Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Fiscal 2010 Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Appropriations Act. This bill takes great strides to help the neediest Americans secure shelter in trying economic times. It also makes important investments in strong and user-friendly transportation systems, including our highways, airports, passenger rail lines, and transit networks.

But I particularly want to thank Chairmen Obey and Olver for including in this bill $150 million to fund vitally needed capital and preventive maintenance improvements for the Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Authority, in accordance with legislation we passed last year authorizing $1.5 billion for WMATA over the next 10 years. It has long been clear that America's Subway deserves a strong federal commitment. After all, it serves the millions of visitors who come to visit our nation's capital, and it is the primary public transportation system servicing the federal employees who keep our government running. But with a ridership that continues to grow, WMATA's General Manager made it clear that the system requires more than $11 billion in capital improvements from 2011 to 2020 to keep running. Without those funds, the system's aging infrastructure will continue to deteriorate.

The bill includes language directing WMATA to use the funds to first address immediate safety shortfalls identified by the National Transportation Safety Board, which include, but are not limited to, the improved crashworthiness of the agency's rail car fleet and the maintenance and modernization of WMATA's signal and automatic train control systems. The importance of those systems was vividly and painfully demonstrated in last month's Metro crash, which took the lives of nine commuters. For the sake of all those who rely on Metro, we must ensure that its safety meets the highest standard.

I urge my colleagues to support this strong appropriations bill and make clear our commitment to the efficiency and safety of America's Subway.

Madam Speaker, Marge Tracey, who retires this year, first came to work as a secretary at the AFL-CIO over 35 years ago. She has spent her working life at the AFL-CIO advancing the interest of America's working families. During that time, she has been an integral part of every fight over the last three decades on labor law reform, minimum wage, trade, health care, retirement security, and more. She has been witness to and a key part of many chapters of labor and Congressional history, often working behind the scenes, but always an integral part of progress.

So on the occasion of her retirement, I join with her family, her friends, and all of her colleagues at the AFL-CIO in congratulating her and expressing deep appreciation for all of her dedicated work. Marge Tracey has lived a remarkable life of service to working men and women, and I wish her all the best in the years to come.

I thank the chairman for yielding. I also want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for whom I have a great deal of respect. I said the other night that he was my friend, but friends have disagreements. And on this, on fiscal policy, we clearly have had a very significant disagreement.

I've heard a lot of speakers on this floor talk about how this bill doesn't get us to where we want to get. I've heard a lot of people talk about how we have four exceptions in this bill. Most of the people that have talked about the four exceptions in this bill have repeatedly talked, over the last 4 or 5 years, as to how this was current baseline spending, and certainly we didn't have to pay for current baseline spending, i.e., continuing tax cuts that were in place. Your side of the aisle has argued strenuously that that was current baseline funding and we didn't need to pay for it. We have taken the position that we needed to pay for it. In fact, we paid for the AMT through the House. We paid for the tax extenders through the House. Unfortunately, our brethren on the other side of the Capitol did not pay for them, sent them back. I voted against the AMT extension. I voted against the AMT extension, I was one of a small minority in the House, because it wasn't paid for. If we're going to have discipline, we need extrinsic discipline.

There's only one real discipline--having to pay for what you buy. During the nineties, we paid for what we bought. During the eighties we didn't. And during the 2000s we didn't. And there was an inevitable result; deficits exploded for the 20 years that Republican Presidents were in office, and we didn't pay for things. In fact, the gentleman talks about spending, and he talks about caps in his substitute. The gentleman knows full well that during the Clinton years, spending rose at about 3\1/2\ percent per year, on average, discretionary spending. The gentleman knows full well that for the 8 years of the Bush administration, it rose at the average of about 7 percent, or twice as high as it rose during the nineties. So, in terms of caps, spending, which are in the budget, we ought to have budget caps. We ought to stick with those budget caps. And, in fact, the Democrats, under the rule that he said we adopted, stuck with that rule, even when it had consequences that were tough for us. He remembers the District of Columbia vote. By adding a Member, it cost a little over $1 million; we had to pay for it, even though it caused us a problem, then opened it up for an MTR that was a problem.

