Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to one of labor's strongest advocates in our region. Joslyn ``Jos'' Williams has been President of the Metropolitan Washington Council, AFL-CIO, for 32 years, serving as an advocate for working men and women throughout Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Throughout that time, he has made history as the union's first African-American president.

Mr. Williams will be honored at the Maryland State and District of Columbia AFL-CIO annual ``Salute to Leadership'' dinner on June 20, and it is an honor that is much deserved and well earned. Having risen through the ranks of the union's leadership over the course of his career as an organizer and activist, he has applied his knowledge, care, and experience each day to making sure that the organization's members are not only well represented in discussions with private and public sector managers but that they have access to opportunities that provide pathways to middle-class success.

Mr. Williams came to this country as an immigrant while still a teenager, arriving from Jamaica with the goal of pursuing his American Dream. After working for the Library of Congress and becoming active in his local chapter of the American Federation of Government Employees, Mr. Williams realized that his calling was to make sure that his fellow workers could pursue their American Dreams as well. Thanks to his leadership, membership in his local chapter grew from 100 to 600 members over the course of just two years.

Today, Mr. Williams oversees an organization that is 150,000-workers strong and that plays an important role in the life of the National Capital Region. He has fought for fair pay, safe working conditions, and access to affordable health care and secure retirement savings. His work has surely helped--and continues to help--so many workers and their families participate in growing our economy and strengthening our region's communities.

I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Mr. Williams on this well deserved honor, and I thank him for his service to workers in Maryland's Fifth District and throughout our region.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, but I am constrained to respond to the remarks, the emotional remarks, the perplexed remarks of the gentleman who preceded me.

I have a voting card too. And I don't know whether either Tom or Judy Price have been unemployed, or whether their brother or their sister have run out of unemployment insurance and have been left twisting in the wind. But this voting card could give them extended unemployment insurance.

I don't know whether Tom and Judy Price have employees who are making the minimum wage and living in poverty. This card could change that and up the minimum wage, but it hasn't been brought to the floor.

I tell my friend from Ohio, this card could fix what everybody agrees is a broken immigration system, but we are not using this card, I tell my friend from Ohio, because we are dabbling in the unrealistic.

This card, this card could pass export-import. He wants to grow jobs. Export-import is absolutely critical, and it phases out, and you will not bring it to this floor.

This card, and your card, joined together with 216 other cards, could pass all of those pieces of legislation. This card could make sure that Tom and Judy Price have an economy that is more resilient.

And this card--my friend from Ohio is distracted, but I tell my friend from Ohio, this card helped pass the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, without which Tom and Judy Price might not be in business today because your tax policies of 2001 and 2003, unpaid for, which were supposed to grow this economy, resulted in more loss of jobs than any policy since Herbert Hoover.

This card ought to be used today for fiscal responsibility. This card ought to be used to say to your chairman that you praised, David Camp, yes, we want to do comprehensive tax reform, not just little item by little item by little item, which destroys tax reform, which exacerbates our deficit, and will destroy investment in education, infrastructure, and growing our economy.

This card, I urge my colleagues to use responsibly this day.

All of us here support helping small businesses expand operations so they can hire more workers, all of us. Our Tax Code ought to encourage small businesses to do so.

But the Republican majority's approach to tax policy, evidenced by the two bills on the floor today, is simply the wrong path.

Do not use your card, given to you by the American people, trusting that you will do the responsible, commonsense thing, don't use this card irresponsibly today.

The bills we are considering today are the latest examples of Republican hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, hypocrisy on deficits, as their approach would raise deficits by hundreds of billions of dollars.

There is no free lunch. This pretends there is a free lunch.

Hypocrisy on tax policy is a representative rejection of the comprehensive approach to tax reform Republicans' own Ways and Means Chairman, David Camp, that the gentleman from Ohio just praised, put on this floor, or at least put on the table, not on the floor.

And the response of the Speaker of this House was, and I quote, ``Blah, blah, blah, blah.''

What a shame. How unserious.

While I have serious concerns about some of the policy changes that Chairman Camp's proposal contains, it made the difficult choices and it was paid for. It was responsible.

Republicans and Democrats all say we want a comprehensive tax reform. This undermines tax reform. So if you say you are for comprehensive tax reform, don't do little, itty-bitty pieces that are unpaid for, exacerbate the deficit, and undermine tax reform.

These bills today reject that approach and, instead, take the easy way out by irresponsibly adding their cost to the deficit, a deficit that my friends on the other side of the aisle, with whom I join, lament on a daily basis but, somehow, disconnect their policies from their lamentations.

In doing so, these bills will put even more pressure on a discretionary budget facing the return of sequester next year, undermining our ability to invest in critical priorities like veterans care, highways, education, bills to make sure that we grow our economy and create jobs.

Democrats are ready to make the hard choices so that we leave America a better country, not a poorer country, not a deeper in debt country, but a better country for our children and our grandchildren.

Rather than waste our time on these individual bills, Congress ought to debate and amend comprehensive tax reform, allowing us to face up to our responsibility to make the tough decisions the American people expect from their representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I don't live in a perfect Congress, none of us do, or in a country that always makes the right decisions. So I will vote for an MTR which says we are not going to permanently exacerbate our deficit, but we will make sure that business does have the opportunity to have these tax benefits, as we

have in a bipartisan basis done in the past.

So I will vote for the MTR. I will vote to make sure that we extend these for 2 years, as the Senate suggests. I don't think that is the best policy. It is not the policy I would choose. The policy I would choose is comprehensively giving permanent, long-term R&D, paid for so that we don't exacerbate the deficit, but we do give confidence so businesses can grow.

So I tell my friend from Ohio, we both have a card. The responsible step for us to take is to vote ``no'' on temporary and come with fiscally responsible legislation to this floor.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman from Indiana raised his credit card. He apparently is going to use his vote as you would use a credit card, to incur an additional $73 billion in unpaid for debt.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my constituent and the National President of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Jan Withers, who this December will complete a three and a half year term as President of MADD, the Nation's leading voice against drunk driving.

Ms. Withers joined MADD in 1992, after her 15-year-old daughter, Alisa Joy, was killed by an underage drinker who chose to drive after consuming numerous alcoholic beverages. She first volunteered by sharing her story and lobbying for tougher legislation to help stop this preventable violent crime. In Maryland and across the country, Withers actively campaigned to lower the legal limit of blood alcohol content for drivers from 0.10 BAC to 0.08 BAC, and had the privilege to be present in the Oval Office when President Clinton signed that change into law in 2000.

With all of the work she has done at the State and national level, her passion remains providing support for other victims and survivors of this violent crime. Before becoming National President in July 2011, Ms. Withers served as a victim's advocate for MADD Maryland, facilitating a support group for victims and participating in the MADD Maryland Operations Council. She joined the MADD National Board of Directors in 2005 and has served on numerous committees, including Communications and Branding, Public Policy, and Victim Services.

During her tenure as National President, Ms. Withers has traveled the country and walked the halls of Congress speaking to lawmakers about MADD's Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving, supporting the survivors of this violent crime, and preventing underage drinking. In large part because of her efforts, the recent highway reauthorization bill fully codified MADD's campaign by funding DUI crackdowns, creating an ignition interlock incentive grant program, and authorizing the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety--or DADSS program. We are all hopeful that these three initiatives will lead to a reduction and the eventual elimination of drunk driving in America.

