these days. Now we wrap it all up, and the same people that could say, Well, I am going to pass the omnibus spending bill to take care of favored spending, and then say, Well, I am not going to vote to raise the debt ceiling, the argument is anachronistic.

So I support this measure having voted against the Bush tax cuts, having voted against the war in Iraq, and having voted against most of the policies that got us into this. But this is about the full faith and credit of the United States, and it should be embraced by this entire body.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a piece of legislation that I have introduced to boost our economy, invest in our crumbling infrastructure, and create jobs.

The economy is in need of a jolt, a proverbial shot in the arm to get it moving again. The need for this legislation is clear. Our unemployment rate is too high, the number of jobs created too low, and income inequality has made our recovery uneven, at best.

Eight million jobs were wiped out during the recession. We have to get them back. I have introduced the Invest in U.S. Act. My legislation will go a long way toward helping the economy take off again.

It makes strategic investments in infrastructure, bond measures, wildly successful Build America Bonds programs. It makes the R&D tax credit permanent, and many other tax credit initiatives.

The Invest in U.S. Act also takes full aim at rising income inequality. It increases the minimum wage. It provides tax relief for small businesses who hire new employees and those that buy new equipment.

The American people want one thing: an improved economy and more jobs. Join me in supporting this legislation that will finance critical infrastructure investment, fight income inequality, and grow our economy. The argument is about jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce an article entitled ``Garry Brown will join a Hall of Fame that would be incomplete without him'' that was published in the Springfield Republican on January 28, 2014. This tribute written by Ron Chimelis highlights the outstanding career of Garry Brown.

Garry has been a well-known and beloved sports writer in Western Massachusetts for over sixty years. Even after retiring, he still offers features and his famed column Hitting on All Fields, which he has written for the Springfield Republican for over forty years. Garry's passion and dedication to all sports in Western Massachusetts has earned him the admiration of his readers as well as his peers. As a result, Garry was inducted into the Western Massachusetts Baseball Hall of Fame on Friday, January 31, 2014.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to congratulate Garry on this well- deserved honor and wish him the best in the future.

Garry Brown Will Join a Hall of Fame That Would Be Incomplete Without

Him

(By Ron Chimelis, The Republican)

He was born in the same year as Mickey Mantle, grew up

watching Ted Williams and began his sports writing career

when Joe DiMaggio was playing center field at Yankee Stadium.

Garry Brown was there at Busch Stadium in 2004, when the

Boston Red Sox ended an 86-year World Series title drought.

His encyclopedic knowledge of baseball's local history is

unmatched.

It is not who he has covered or where he has been, however,

that best defines Brown. It is how he is viewed by others who

find themselves practically forcing well-deserved honors upon

a man too humble to expect them.

One such honor will come Friday night. Brown is part of the

seven-man inaugural class of the Western Massachusetts

Baseball Hall of Fame, which will hold enshrinement at the La

Quinta Inn & Suites in Springfield.

No individual--not a player, manager or executive--has

lived a life more interwoven with baseball's local history

than Brown, who is still going strong at The Republican in

Springfield.

Technically, he is retired. That has not stopped the 82-

year-old from continuing to offer features, retrospectives,

and live coverage of the Springfield Falcons.

He is still serving up ``Hitting to All Fields,'' which has

survived 40 years of seismic change in newspapers.

Achievements? Let's run down a few, sticking to baseball

because the overall list is too long.

Brown was a high school beat writer from 1952-66, which he

calls his favorite time. He covered Pittsfield's run to the

1960 state title and that summer's American Legion World

Series, with a 15-year-old shortstop named Mark Belanger

leading the way.

How about Chicopee High's three straight state titles from

1961-63? When fellow Hall of Fame inductee Al Stanek struck

out 25 and Amherst's Cliff Allen whiffed 16 in Chicopee's 1-0

tourney win in 1960, Brown was there.

He was the Red Sox beat writer from 1986 to June 2009, but

also covered the World Series in 1967 and 1975. That was

Brown, writing on deadline when Carlton Fisk's home run and

Bill Buckner's error changed history.

Awards? A story on Carl Yastrzemski's final weekend made

``Best Sports Stories of 1983.'' The American Legion's

national award saluted his coverage in 1963.

In 2002, Brown was in his 52nd year of writing when he

earned a New England award for columns. In 2003, the Boston

Chapter of the Baseball Writers Association of America

honored him with the prestigious Dave O'Hara Award, a prized

honor that signifies recognition by one's peers.

The night was memorable. So was the acceptance speech by a

man whose humility is rare for his field.

``I do get tired of people asking me if Cy Young was a nice

guy,'' said Brown, who paused for effect.

``He was,'' the honoree said, drawing warm laughter and

applause from the crowd. He won the Kid Gore Award for high

school coverage in 1998. That's associated with basketball,

but it's still a biggie.