But, let me speak to the substance of this bill. The gentleman is correct. Other Republicans are correct. We've incurred extraordinary debt during the first 6 months. Why? Because the economic program and the fiscal policies that were argued for by the Republicans and put in place by the Republicans, with little, if any, Democratic support--but they had the Presidency, they had the House, and they had the Senate-- led to the worst economy that this country has seen in 75 years. So, according to Mr. Bernanke and others, we had an economic crisis confronting our country; and if we did not act, we could possibly be in a depression, not just a severe recession. So, we inherited the worst recession in 75 years when we took office, having been urged by the Republican administration to put $700 billion on the fiscal tab in the last Congress, urged by the President, by Secretary Paulson and by Ben Bernanke. The gentleman and I voted together on that bill. It was a tough bill. Nobody wanted to vote for it. But we believed that there was a crisis and it was necessary.

So we find ourselves having passed, because we were still, and frankly, falling into a deeper recession in January and February of this year, and responding to that with the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and we borrowed $787 billion to do that. I believe it's been helpful. The stock market's up 1,000 points since the start of this administration. Housing starts have now been higher for the last 3 months. The Dow is up. NASDAQ is up very substantially. In addition, we've lost 200,000 less jobs per month, on average, over the last 3 months than we lost during the last 3 months of the Bush administration. Is that what we want? No. Is it progress? I suggest to you it is. It's 33 percent less loss of jobs than we had in the last 3 months of the Bush administration. Now, that's not where we want to be. We want to be at zero and growing.

The economic policies that were pursued by my friend and on the Republican side of the aisle created 4,240 jobs per month over a 96- month administration of the policies pursued by my friends on the other side of the aisle. The economic policies that were pursued in the nineties, with the opposition, to a person, of the Republicans, created an average of 216,000 jobs per month. That's a pretty stark difference. As a matter of fact, 2 million jobs created during the last year of the Clinton administration and 3 million jobs lost during the last year of the Bush administration. That's a 5 million turn around. Is there any wonder why there's so much stress among families and individuals?

Now, ladies and gentlemen, maybe you've heard the first rule of holes. When you're in one, stop digging. That's what this bill does. It says stop digging. The fact is that our Nation is in a deep hole. The deficit for this fiscal year is $1.7 trillion. That ought to be of great concern to every one of us. We differ on why we have that deficit. We believe we have it because the economic program supported by the Republicans was such a failure, demonstrably, factually, in terms of every indication. Our debt has never been higher. Unless we do something to remove ourselves from this hole, the future of

our children and grandchildren will be severely constrained, and interest payments will crowd out nearly all of the investment Americans know are vital to their future, from education to clean energy to health care.

The energy bill. There's no tax in the energy bill. There is no tax in the energy bill. But so many of you come and say there's a tax in this bill. That's not honest. You ought to know that. There's one thing to make a mistake. There's another thing to not tell the truth.

No. But I will yield to you if you want. But I am not particularly interested in your responding. If you, on your own time, want to say at some point in time that there is a tax in the bill, you can point it out to me. Are there consequential costs in actions we take? There are. The worst-case scenario, a fiscal meltdown, has a nightmare to offer both parties. For Republicans, the prospect that taxes will be forced through the roof, I understand that concern. I suggest to you there's a constraint on that: Voters throwing people out of office who do that to them. Hopefully, voters will return to office, however, people who have the honesty to say, you want us to buy something, then we will pay for it. You didn't do that. You didn't do it for the war. I understand that. I voted for that funding. For Democrats, the prospect that the programs we value will be slashed and that the weakest and least powerful will suffer most. But there is a way out, reclaiming the principles of responsibility that have served our country so well.

I fully believe that we are in this hole because the last administration set responsibility by the wayside. They waived PAYGO. It was inconvenient to pay for things, and you couldn't do your tax cut and pay for them. That's why we waived PAYGO, because you wanted to do something that you could not and would not and did not pay for. In fact, a recent New York Times analysis tells us that 90 percent of our deficit can be attributed to Bush administration policies, the extensions of those policies, and the economic crisis that the administration left behind.

But whatever we think brought us to this point, I'm confident that we can agree on a tried and tested plan for a new beginning. It is a simple one; the principle that from here on out, this country will pay for what it buys. It's called pay-as-you-go or PAYGO for short. It was a key part of turning deficits into surpluses once, and it can be a part of that objective again. Essentially, this PAYGO bill requires Congress to find savings, to balance out the dollars it spends so that all new policies that reduce revenues or expand entitlement spending are fully offset over five and 10 years, an improvement over the President's bill.