Thanks to the tireless efforts of Ms. Withers, thousands of lives have been saved and countless victims of this crime assisted. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the service of MADD National President Jan Withers.

Mr. Chair, first I want to say to Mr. Latham, with whom I had the opportunity of serving on the Appropriations Committee for some years, thank you for your service. We obviously didn't always agree, but I always found you to be a gentleman and conscientious and honest in your leadership and willing to work together where we could work together, and I want to thank you for that.

Mr. Chairman, not only is Mr. Latham retiring, but his partner, the ranking member, Mr. Pastor, who is standing at the back of the Chamber, is also retiring.

Mr. Chairman, let me simply say about Ed Pastor, Ed Pastor is a quiet man, a little bit like John Wayne in ``The Quiet Man,'' but a very effective man who worked very hard not only for his constituents, but for the citizens of our country.

I also had the opportunity to serve many years with Mr. Pastor on subcommittees together and on the full committee together. We owe a debt of gratitude to both of these gentlemen who worked together to produce products that America could be proud of and work forward on. Perhaps we didn't always get there, any of us, but they worked as a team trying to get the best job possible within the constraints on which they were operating, and we thank them both for that.

Thank you, Mr. Pastor. We are proud of you.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, first, let me briefly say I rise to speak on this bill which directly impacts our economy, our competitiveness, and our ability to create jobs that pay well and open doors of opportunity.

While there are many positives to this bill--not limited to the strong support of NASA and the Goddard Space Flight Center, which is in my district, as well as robust funding for the National Science Foundation--this bill nonetheless makes two deep cuts to vital programs that protect against crime, promote innovation, and facilitate exports.

But the reason I wanted to come to the floor is because I wanted to take a moment to congratulate my friend, Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia, the chairman of the subcommittee who is managing this bill on the Republican side.

Frank was elected in 1980. I was elected a few months later in a special election in 1981. We served together for 23 years on the Appropriations Committee. We served all that time until I left when I was elected majority leader.

We served on the Helsinki Commission together, which fought for human rights while the Soviet Union existed and so many were enslaved behind the Iron Curtain.

Frank Wolf has chaired this subcommittee for many, many years. He has done so with honor, with honesty, and with fairness.

He and I have served together in this House for 33 years. We sat together on the Appropriations Committee, as I said, for 23. When he retires at the end of this Congress, it will be a significant loss to the people of his district and to this House, which he has served so well.

We may sit, Frank, on opposite sides of the aisle, but that has done nothing to diminish the friendship and alliance we have forged over the course of our service together, and the level of respect I have for him as a legislator and as a human being.

He has been indefatigable, Mr. Chairman, in his work on behalf of his constituents, on behalf of our Federal employees, and on behalf of the interests of the Washington metropolitan area.

This is his final Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill, at least as being initiated on this House floor.

I know his passion and professionalism when it comes to these issues will be greatly missed, not only by the many outside groups that provide input to him and the subcommittee each year, but to his Democratic colleagues on the subcommittee, including Ranking Member Chaka Fattah, with whom he has worked so well, and previous ranking members who have worked well with him. I applaud them for their work.

Frank Wolf is a principled, courageous, tenacious advocate for human rights in every corner of the Earth. I have traveled with him frequently behind the Iron Curtain to argue for those who were discriminated against, whose human rights were undermined, and whose civil rights did not exist.

Frank Wolf is always prepared to go anywhere, anytime, in the toughest of circumstances, by himself and yes, with others, to advocate on behalf of those who had no advocate.

I have had the privilege of working with Congressman Wolf on many issues over the years. I have always found him focused on the merits of issues and not on their politics.

Mr. Chairman, I join all my colleagues in thanking him for his service to this House, to the subcommittee, to the Nation he served in the uniform of the United States Army, and to the people of his district.

I look forward, Frank, to working with you the balance of this year as you continue your focus and advocacy on behalf of the issues which you so ably support.

The 113th Congress will come to an end, and Frank Wolf will leave us. He will still have many things to accomplish. He will still make many significant and important contributions to his country and to his community.

I know that all the Members join me, Frank, in thanking you for your service, your dedication, and your friendship.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to an extraordinary life, to an extraordinary individual, to a dear friend of mine for many, many years. Emanuel Raymond Lewis, Librarian Emeritus, the last and longest serving Librarian of the U. S. House of Representatives, prolific author, archivist, educator, humorist, historian, illustrator, psychologist, and recognized expert on military and naval history, died May 14 in Suburban Hospital, Bethesda, MD.

He was the husband of my former Chief of Staff, Eleanor Lewis, an extraordinary individual in her own right, who had been Geraldine Ferraro's Chief of Staff and John Dingell's Chief of Staff as well.

Dr. Lewis was appointed House Librarian in 1973, and served until January 1995 when the library, which predated the Library of Congress, along with the House Historical Office, was down-sized and placed under the Legislative Resource Center. The Library was the official custodian of all documents generated by the House.

Ray Lewis was a man of the House, and so much more. Ray lived a life of vast experience--he was a genuine Renaissance man. He loved his work, and his scholarship and service to the House and to this country left us all enriched.

During his tenure as an officer of the House, Dr. Lewis combined disciplined intellect with a deep interest in the House's history and the patience to guide House members and staff seeking historical understanding of this institution. During the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearings on President Nixon, Lewis provided critical historical references to guide the committee in its work. And he honored the tradition of the office he headed, authoring a history of ``The House Library'' and promoting the ties with the Senate Library and the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I knew Ray Lewis for much of the time I have served in the House of Representatives. I got to know him, his sense of humor, his sense of this institution, his sense of decency, his sense of excitement of what was going on here and around the world. And with Eleanor he traveled much of the world and, in each place, brought something new home with him to share with all of us.

From his service as an officer in military intelligence from 1954- 1956, Dr. Lewis developed a life-long interest in the history of military architecture and technology in the United States, which culminated in the 1970 publication of ``Seacoast Fortifications of the United States'' published by the Smithsonian Institution Press. He wrote this work while a Post-Doctoral Research Associate 1969-1970 at The Smithsonian Institution. Initially an architectural student at the University of California at Berkeley, Dr. Lewis turned his early drawing talents to illustrate his book.

Commissioned as a First Lieutenant in the Coast Artillery Corps, he transferred to Military Intelligence when the Corps was abolished shortly after his commission. As commander of a group of Soviet military defectors--Lewis was a native Russian speaker--he was assigned responsibility for testing security at military bases. He retired as a Captain.

Dr. Lewis researched military documents in the National Archives, and traveled extensively to fortification sites around the country for his book, the first comprehensive work on the subject of coastal fortifications in a century, now used by the U. S. National Park Service in training their employees. This seminal work examined the prominent role played by these fortifications in American defense policy prior to World War II.

Lewis was accompanied on these travels by his future wife, Eleanor, and the couple referred to the time as `their forting days in lieu of their courting days.' Travel would become a constant in their lives together--his proposal of marriage included an unusual vow--``marry me and I will take you to Tashkent, Samarkand, and Bukhara''--and he did. Over forty-five years they would visit every continent, and more than 100 countries.