When the Springfield Public Schools Sports Hall of Fame

selected its inaugural class, the committee wanted badly to

elect Brown as a contributor. He respectfully declined,

saying the first year should be reserved for the athletes.

He was elected in the second.

He campaigned tirelessly for a return of minor league

baseball to Springfield. Had it materialized, a popular

public choice for the new ballpark's name over his objections

was Garry Brown Stadium.

For the Western Mass. Baseball Hall of Fame, Brown was

elected unanimously before he could say no.

Now in his seventh decade of service, Brown was asked about

the attributes that made him a success.

``Not knowing when to quit,'' he said with typical self-

effacing humor.

That knowledge, or lack of it, has been a blessing to his

readers and made this region a much better place. The Western

Mass. Baseball Hall of Fame would be incomplete without him,

even if an ageless writer for all ages would never say so

himself.

Mr. Speaker, on November 22, 2013, my hometown of Springfield, Massachusetts held a ceremony to remember President John Fitzgerald Kennedy on the 50th anniversary of his death. What sets this ceremony apart from the many others that took place on this significant anniversary is that in 1964, Springfield established a monument with an eternal flame in our beautiful Forest Park in President Kennedy's memory. The citizens of Springfield hold President Kennedy's memory dear and gather to remember him each November 22nd since. I am proud to have participated in at least forty of these ceremonies over the years.

Following this year's event, I received a very touching letter from a long-time friend and Springfield native, Mary Ellen Long Franz. In the letter, she included a poem, which she had written in November of 1963. I found her poem to be very moving and believe it captures the emotions that millions across the country felt on that day. I want to thank Mary Ellen for this tribute to our fallen President and I submit this poem.

The Passing of a President

(By: Mary Ellen Long Franz, November 1963)

Began the somber, solemn days of horror growing.

Hollow tumult gnawing, aching, pelting . . .

Dear God, this cannot be.

But so it was and sorrow swelled and soared and burst its

bonds to rush cascading . . .

The million tears of all the millions flowing.

Endless sadness softly going.

O see, brave lady, love surrounding and enfolding, holding

heartful.

To give at last where always we have taken . . .

And still are taking even now your grieving.

Our loved one so much more is loved when gone, so unwarned

gone.

Forgive us this, our trespassing, and nearness to him

wanting.

Too undreamed were we of such nightmarish thing.

Unwilling now to part, to break apart, to lose so soon, too

sadly soon . . .

In memory enough to keep his faith, his love that gave with

heart's whole love . . .

His mind that gleaned from all the good, from all the harvest

of our history . . .

Enough to hold his soul's warm dedication,

His love of peace and laughter sunning,

His giving, selfless giving of all that one can give?

Please, God, it can be so.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize the accomplishments of Julia Lavoie, best known as Julie. She has been with the Greater Springfield Credit Union in Springfield, Massachusetts for thirty-five years and currently serves as its CEO. She will be retiring as CEO of the credit union on January 17, 2014.

The Greater Springfield Credit Union was chartered on March 2, 1927. Its original charter was limited to mainly Springfield municipal employees and their families. Today it is open to any resident of Hampden or Hampshire Counties, while many of its members are City of Springfield employees, police officers, and firefighters.

Thirty-five years ago, Julie began working at the credit union as a teller. Over the course of the next three decades she held several positions including loan officer, assistant manager, and COO before being named the CEO in 2008.

Many credit union members have said that getting a loan from Julie was like going to the confessional, because no matter what the disclosed financial problem or the issue, she found a way to help the member. Over her more than three-decade career, spanning several generations of members, she has developed lifelong friendships due to both her friendliness and professionalism.

She has left the credit union in outstanding financial shape. Julie credits her success as CEO to its loyal members, hard-working staff, and dedicated Board of Directors. Due to Julie's vast institutional knowledge and tremendous value, she has been named ``CEO Emeritus'' by the credit union's board.

I know I join Julie's husband Ron Lavoie, her three daughters, and seven grandchildren in wishing her a happy retirement and continued success in all of her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, the Honorable Katherine M. Clark, be permitted to take the oath of office today.

Her certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to her election.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to introduce Katherine M. Clark, with the always important reminder that there are fewer than 12,000 men and women who have had the honor in American history of taking this oath.

This institution has been home to Presidents of the United States, members of the Supreme Court, and members of the United States Senate who have gone far and wide in helping America to succeed every day.

Katherine Clark, one of those individuals who has now joined this important and august body, succeeds, again, a very favorite colleague of ours who served in this institution with distinction for 37 years, Senator Ed Markey.

Mr. Speaker, Katherine Clark is well grounded in local government, having served at the school committee level. She served in the legislature as a member of the House of Representatives and as a member of the Massachusetts Senate. She has also served time as a prosecutor. She is well-distinguished in the State of Massachusetts and won a very handsome victory.

It is an honor for me to submit to you for the first time the Honorable Katherine M. Clark from the State of Massachusetts.