In 1990, a similar PAYGO rule was enacted as part of a budget agreement between a Republican President and a Democratic Congress. In other words, in a bipartisan agreement, we reached a consensus on paying as we go. What was the result? The result was an administration that, for the first time and only time in the lifetime of anybody in this Chamber, we had 4 years of surplus. Now, it wasn't the President alone. It wasn't Democrats alone, because in 1997, we reached another bipartisan agreement to extend this principle of PAYGO when Speaker Gingrich and President Clinton, which I voted for, reached agreement. And by forcing Congress to make difficult choices between taxes and spending, to scrutinize wasteful subsidies and loopholes, and to fully weigh the real cost of tax cuts, PAYGO was instrumental in creating a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion.

That was squandered. The economy that was supposed to grow so well under your economic policies didn't do so. It created less than 2 million jobs, less than 10 percent of what was created during the 1990s. Its repeal in 2002 paved the way for the fiscal excesses of the last administration.

On winning the congressional majority in 2006, as the ranking member has pointed out, Democrats made it part of the House rules; and today we have the chance to give PAYGO the force of law.

With this law in place, advocates of spending will have to find ways to offset the new costs. That's the discipline. That's the extrinsic constraint. Advocates of tax cuts will no longer be able to finance them with debt. Instead, they will have to tell us which programs they would cut. I make that statement knowing full well that if there's a crisis, if there's an emergency, if there's a war, if there's a Katrina, if there's an economic meltdown, yes, we will waive this, and we will borrow money to try to stem the existing crisis. However, generally speaking, we won't do that.

PAYGO won't make those debates go away and won't make those decisions for us. It means hard choices for all of us and for the citizens whom we represent, but continuing to shun hard choices is the road to fiscal ruin.

Exempted from this bill's PAYGO requirements are extensions of current policy on the alternative minimum tax, estate and middle class income tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2002, and Medicare payments to doctors. As a result, some have criticized this bill for not going far enough; but supporters of PAYGO, including President Obama, see exemption as a crucial concession to political reality and to the votes on your side of the aisle, by the way, who on at least three of those instances don't want to pay for them because they are current policy. You've made that argument over and over and over again. I've disagreed with it, but it is reality.

It is clear that there is bipartisan support in Congress for extending those current policies without offsetting savings. I've told my friend Senator Conrad that if he sends back from the Senate any one of those four bills paid for, I will fight for them. I will advocate for them being paid for. I hope he can do that.

That gives us two choices. On the one hand, we can pass an all- encompassing bill that is waived again and again, one that turns into what the nonpartisan Center on Budget Priorities calls ``a transparently phony fiscal responsibility promise,'' because we've waived them. I think that's unfortunate, but that's what we do. That's what we have done. A promise, I would add, that would weaken the cause of responsibility as a whole.

On the other hand, we can make a promise we are prepared to keep, and we're prepared to keep that to the extent that the Speaker and I have both indicated we will not put a bill on this floor coming out of conference on health care or any other issue dealing with those four unless statutory PAYGO is in the bill, statutory PAYGO has been passed, or it is paid for. The Speaker and I have both indicated we will not put a bill on this floor coming out of conference unless one of those three criteria is met.

In other words, we have the choice between a satisfying, but weak, statement of ideals or of action in the real world of politics. This bill takes the latter path. It draws a line before future budget busting plans, this far but no further.

Is that enough? No, Mr. Speaker, it is not nearly enough. Even if this bill is passed and signed, we will still be in our hole. There will still be years of hard work ahead of us. Hopefully, we can do that on a bipartisan basis. Before our heads can be above ground, we need to deal with entitlements further. We need to deal with spending further. We need to make sure that we have vigorous efforts to rid ourselves of waste, fraud and abuse in the Federal Government on spending and other efforts that we can take to put us on the path, again, of fiscal responsibility to once again get back to an era where we had Clinton surpluses and Clinton 216,000 job-per-month creation.

That's where we want to go. Does this bill get us there? It does not. Does this bill take a critical step towards that end? It does.

I urge my colleagues to reject the substitute, to pass this bill, and to put us once again on the road to fiscal responsibility.

I congratulate Mr. Spratt for his leadership. I want to thank Mr. Welch and Mr. Miller, who is one of the early leaders on PAYGO, and Mr. Baron Hill of the Blue Dogs for cosponsoring this, along with literally 180 or more Democrats supporting this important step.