Eleanor, as I said, was my Chief of Staff, and she is still a very dear and close friend. She and Ray were partners in life for over four decades. They were partners, as well, in intellectual pursuit and in love of this country and this institution.

Dr. Lewis published widely in military and naval-related journals including ``Military Affairs,'' the ``U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings,'' ``The Military Engineer,'' ``Capitol Studies,'' ``U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings;'' ``Military Engineer,'' ``Dictionary of American History,'' Encyclopedia of the United States Congress;'' and ``Warship International.'' Editors of the latter publication honored his work in their annual ``Best Articles of the Year'' on three separate occasions.

In 1969 working for System Development Corporation of Santa Monica, CA, considered the world's first computer software company, Dr. Lewis co-authored ``The Educational Information Center: An Introduction,'' a general guide to the process of establishing an educational information center.

Born to Siberian immigrants in Oakland, CA, November 30, 1928, Dr. Lewis attended the University of California at Berkeley (BA/MA) and the University of Oregon (PhD). While enrolled at the University of Oregon he studied with a grant from the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH). He became a tenured psychology professor in the Oregon University System for a half-dozen years. Dr. Lewis was among the first psychology professors to participate in the creation of the Oregon State Board of Psychologist Examiners, and the first Oregon professor to teach on campus through television.

Dr. Lewis had a life-long love of public spaces and actively worked to preserve parkland. On May 27,1937 at age 8, he joined his parents and his brother Albert, now deceased, in walking across the Golden Gate Bridge on opening day. He donated specimens unearthed at forts to national and state parks, including Fort Stevens at the mouth of the Columbia River in Oregon.

To honor his father, Jacob A. Lewis, Dr. Lewis donated ten acres to the city of Hayward, CA--the ``J.A. Lewis Park'' is now part of the Hayward (CA) Area Recreation and Park District. The elder Lewis had donated the same land area--ten acres--in San Francisco to build Congregation Ner Tamid.

In 1965, Dr. Lewis prepared ``A History of San Francisco Harbor Defense Installations: Forts Baker, Barry, Cronkhite, and Funston'' for the State of California Division of Beaches and Parks. This work, which evolved into Dr. Lewis' later book on coastal fortification, was instrumental in the formation of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) in 1972. In 1971 Dr. Lewis was called to testify before a subcommittee of the House Interior Committee during hearings on creating the GGNRA.

Dr. Lewis was well-known to House Members and especially staff who sought his help in researching issues before the Congress. He was regarded as a friendly curmudgeon who could be relied on to quickly locate helpful historical information. The time he saved those staffers, however, was all too frequently consumed in conversation about whatever matter Dr. Lewis happened to be engaged in researching at the time.

His curiosity and love of learning spanned a wide range of interests. Those interests were manifested in his personal collection authentic African spears, including several purchased in Umhlanga, South Africa, which were used in the 1879 Anglo-Zulu War; the muzzle of a 16-inch gun from the USS Indiana now on display at the Navy Museum in Washington, D.C.; a 1954 MG which was best of show in the 25th Anniversary of the ``Concours d'Elegance'' June 29, 1997 in Forest Grove, Oregon; and Soviet Field Marshal memorabilia. Side interests included the study of California geography, and Native American tribes--the House Librarian was once called upon by Vice President Spiro Agnew for advice on the authentic pronunciation of tribal names.

It was fitting that the House Librarian--in the tradition of Jefferson--held thousands of books in his personal collection.

Ray's passions for travel and collecting items of interest came together when it came to trains. It's hard to know whether his collection of train models, especially those of the Southern Pacific Daylight, came from the time he spent riding the rails, but we know he loved traveling by train. His adventures included a cross-country excursion from Washington, DC to San Francisco, as well as passage on the Trans-Siberian Railway from Khabarovsk to Moscow. Along with his trips on the Canadian and Pacific Railways, Ray's rail experiences, like so much of his life, were full and adventurous.

For all his scholarly activities, Lewis took great pleasure in hanging out with some of the legendary cultural figures of his time-- jazz greats Louis Armstrong and Dave Brubeck, as well as comedy giants Lenny Bruce and Mort Sahl at San Francisco's ``Hungry i.''

An engaging and enthusiastic raconteur, Lewis could entertain with stories of juicy irony from the day's news, or of his time playing slots with Frank Sinatra in Reno, Nevada when the singer was obtaining his divorce from Ava Gardner. His own performing exploits--he sang and played guitar--ended with producing musicals and comedies in graduate school.

Born with a rare cholesterol disorder, Dr. Lewis first entered NIH in 1964 as an in-patient, and was involved in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institutes' research protocols that led to the discovery of the statin drugs. Dr. Donald S. Fredrickson, named by President Gerald Ford to become head of the National Institutes in 1974, was Lewis's doctor; Lewis was a research patient in Dr. Frederickson's 1967 paper describing the classification of lipoprotein abnormalities in five types. This became known as the ``Frederick classification,'' later adopted as a standard by the World Health Organization in 1972.

A devoted atheist, Dr. Lewis became a minister in the Universal Life Church, Inc., in the 1960s--he liked to joke that he could marry you or bury you--your choice. In 1999, he experienced a lifetime thrill when he met the Dalai Lama at a dinner in Washington, D.C. The Lewises had recently visited Lhasa, Tibet and at the dinner presented the Dalai Lama with photographs of Norbulingka, the summer palace from which he escaped the Chinese in March 1959.

Ray Lewis, to the end of his life, digested life, welcomed life. Tennyson wrote, in his poem Ulysses: `I am a part of all that I have met;/yet all experience is an arch whichthro'/gleams that untravell'd world whose margin fades/for ever and forever when I move./How dull it is to pause, to make an end,/to rust unburnish'd, not to shine in use!'

That was Ray Lewis's philosophy. He saw life as an ever-expanding opportunity to enrich himself and others with his intellect and his excitement for what could be done in this House. His knowledge, his intellect, his humor, his engaging personality truly shined upon us all.

Ray was my friend. He was an American to be admired by us all, a good citizen, a great American, a man of the House. I join in expressing my sympathy to Eleanor, their son Joseph, and the extended Lewis family for their loss but also to all of us for our loss of a good and decent man who made such an extraordinary contribution to this country and to all who serve it in the People's House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary life, to an extraordinary individual, to a dear and good friend of mine for many, many years. Emanuel Raymond Lewis was the librarian emeritus, the last and longest-serving librarian of the U.S. House of Representatives, a prolific author, archivist, educator, humorist, historian, illustrator, psychologist, and recognized expert on military and naval history. He died on May 14.

He was the husband of my former chief of staff, Eleanor Lewis, an extraordinary individual in her own right, who had been Geraldine Ferraro's chief of staff as well.

Ray Lewis was a man of great intellect, of great warmth, and of great contributions to this institution, to his country, to his family, and to the intellectual education of so many.

Ray Lewis was a man of the House and so much more. He lived a life of vast experience. He was, as Eleanor observed, a genuine Renaissance man. He loved his work and his scholarship and service to the House and to this country, which he enriched so extraordinarily well.

During his tenure as an officer in the House, Dr. Lewis combined disciplined intellect with a deep interest in the House's history and patience to guide House Members and staff seeking historical understanding of this institution.

During the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings on President Nixon, Dr. Lewis provided critical historical references to guide the committee in its work. And he honored the tradition of the office he headed, authoring a history of the House Library and promoting ties with the Senate Library and the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I knew Ray Lewis for much of the time I served in the House of Representatives. I got to know him, his sense of humor, his sense of this institution, his sense of decency, and his sense of excitement of what was going on here and around the world. With Eleanor, he traveled in much of the world; and in each place, he learned something new and brought it home for all of us.

Dr. Lewis created extraordinary research on fortifications, coastal fortifications, river fortifications. He was, indeed, one of the world's experts on that particular historical focus.

Eleanor Lewis, as I said, was my former chief of staff. She is still a very dear and close friend. She and Ray were partners in life for over four decades. They were partners, as well, in intellectual pursuits and in their love of this country and of this institution, the House of Representatives. They enriched all.

Ray Lewis was born to two Siberian immigrants in Oakland, California, on November 30, 1928. He attended the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Oregon. While enrolled at the University of Oregon, he studied with a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. He became a tenured psychology professor in the Oregon University system for a half dozen years. Dr. Lewis was among the

first psychology professors to participate in the creation of the Oregon State Board of Psychologist Examiners and was the first Oregon professor to teach on campus through television. A Renaissance man, a man before his time.

He had a lifelong love of public spaces and actively worked to preserve parkland. In fact, on May 27, 1937, at the age of 8, he joined his parents and his brother Albert, now deceased, in walking across the Golden Gate Bridge on opening day. He donated specimens unearthed at forts to national and State parks, including Fort Stevens at the mouth of the Columbia River in Oregon. Ray Lewis, to the very end of his life, digested life, welcomed life.

Tennyson wrote a poem about Ulysses, in which he said: ``I am a part of all that I have met; yet all experience is an arch wherethrough gleams that untravelled world, whose margin fades for ever and for ever when I move.'' That was Ray Lewis' psyche. He saw life as an ever- expanding opportunity to enrich himself and to enrich others with his intellect and his excitement for what could be done and how well he participated in doing for this House, for this country, and for his family.

Mr. Speaker, my remarks are longer than this, and I will not repeat all of them. Much of them have been contributed by his wife's observations and her writing skills, and I would ask that they be included in the Record. I have read some of them, but the remarks I give about him are personal because he was my friend. He was an American to be admired by us all. He was a good citizen, a great American, a man of the House.

My sympathy to Eleanor for her loss, but to all of us, as well, for our loss of a good and decent man who made such a contribution to this country and to all of us.

in memory of emanuel raymond lewis, librarian emeritus of the U.S.

house of representatives

Emanuel Raymond Lewis, Librarian Emeritus, the last and longest serving Librarian of the U.S. House of Representatives, prolific author, archivist, educator, humorist, historian, illustrator, psychologist, and recognized expert on military and naval history, died May 14 in Suburban Hospital, Bethesda, MD. The cause of death was dementia.

Dr. Lewis was appointed House Librarian in 1973, and served until January 1995 when the library, which predated the Library of Congress, along with the House Historical Office, was down-sized and placed under the Legislative Resource Center. The Library was the official custodian of all documents generated by the House.

Ray Lewis was a man of the House, and so much more. Ray lived a life of vast experience--he was a genuine Renaissance man. He loved his work, and his scholarship and service to the House and to this country left us all enriched.

During his tenure as an officer of the House, Dr. Lewis combined disciplined intellect with a deep interest in the House's history and the patience to guide House members and staff seeking historical understanding of this institution. During the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearings on President Nixon, Lewis provided critical historical references to guide the committee in its work. And he honored the tradition of the office he headed, authoring a history of ``The House Library'' and promoting the ties with the Senate Library and the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service.

From his service as an officer in military intelligence from 1954- 1956, Dr. Lewis developed a life-long interest in the history of military architecture and technology in the United States, which culminated in the 1970 publication of ``Seacoast Fortifications of the United States'' published by the Smithsonian Institution Press. He wrote this work while a Post-Doctoral Research Associate 1969-1970 at The Smithsonian Institution. Initially an architectural student at the University of California at Berkeley, Dr. Lewis turned his early drawing talents to illustrate his book.

Commissioned as a First Lieutenant in the Coast Artillery Corps, he transferred to Military Intelligence when the Corps was abolished shortly after his commission. As commander of a group of Soviet military defectors--Lewis was a native Russian speaker--he was assigned responsibility for testing security at military bases. He retired as a Captain.

Dr. Lewis researched military documents in the National Archives, and traveled extensively to fortification sites around the country for his book, the first comprehensive work on the subject of coastal fortifications in a century, now used by the U.S. National Park Service in training their employees. This seminal work examined the prominent role played by these fortifications in American defense policy prior to World War II.

Lewis was accompanied on these travels by his future wife, Eleanor (Gamarsh) Lewis, the couple referred to the time as ``their forting days in lieu of their courting days.'' Travel would become a constant in their lives together--his proposal of marriage included an unusual vow--``marry me and I will take you to Tashkent, Samarkand, and Bukhara''--and he did. Over 45 years they would visit every continent, and more than 100 countries.

Dr. Lewis published widely in military and naval-related journals including ``Military Affairs,'' the ``U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings,'' ``The Military Engineer,'' ``Capitol Studies,'' ``U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings;'' ``Military Engineer,'' ``Dictionary of American History,'' Encyclopedia of the United States Congress''; and ``Warship International.'' Editors of the latter publication honored his work in their annual ``Best Articles of the Year'' on three separate occasions.

In 1969 working for System Development Corporation of Santa Monica, CA, considered the world's first computer software company, Dr. Lewis co-authored ``The Educational Information Center: An Introduction,'' a general guide to the process of establishing an educational information center.

Born to Siberian immigrants in Oakland, CA, November 30, 1928, Dr. Lewis attended the University of California at Berkeley (BA/MA) and the University of Oregon (PhD). While enrolled at the University of Oregon he studied with a grant from the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH). He became a tenured psychology professor in the Oregon University System for a half-dozen years. Dr. Lewis was among the first psychology professors to participate in the creation of the Oregon State Board of Psychologist Examiners, and the first Oregon professor to teach on campus through television.

Dr. Lewis had a life-long love of public spaces and actively worked to preserve parkland. On May 27, 1937 at age 8, he joined his parents and his brother Albert, now deceased, in walking across the Golden Gate Bridge on opening day. He donated specimens unearthed at forts to national and state parks, including Fort Stevens at the mouth of the Columbia River in Oregon.

To honor his father, Jacob A. Lewis, Dr. Lewis donated ten acres to the city of Hayward, CA--the ``J.A. Lewis Park'' is now part of the Hayward (CA) Area Recreation and Park District. The elder Lewis had donated the same land area--ten acres--in San Francisco to build Congregation Ner Tamid.

In 1965, Dr. Lewis prepared ``A History of San Francisco Harbor Defense Installations: Forts Baker, Barry, Cronkhite, and Funston'' for the State of California Division of Beaches and Parks. This work, which evolved into Dr. Lewis' later book on coastal fortification, was instrumental in the formation of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) in 1972. In 1971 Dr. Lewis was called to testify before a subcommittee of the House Interior Committee during hearings on creating the GGNRA.