I will tell my friends, I would hope this was bipartisan, but the economic program we adopted in 1993 was not bipartisan either, and it led to the best economy I have seen in my lifetime in

this country. The principal reason for that economic well-being in America was the chip, not government, the chip where the information technology age exploded and provided extraordinary revenues for our country.

It is the private sector that drives our economy. It is the private sector that will give us wealth and that creates jobs, not the government; but the government can create policies within which the private sector and particularly venture capitalists can have the confidence that we are managing our finances responsibly. That's what this bill does.

Vote for this important piece of legislation.

I thank the gentleman from South Carolina. I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. This motion is designed, obviously, to kill the bill. Generally speaking, my

friends on that side of the aisle don't support the underlying bill. I understand that. It constrains you in cutting taxes because it makes you pay for that, just as it makes us pay for any increases. That's why this is so good, because it affects both sides of the proposition--the spending side and the revenue side. This constrains all of us. None of us like constraints; but if we don't have constraints, our grandchildren will look to us and say that we did not do a good job.

I want to say to Ed Lorenzen, who has worked with Charlie Stenholm on this proposition for over a decade, thank you for the work that you have done. I want to say to my Blue Dog friends, thank you for your leadership. And I want to say to my progressive friends, who understand the ramifications of spending deficits that adversely affect the most vulnerable in our country, vote against this MTR. Vote for this statutory PAYGO. Let us get back on the road of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, this week the House will debate legislation and give the principle of pay-as-you- go, or PAYGO, the force of law. Quite simply, supporting PAYGO means that we agree to pay for what we buy; and it can be one of the most important actions we take for fiscal discipline in this Congress. PAYGO is essential because America faces unprecedented debt and a fiscal year 2009 deficit of $1.7 trillion. A New York Times analysis found that 90 percent of that deficit is attributable to the economic downturn, Bush administration policies, and the extension of those policies. However we got into this hole, it's imperative that we find a way out of it. PAYGO is not a cure-all, not a solution entirely to our deficits. But it is an important and valuable start, and it is a proven first step to deficit reduction.

In the 1990s, the Clinton administration turned record deficits, accumulated by the two previous Republican administrations, into record surplus; and the PAYGO rule, supported on a bipartisan basis by Republicans and Democrats, was a key part in that fiscal transformation. As President Obama has recognized, and I quote, ``It is no coincidence that this rule was in place when we moved to record surpluses in the 1990s and that when this rule was abandoned, we returned to record deficits that doubled the national debt.''

Today we can once again use PAYGO to begin rolling back the dangerous fiscal situation that confronts us. Under statutory PAYGO, Congress will be required to find savings to balance the dollars we spend. On the one hand, it will constrain unnecessary spending and subsidies. On the other, it will force those in favor of tax cuts to explain exactly what they want to go without in return. In other words, pay for them. Of course none of those choices are easy, but it is exactly the avoidance of hard choices that saddles our children and grandchildren with the debt that confronts us. In addition, deficit reduction will mean fewer interest payments on our debt which, in turn, will help us make sustainable entitlements in the priorities that matter most to the American people, including education, clean energy and health care.

The PAYGO law would apply to new policies that reduce revenue or expand entitlement spending. It will exempt extensions of current policy on the alternative minimum tax, the estate tax and middle-income tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 and Medicare payments to doctors. Some would criticize these exemptions, but I see them as an important way of keeping PAYGO credible and enforceable. It is clear that there is bipartisan support in Congress for extending those policies without offsets. Now, very frankly, I would vote for offsets; but we have seen that that does not happen in the United States Senate; and there is an inclination not to do it here. A PAYGO bill that does not exempt them would have to be waived again and again, turning the cause of fiscal discipline into an empty promise.

I find it much more sensible to make a fiscal discipline promise we can keep. I would also note that the exemptions in the House legislation are narrower than those sent to us in the President's original proposal. Most notably, they only apply to the middle-class tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 and not to tax cuts generally.

Mr. Speaker, pay as you go cannot remove us from our deficit hole in a single stroke, nor will it. That will take much hard work. PAYGO is not enough in and of itself, but it is absolutely necessary because it keeps us from digging the hole any deeper. It is tested and proven. We adopted this policy in a bipartisan way in 1990. We reaffirmed that policy in a bipartisan vote in 1997, with Speaker Gingrich and President Clinton reaching agreement on that proposition. Yes, it's tested and proven, as I said. I hope that all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, will support it when it comes to the House floor later this week.