Dr. Lewis was well-known to House Members and especially staff who sought his help in researching issues before the Congress. He was regarded as a friendly curmudgeon who could be relied on to quickly locate helpful historical information. The time he saved those staffers, however, was all too frequently consumed in conversation about whatever matter Dr. Lewis happened to be engaged in researching at the time.

His curiosity and love of learning spanned a wide range of interests. Those interests were manifested in his personal collection authentic African spears, including several purchased in Umhlanga, South Africa, which were used in the 1879 Anglo-Zulu War; the muzzle of a 16-inch gun from the USS Indiana now on display at the Navy Museum in Washington, DC; a 1954 MG which was best of show in the 25th Anniversary of the ``Concours d'Elegance'' June 29, 1997 in Forest Grove, Oregon; and Soviet Field Marshal memorabilia. Side interests included the study of California geography, and Native American tribes--the House Librarian was once called upon by Vice President Spiro Agnew for advice on the authentic pronunciation of tribal names.

It was fitting that the House Librarian--in the tradition of Jefferson--held thousands of books in his personal collection.

Ray's passions for travel and collecting items of interest came together when it came to trains. It's hard to know whether his collection of train models, especially those of the Southern Pacific Daylight, came from the time he spent riding the rails, but we know he loved traveling by train. His adventures included a cross-country excursion from Washington, DC to San Francisco, as well as passage on the Trans-Siberian Railway from Khabarovsk to Moscow. Along with his trips on the Canadian and Pacific Railways, Ray's rail experiences, like so much of his life, were full and adventurous.

For all his scholarly activities, Lewis took great pleasure in hanging out with some of the

legendary cultural figures of his time--jazz greats Louis Armstrong and Dave Brubeck, as well as comedy giants Lenny Bruce and Mort Sahl at San Francisco's ``Hungry i.''

An engaging and enthusiastic raconteur, Lewis could entertain with stories of juicy irony from the day's news, or of his time playing slots with Frank Sinatra in Reno, Nevada when the singer was obtaining his divorce from Ava Gardner. His own performing exploits--he sang and played guitar--ended with producing musicals and comedies in graduate school.

Born with a rare cholesterol disorder, Dr. Lewis first entered NIH in 1964 as an in-patient, and was involved in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institutes' research protocols that led to the discovery of the statin drugs. Dr. Donald S. Fredrickson, named by President Gerald Ford to become head of the National Institutes in 1974, was Lewis's doctor; Lewis was a research patient in Dr. Frederickson's 1967 paper describing the classification of lipoprotein abnormalities in five types. This became known as the ``Frederick classification,'' later adopted as a standard by the World Health Organization in 1972.

A devoted atheist, Dr. Lewis became a minister in the Universal Life Church, Inc., in the 1960s--he liked to joke that he could marry you or bury you--your choice. In 1999, he experienced a lifetime thrill when he met the Dalai Lama at a dinner in Washington, DC. The Lewises had recently visited Lhasa, Tibet and at the dinner presented the Dalai Lama with photographs of Norbulingka, the summer palace from which he escaped the Chinese in March 1959.

Dr. Lewis is survived by his wife of 47 years, Eleanor G. Lewis of Washington, DC, my former Chief of Staff; his son Joseph J. Lewis of Eugene, Oregon, cousin Ruth Lycette, her son and daughter-in-law, Bob and Kathy Lycette of Palo Alto and San Carlos respectively; his cousin in law, Eve DeLanis of Virginia Beach, VA; a sister-in-law, Roberta Foulke and her husband, Robert, of Las Vegas, Nevada, 11 nieces and nephews, and many great nieces and nephews.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring of the schedule of the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for his information.

I note that an appropriations bill and the CJS bill will be on the floor next week.

Let me pursue, if I can, Mr. Speaker, the progress that the Appropriations Committee will be making.

Am I correct, Mr. Leader, that this will be an open rule on the CJS bill?

I thank the gentleman for that information.

I understand, in addition, that the Appropriations Committee continues to mark up bills this week to pass their fourth bill, the Transportation-HUD bill, out of committee.

The question I would propound to the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not we anticipate completing the markup of the 12 appropriation bills before the August break?

I yield to the majority Leader.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, for the information.

Obviously, one of the bills that I am particularly concerned about is the Labor, Health, and Education investments that we have been making. There is a substantial cut proposed in the 302(b) allocations, which is the allocations of the larger number to the 12 subcommittees, a substantial cut in the Labor-Health bill, well below historic levels. I hope that as we continue to work through the appropriations process, we can address that issue and not double down on the cuts that have already occurred in what I think the Leader and I both believe is a very critical bill, which includes funding for the National Institutes of Health.

We have 31 days left to go before the August break, legislative days, 43 days until our break in October, so time is essence. I would hope that we could address these bills and debate the priorities that these bills represent before we leave for the August break.

I yield to my friend if he wants to comment on that.

Mr. Speaker, the $155 billion, of course, is a gross figure and includes items beyond discretionary figures in that bill.

The fact of the matter is that NIH has been cut by a very substantially higher percentage than that, somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 percent, maybe 5 percent. So it is a substantial decrease in the ability to pursue grants, both external grants and internal research by the NIH, on the afflictions that confront our people, whether it be heart disease, cancer, pediatric research, diabetes, Alzheimer's. All of those will be affected to a much larger extent than would be projected by the gross figure of $155 billion to which the Leader responds.

I certainly will yield.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, for his remarks, and I will look forward to debating what he says is an important responsibility of this House, and that is to set priorities. When the Labor-Health bill comes before us--and the $155 billion is the gross number that goes to that committee; the $30 billion-plus is what NIH has, and the $1.5 billion that I am talking about is a cut to NIH, not to the gross figure of $155 billion, so I understand the figures. But we will have an opportunity to debate that when we come to the floor on the Labor-Health bill, if, in fact, we ever come to the floor on the Labor-Health bill. We didn't come to it last year or the year before. Hopefully, we will come to it this year.

Two additional things I would like to ask the leader, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier this week, I had an opportunity to meet with a number of DREAMers who want to join the Armed Forces of the United States. There is a bill called the ENLIST Act, introduced by one of our Republican Members, that essentially says that we are going to allow DREAMers to enlist, and through their service, they could establish their paths to citizenship.

Mr. Speaker, that is an important bill for me because my father came from Denmark. He came here in 1934, at the age of 32. He served in the Armed Forces of the United States, and he became a citizen through his service during World War II in the Armed Forces of the United States.

The sponsor of the ENLIST Act wanted to offer it to the defense authorization bill that we just passed. Last year, when the House considered the defense authorization bill, an amendment similar to the ENLIST Act was made in order.

Unfortunately, it was not made in order this time, so we didn't get an opportunity to vote on that one way or the other. The majority leader knows, Mr. Speaker, that I have been asking in almost every colloquy when we are going to consider legislation that will deal with the broken immigration system that confronts us. This was one opportunity. It was, again, rejected. It was not missed--rejected.

So many colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle--Mr. Schock-- said that we need a clear path to citizenship for workers who are already here. Adam Kinzinger said that, through commonsense policies, we have the opportunity to grow our economy, and we must work hard to come to an agreement on how to bring undocumented workers out of the shadows.

John Shimkus said that we have to address the 12 million undocumented immigrants who are already here by moving them legally into the workforce. The Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, growers, farmworkers, and faith groups across the spectrum are all urging us to pass immigration reform; yet, frankly, we are not addressing it in any way even on this. I think,

surely, we could have gotten a consensus on the ENLIST Act, but it was itself rejected.

I would urge the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, to perhaps give us some sense beyond ``we don't trust the President.'' We know that hardly anybody on that side of the aisle trusts the President.

If the issue is simply trusting the President, let's shut down. Let's not do anything, which, essentially, is what we have done, as a matter of fact, as I say that. Let's not do anything. Let's not pass any new laws. That is not what the American people expect, but that seems to be the premise.

Now, presumably, we passed the Defense Authorization Act because we expect the President to pass it; but if we simply don't trust him, why pass the bill?

That is not an excuse. That is not a reason. In fact, it is a derogation of our responsibility, Mr. Speaker. I would hope that the majority leader would tell me when, if ever, we are going to address the broken system that he and I agree is a broken system.

I yield to my friend, the majority leader.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Very frankly, we can't impose my way or the highway in this House, Mr. Speaker, as you well know. The Republicans are in the majority. We can't impose any way. We can simply ask for some way for it to be brought to the floor. It can be brought forth individually, the ENLIST Act.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the majority leader believes the ENLIST Act is going to be brought to the floor. I would ask him whether any of the bills that are passed out of the Republican Judiciary Committee are going to be brought to the floor. They passed out over 6 months ago.

A bill out of the Homeland Security Committee to deal with border security passed out of the committee some 4-plus months ago, and it has not been brought to this floor.

We are not looking for my way. We are looking for any way--some way. We are looking for a path--a way--to get to addressing this issue, and there has been no way. He is correct, but it is not we who are imposing no way.

It is the failure to bring a bill to the floor, Mr. Speaker, that we can consider. In a transparent way, the House can work its will, which, of course, was the commitment that Speaker Boehner made when he became the Speaker of this House.

That is the problem. It is not what the President does, and it is not what the Senate does, but it is what we are not doing on this House floor, and that is bringing options to the floor, so that we can vote up or down, and maybe we will lose.

There were four bills out of the Judiciary Committee that we didn't largely support, but the Republican leadership on the committee supported those bills, and the majority of the Republicans supported those bills. They are not to the floor. So it is a question of not doing it your way. We are doing it no way.

I continue to be frustrated when the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, responds to me that, somehow, they don't trust the President. Presumably, they trust their committee chairs. Presumably, you trust yourselves, and presumably, if you bring something to the floor, you trust that you will vote the way you believe as we will do on this side of the aisle.

Maybe some on our side of the aisle will agree with you, and maybe some on your side will agree with us, but if we don't bring it to the floor, it is no way, and we are not going to get much progress there.

There are two other issues I will discuss briefly, unless the majority leader wants to respond to that. The Voting Rights Act, he and I have had brief discussions about that. I know he has expressed himself publicly.

Mr. Leader, is there any possibility of our making progress on the Voting Rights Act between now and the August break?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the majority leader for his continuing positive comments with respect to assuring that every American not only has the right to vote, but has the access to vote and that we facilitate one's casting of that vote.

I look forward and my office looks forward to continuing to work with him towards that objective. Time, of course, is of the essence on this, so I am hopeful that we can move forward sooner, rather than later.

The last subject I would bring up--and we have also had brief discussions on this, Mr. Speaker, with the majority leader--is that the Export-Import Bank authority will expire in the not too distant future.

We believe on this side of the aisle that this is a very, very important piece of legislation. We have an agenda called Make It In America. One of the things that is important for the Make It in America agenda is to encourage and to facilitate the exporting of goods overseas. We think the Export-Import Bank does exactly that.

I would ask the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, if there is any prospect of bringing that to the floor. I might observe that the majority leader and I worked very, very closely and effectively, in a bipartisan way, when we authorized the Export-Import Bank the last time. I am hopeful that we can continue to do the same.

I yield to my friend, the majority leader.

I understand that comment. I also understand that the chairman of the Financial Services Committee is opposed to the Export- Import Bank. He has said that publicly.

So I would hope, at some point in time, again, that the majority of the House could work its will because I do not believe that the chairman of the Financial Services Committee represents the majority of this House in this instance.

Therefore, I am hopeful that we can move forward and that I can work with the majority leader's office, as we did with the last authorization, to reach that objective.

Mr. Speaker, unless the majority leader asks me to yield, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation, and I urge my Members to vote against it. I don't know that they will, but I urge them to do so.

All of us in this body need to be for accountability. None of us in this body, however, ought to be for turning a civil service system into a patronage system. None of us ought to be for turning a civil service system--one of the best in the world, if not the best in the world-- into a system which allows for no reason that needs to be articulated to turn senior executives into at-will employees.

I am disappointed that this bill has been brought to the floor with little notice and with no markup in committee. We talk about considered judgment. We talk about thoughtfulness. We talk about reading the bills. Then we bring them to the floor without hearings.

We must ensure that those who serve our veterans in the VA system do so with accountability and oversight. All of us are outraged at the allegations that have been made. Not one of us should step back and say we should not respond vigorously to the offenses that have allegedly taken place because, if the allegations are true, heads ought to roll, period; but that is not what this legislation is about.

This legislation is about a knee-jerk reaction to a bad situation, painted with a very broad brush, and undermining a system that can work, has worked, and has the mechanism to work.

I cannot support this bill as written, and I believe it opens the door to a slippery slope of undoing the careful civil service protections that have been in place for decades. This is about due process.

Now, due process is put under stress at critical times. Pursuing due process at times when there is no stress is not difficult. The test of a society is whether, at times of stress, it can follow due process and the law. This bill does not provide for that.

With regard to protections that have been put in place for decades to ensure that politically appointed managers cannot fire nonpolitical senior executives in Federal service without proper cause, neither party ought to be for that. The civil service reforms adopted decades ago were there for a purpose.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this premature and not-thought-out piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that Republicans brought this bill to the floor with little notice and no markup in committee.

We must ensure that those who serve our veterans in the VA system do so with accountability and oversight, especially in light of recent allegations of misconduct at certain VA offices.

However, I cannot support this bill as written, and I believe it opens the door to a slippery slope of undoing the careful civil service protections that have been in place for decades to ensure that politically appointed managers cannot fire non-political senior executives in federal service without proper cause.

Already, the Secretary has the power to remove employees who are not performing their jobs properly--and it is a power he employs whenever called for.

I will continue to stand up for our Nation's veterans and work to ensure they receive the benefits and care they have earned through their service.

I hope that the Congress and Administration can work together in a bipartisan way over the coming weeks to ensure the egregious behavior that has been reported is never repeated and that any VA officials proven to have acted inappropriately continue to be held accountable-- without undermining the Civil Service System that has served us so well for so long.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, which I am proud to cosponsor, and I thank the Gentlelady from Florida, Congresswoman Wilson, for spearheading this effort.

It has now been over a month since over 230 girls and young women were kidnapped from their school in northeastern Nigeria. Boko Haram, the terrorist organization that has been attempting to impose its extremist views onto millions of people in Nigeria and in neighboring Niger and Cameroon, is a dangerous and destabilizing force in West Africa.