I have been listening to this litany of ``Where are the jobs?'' I have been here long enough. Mr. Pence, you opposed the program in 1993. You said it would destroy this economy. You said it would blow deficits sky high. It created 216,000 jobs per month on average.

You then supported an economic program in 2001. You said it would be a haven for jobs and small business and all that. You created not 216,000 jobs per month but 4,240. Those are the figures. I'm sure that you will all want to come here and say, ``No, Hoyer was wrong on those figures.''

Under the economic program we propose, 216,000 new jobs every month on average. Under your program for the last 8 years under the Bush administration, 4,240 per month. That is a very substantial difference between 20.8 million new jobs under the economic program that you did not support in 1993 that we proposed, passed, and President Clinton signed.

So when you talk about jobs, you ought to talk about the experience that you've had under our program and your program. You failed. We succeeded. As a matter of fact, in the last year of the Bush administration, we lost 3 million-plus jobs. During the last year of the Clinton administration, we gained 1.9 million jobs. That's a 5 million job turnaround by your economic program.

So keep talking. America knew the difference. America made a decision. They said what you had been doing was not what they wanted so they changed. In 2006, they changed the Congress, and in 2008 they changed the Presidency.

And let me tell you something. We have lost 200,000 less jobs per month than Bush lost in his last 3 months in office, over the last 3 months. Now, is that where we want to be? It is not. But it is 200,000 better than the last 3 months in your administration. Those are the facts. Refute them if you can. Keep talking.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thought it was since 1982 when Ronald Reagan was President.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list, Mr. Speaker, will be, as usual, disclosed by the end of business today.

In addition, we will consider H.R. 2920, the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009; the 2010 Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Appropriations Act; the 2010 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act; and possibly the Food Safety Enforcement Act of 2009.

In addition, Members ought to be advised that on Tuesday, July 21, we will take the official photograph for the 111th Congress. We don't have a time on that, but we will try to give Members time for that as soon as possible. I imagine it will be sometime after the first votes.

I thank the gentleman for the question.

As the gentleman knows--he and I discussed this issue--it's my understanding that Mr. Boehner and the Speaker are having ongoing discussions with respect to that. I know the Speaker is having ongoing discussions with the committee as well. Hopefully, whatever happens between Mr. Boehner and the Speaker will be disclosed to you as well as to me.

If the gentleman will yield just briefly.

I want to say to the gentleman that I want to continue to work with him towards--whether it's on these appropriations bills or other bills--so that we can try to effect a degree of comity that I know both you and I would like to reach.

As you know, the President, the Speaker and I and others have indicated that we expect this bill to be fully paid for. Obviously scoring will be the litmus test by which we determine whether it is paid for. When Mr. Elmendorf made the statement before the Budget Committee in the Senate, he was speaking more of the bending of the curve, which is going to be longer term than whether or not we determine whether the bill is paid for. But in my view, we need to do both. Of course the bill he was talking about was the Senate bill. The House bill has not yet been fully scored. But if, in fact, that score shows that it is not fully paid for, what I meant by ``going back to the drawing board,'' we will then have to assess how we can get the bill to a place where it is scored as a fully-paid-for bill, consistent with PAYGO. That's our pledge. That's my intent, that's the Speaker's intent, and we will work towards that objective.

I would think the Members and the public would have more than 72 hours to read the bill. Now obviously there may well be changes as it moves along. I served in the State legislature. I'm not sure if the gentleman served in the State legislature.

In our State legislature, the process was a little different. You got the bills on your desk, and the amendments were either highlighted or in italics or underlined, depending upon what the stage of consideration of the bills was so that Members could well have read the bills before they got there weeks ahead of time and then see what amendments are made in the bills as it went through second reader and third reader. We have that here, but it's not as transparent a process because it's a much more quick process as we go from the second to third reader.

The fact is that I think, as I said, Members and the public have now got the draft of the bill, as introduced. The gentleman referenced that the Ways and Means Committee, a committee on which he serves, completed its work I think about 2 a.m. this morning. Education and Labor completed its work at 6 a.m. this morning. Energy and Commerce, which has a greater portion of the bill, will probably complete its portion of the markup, we hope, on Wednesday of next week. They'll be marking it up on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. We expect there to be a substantial number of amendments offered. I don't know how many will be adopted or what changes will be made to the bill.