This is a region where millions of people are trying hard to overcome poverty and where national and local governments are focused on creating opportunities that can expand a growing middle class-- ingredients for peace, prosperity, and democracy.

The very name of Boko Haram means a rejection of secular education and the democratic values it teaches. The girls who were kidnapped--in an action that is nearly unthinkable to those of us here in America in 2014--are courageous individuals who dared to go to school and pursue opportunities that generations of girls and women before them never had.

Congress ought to condemn Boko Haram forcefully and send a clear message not only that the world cannot--and will not--accept its brand of violent extremism, but also that the American people stand in solidarity with all the girls and young women of West Africa who are bravely pursuing an education or yearning to do so. West Africa faces many challenges, and it's time to marshal the resources of the U.S. government and our allies to help address those challenges and to ensure that all the girls and young women who were abducted can return safely home.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill so we can bring our girls home.

Mr. Speaker, in just a few short minutes, we will demonstrate whether this House does or does not have fiscal responsibility.

We ought to extend the research and development tax credit to help businesses invest in innovation--and we ought to do it permanently. But Republicans are asking us to do so without paying for it, which would add $155 billion to the deficit. Once again, they are ignoring fiscal responsibility when it comes to tax cuts.

In 1981, 2001, and 2003, Republicans passed tax cuts without paying for them, and the outcome every time was predictable--an increase in our debt.

Under President Reagan, it was a 189 percent increase. He could have vetoed any spending bill. Under President George W. Bush, there was an 86 percent increase in the national debt.

Economists agree that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. In 2010, former Reagan budget director David Stockman said this:

This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by

the Democrats but instead the Republican Party's embrace

about three decades ago of the insidious doctrine that

deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts.

USA Today says:

House action on ``tax extenders'' forfeits credibility on

deficits and national debt.

They are right.

Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a great deal of sadness. We are punting. USA Today said, ``House action on tax extenders forfeits credibility on deficits and national debt.'' They are right.

The distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who is my friend, offered a real bill on tax reform. The problem with that real bill was it had tough choices to make. Congratulations to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for having the courage to suggest those tough choices.

This vote today requires absolutely no courage at all. It gives the ice cream and says forget about the spinach. It is the reason that we have trillions of dollars in debt today on our national debt, because we didn't pay for the '01 or '03 tax cuts.

Now, Mr. Camp will tell me that I voted for R&D tax cuts six times that were temporary, that were annual, that were not a permanent change in the base. That is what the Republicans want to do. That is what they did in '01 and '03, and that is all inside jargon. And yes, they didn't waive statutory PAYGO, which we passed, which USA Today says was one of the reasons we got to balance 4 years in a row. That is why.

Mr. Speaker, I have 3 minutes to discuss with the American public why their country is going to be put deeper into debt by passing this legislation.

It would be good legislation if it were paid for. It was good legislation when it was included in Mr. Camp's overall tax reform bill. But it is very bad policy and very bad legislation in this unpaid-for, discreet form. And, by the way, there is about another $160 billion of debt to follow.

What a sad day for America. What a sad day for this House. What a sad day for the Ways and Means Committee. What a sad day for fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues not to vote for the temporary political benefit of saying you gave somebody a tax cut, but vote for fiscal responsibility. Vote to keep on a path of a big deal to solve the fiscal challenges that confront our country. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, if this is a precedent, it is a bad precedent. It is a dangerous precedent. It is a precedent that we ought not to make. ``Read the

Constitution,'' I heard over and over and over again. I have read probably the opinions of 25 lawyers whom I respect from many great institutions in this country, none of whom, as I am sure the ranking member has pointed out, none of whom believe that the precedent supports this action.

Mr. Speaker, what a waste of the people's time for Congress to spend this week on politics and not policy. We are about to vote on a resolution that is really a partisan, political message. Everyone here agrees--everyone--that the IRS should never target anyone based on anything other than what they owe in taxes, not their political beliefs or any other traits other than their liability and their opportunities to pay their fair share to the United States of America.

In fact, during an exhaustive investigation into the IRS, Chairman Issa's committee interviewed 39 witnesses, analyzed more than 530,000 pages, and could not find the conspiracy they were looking for--that they always look for, that they always allege. Fourteen million dollars of taxpayer money has already been spent on this investigation, and all that was found was that which we already knew: that the division led by Ms. Lerner suffered from fundamental administrative and managerial shortcomings that bore no connection to politics or to partisanship.

Independent legal experts have concluded that Chairman Issa's efforts to hold Ms. Lerner in contempt of Congress is constitutionally deficient. But this resolution before us today is, of course, not meant to generate policy. It is meant to generate headlines. Republicans, once again, are showing that they are more interested in partisan, election-year gimmicks than working in a bipartisan way to tackle our country's most pressing challenges. We ought to turn to the important matters of creating jobs, raising the minimum wage, and restoring emergency unemployment for those who are struggling to find work-- issues the American people overwhelmingly support and want their Congress to address.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to give this partisan resolution the vote it deserves and defeat it so that we can turn to the people's business.

In closing, let me say this, Mr. Speaker. There are 435 of us in this body.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, do not think about party on this vote. Think about precedent. Think about this institution. Think about the Constitution of the United States of America. And if you haven't read, read some of the legal opinions that say you have to establish a predicate before you can tell an American that they will be held criminally liable if they don't respond to your questions.

That is what this issue is about. It is not about party, it is not about any of us, but about the constitutional protections that every American deserves and ought to be given.

Objection.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule, and I yield to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Cantor, from Virginia.

I thank the gentleman for that information with reference to the legislation for next week. He leads with a bill that is entitled American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2014.

As the gentleman knows, we have an agenda which I have talked to him about briefly. We call it Make It In America, which is essentially about growing manufacturing and encouraging manufacturers to return to the United States and encouraging people when they want to go into manufacturing to do so here in America.

Not only will that provide for a ``Made in America'' label all over the world, but it will also provide the kind of middle class jobs and opportunities that we need.

Part of that agenda, I will tell my friend, is to make permanent the research and development tax credit. This bill does that. This bill also costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $150 billion, maybe a little less, over 10 years. It is unpaid for.

The series of bills that were passed by the Ways and Means Committee will cost $310 billion. They are also unpaid for. I suggest to my friend--and as he knows, I preach relatively regularly that one of the things that we need to do for the business community and for America is to get ourselves on a fiscally sustainable path.

Mr. Camp offered a comprehensive piece of legislation, Mr. Leader, as you know, which I think was an honest effort, but it also made hard choices. It made hard choices not to increase the deficit and, therefore, provided offsets for tax cuts. I think that is absolutely essential for us to do.

This bill that we will consider next week, which is a proposition I think most of us support, and that is giving businesses the insurance that the research and development tax credit will in fact be available not only for 1 year, but for a series of years--in this case, I believe 10 years.

What the business community doesn't need and what America doesn't need is making the deficit worse. As a matter of fact, Mr. Leader, your party talks a lot about bringing the deficit down. This goes in exactly the opposite direction, and I think that is lamentable. I said $150 billion. It is actually $155 billion over 10 years.

I would hope that the party that is demanding that unemployment insurance be paid for, that is demanding that the sustainable growth rate be paid for, and that any change in the sequester be paid for, ought to have consistency and not add $155 billion to our deficit in a vote next week on something that I think we are all for; and it is easy, Mr. Leader, as you well know, to vote for tax cuts--easy. It takes no courage whatsoever.

I have been at this business 45 years. It has been my experience that, over those 45 years, it is easy for Members to vote for tax cuts. What is hard to do is to pay for the policies you adopt. This bill does not do that. This bill makes the deficit worse, exacerbates the lack of confidence that Americans have in the fiscal responsibility of their country, and puts us in a worse place.

So I would hope, Mr. Leader, that before this bill comes to the floor, that you and the Rules Committee and Mr. Camp, as he did in the bill that he offered to this House, which was, frankly, dismissed out of hand because it made tough decisions, this bill makes no tough decisions. It has a tax cut. It has all the candy and none of the spinach.

It is all good, and nobody has to pay the price. Nobody has to take responsibility. I think that is lamentable, and I would hope that, before this bill comes to the floor, there would be a way to pay for this bill.

I want to suggest to you that there is a way to pay for it. There is a way to pay for the other extenders that the committee wants, and that is by passing a comprehensive immigration bill.

Mr. Boehner indicated that that was not being done because it was tough and people didn't want to do tough things. I understand that. It is hard to do tough things. That is why they are called tough. Mr. Boehner now says he was kidding when he said that.

My view is he was deadly serious, and the reason we are considering this bill next week is because it is easy to do. The reason we are not considering comprehensive immigration reform is because it is difficult, but comprehensive immigration reform would pay for all of the tax cuts that are being proposed in these six extenders and, indeed, in all of the extenders that are proposed by the Senate Finance Committee.

They only proposed that for 2 years, not 10 years, but it would pay for all of them. In fact, CBO says if we pass comprehensive immigration reform, it would mean $200 billion for the next 10 years and $900 billion over the next 20 years.

In December, the Budget Committee chairs, Mr. Ryan and Mrs. Murray, were able to come up with a substantial sequester replacement. We ought to be able to do that as well.

Let me close this part of my comment with two quotes, one from Republican Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson, who said:

As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for

themselves.

And then Mr. Alan Greenspan, who initially said in 2001 and 2003 that he thought the tax cuts would pay for themselves. However, upon review of those tax cuts, he came back in response to a question on ``Meet the Press'' from David Gregory, and the question was:

You don't agree with the Republican leaders who say tax

cuts pay for themselves?

Mr. Greenspan:

They do not.

So all of your Republican colleagues are being asked to vote for a $155 billion increase in the deficit, which they all say they want to bring down. I am sure they will get up and rationalize--as they did in 1981, in 2001, and 2003--that those tax cuts would magically grow the economy, so that they would not exacerbate the deficit. In the 33 years I have been in Congress, that has not been our experience.

So, Mr. Leader, I very sincerely hope that we can join together in a bipartisan way and support this legislation because it is the right thing to do in terms of growing manufacturing, and it is the right thing to do in bringing down our deficit to pay for it.

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I would say that the rationale he uses, however, is applicable to the sustainable growth rate reimbursement for doctors serving Medicare patients. We do that every year as well. The Republican side of the aisle demands that be paid for.

We do unemployment insurance.

I would be glad to yield on that.

I thank the gentleman for his observation, Mr. Speaker. The other side of the aisle laments the deficit; they lament the debt. We have the debt, we have the deficit because we don't pay for what we buy. That is why we have a debt. That is why we have a deficit.

When we were in charge, we put in a pay-as-you-go rule. That rule said, if you are going to spend money, this is essentially a tax expenditure; it is a worthy tax expenditure. It is something that I support. It helps to grow the economy, but it is a tax expenditure.

No one on this floor can say that it does not make the deficit worse; no one with any degree of credibility.

The argument has been made, of course, though, that tax cuts, they will grow so much that you won't get the deficit. That is what President Reagan argued and his proponents argued in 1981. The debt increased 187 percent under President Ronald Reagan because they didn't pay for themselves.

When the Republicans took over, Mr. Speaker, they amended the rule so we didn't have to pay for things. This bill comes to the floor without any necessity to pay for it. So we will give a tax cut, assuming it passes, and somebody is going to pay for it. My children, my grandchildren, your children, Mr. Speaker, they are the ones who will pay for it because we are going to make a decision, apparently, not to pay for something that we know is going to increase the deficit.

So the analogy when we want things paid for is not always followed, Mr. Speaker, for instance, unemployment insurance almost invariably not paid for. Almost every economist says investing in unemployment insurance grows the economy, will help grow the GDP, but we don't follow that practice here, unfortunately.

We have a bipartisan paid-for unemployment insurance bill that the Senate has passed that we can't even get to the floor. That is paid for. It grows the economy and it helps 2.5 million people who are falling through the cracks. Yet we bring a bill to the floor that has a $155 billion cost, we don't pay for it, and the unemployment insured, 2.5 million, are ignored.

Mr. Speaker, we don't think that policy is one that we ought to pursue. We would hope, again, before this bill comes to the floor that it is paid for.

I referred to comprehensive immigration reform, Mr. Speaker.

I will yield to my friend if he wants to make a comment on a previous comment.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the gentleman point that out. I have been trying to work with the gentleman and his party for some period of time now starting with Bowles-Simpson and some other comprehensive suggestions.

As I said, Mr. Camp, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, has offered a comprehensive bill. I don't agree with some of the things in it, but it is an honest piece of legislation that makes the tradeoffs, the tough choices, that need to be made. This bill does not. That is my point.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, because I know the majority leader has another engagement, comprehensive immigration reform, I said that it scores approximately $1 trillion positive for our economy over the next 20 years; but it is also morally the right thing to do to fix a broken system, a system that doesn't work, with which everybody agrees.

I would again appeal to the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, to bring a comprehensive immigration bill to the floor. I understand that there are many on his side of the aisle that don't agree with it. Fine. Vote against it, but give this House an opportunity. Give the American people the opportunity to have a comprehensive immigration bill voted in the people's House on this floor so that we can fix a broken system, or offer alternatives to that which is proposed by the United States Senate and passed overwhelmingly by the United States Senate.

If the gentleman wants me to yield to him, I will, certainly.

Mr. Speaker, the fundamental problem is not my way or the highway. It is no way.

The Republican Judiciary Committee has passed out a number of immigration reform bills. The Homeland Security Committee headed by a Republican chairman has passed out an immigration reform bill dealing with border security. None of those bills have been brought to the floor. It is not a question about liking the Senate bill or trusting the President of the United States.

Everybody agrees, Mr. Speaker, the immigration system is broken; but there is no way, no bill, no option that has been brought to this floor to fix that system to respond to what everybody agrees is a broken system of immigration.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Taoiseach, otherwise known as the Prime Minister of Ireland, celebrated St. Patrick's Day here with us at a luncheon, and part of his speech was about passing comprehensive immigration reform.

They don't have to take our bill; they don't have to take the Senate bill; but, Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve to have a bill on the floor to fix a broken system. It is not a question of whether they trust the President; it is whether or not they trust the word of the House of Representatives that it can work its will. I would hope that we could work our will on this issue. It is important for the American people.

I yield back the balance of my time.