The point I want to make, therefore, is that when we say that this bill, however many pages it is, 500, 1,000, 1,500 pages, however long it is, essentially most of that bill is ready for review as we speak. There will be changes. There will be amendments as the process goes forward. But the public really ought to have an understanding, as I'm sure you would want them to have, that the bill is largely on the table now so that what you're really going to be giving notice of is amendments as they occur, which are much shorter and will be able to be read much more quickly.

Now having said that, the gentleman mentioned 72 hours. I certainly have indicated that we're going to have it in place, as a final draft, 48 hours in place. That's our intent. That's what I intend to do. That's why the committees have worked so hard this week and why the Energy and Commerce Committee is going to be working so hard and is hoping to complete its work by Wednesday so that we will not be considering the bill itself until at least a week after that. So my expectation is that there will be substantial time available for review of the bill.

There has been much talk about the 300-page amendment. And very frankly, I think that process was not one which was optimal. I would prefer not to repeat that process. Obviously we were driven by the fact that we were at the end of the session. We wanted to complete the bill so that people would have an opportunity, as we moved forward, to have plenty of time to work on the health care bill, which we knew was coming. But I must say that about half of that manager's amendment was the so-called GREEN Act which had been introduced literally I think months before but certainly weeks before and was available for review.

But the gentleman has a good point. I want him to know that the Speaker and I both are committed to making sure that we have at least a couple of days--we think it will be more--but a minimum of 2 days, a full 2 days to review both the bill and any amendments that might be attached to a manager's amendment. Obviously that may not be the case. Other amendments might be offered on the floor.

I was a cosponsor of that. As a matter of fact, I introduced the bill. Mr. Hill was a sponsor, along with a number of others. Your colleague from Virginia (Mr. Scott) was a cosponsor of that bill, Mr. Miller from California was a cosponsor of that bill and Mr. Welch from Vermont was also a cosponsor. So it is a pretty broad spectrum of our membership, indicating that there is a real commitment to paying as you go. We believe that's an important principle.

As I'm sure the gentleman knows, PAYGO was first adopted in 1990 as a result of a conference that was held out at Andrews Air Force Base. Mr. Darman was representing President Bush. He was then the head of OMB, and there was a bipartisan agreement to adopt the statutory PAYGO. In fact, we did that. In 1997 Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Clinton entered into an agreement on statutory PAYGO that we passed in a bipartisan way in 1997. When it was to be reauthorized in 2002 and 2003, it was allowed to lapse. I think that was unfortunate. My premise is it was allowed to lapse because making the tax cuts that you wanted to propose in '03; and indeed in '01--you waived it in '01--would have been impossible, from your perspective, to pay for those cuts. So statutory PAYGO did not apply over the last 6 years. I think that, to some degree, has led us to the deficits.

Of course in the last administration Vice President Cheney made the observation that Ronald Reagan had taught us that deficits don't matter. I think the Vice President's observation was certainly not right in terms of that Ronald Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter; but Ronald Reagan certainly taught us that deficits add up and create large debt. As you know I like to say so often, we went from a $5.6 trillion surplus in January of 2001, which President Bush observed was the estimate in March of '01, to what is now an $11 trillion debt. Unfortunately because of the status of the economy, we've added to that. I believe, and I think my colleagues believe, that this is a critical problem that we have to address. And I know you agree with that as well. We believe that this is one way to do so. It was helpful in 1990 when it was adopted in a bipartisan way. It was helpful in 1997 when it was adopted in a bipartisan way. I am very hopeful that it can be adopted in a bipartisan way this coming week.

I know exactly what it is. It's not identical. There have been some changes which will be included in a manager's amendment. I will make sure that that manager's amendment is available no later than Monday. Essentially what it does is it ensures that it is consistent with the PAYGO rule that we have here in the House and it does somewhat modify it as to the tax cuts that will be effected, that will mirror the budget that was adopted by this House earlier this year. It also directs that CBO scoring be controlling so that we have a neutral arbiter, not an administration, whether it's a Democratic or Republican arbiter, as to what the costs are. Those are the major changes that I think make it more consistent with what the House's position has been in the past.

That's very interesting. They weren't in in 1990, they weren't in in 1997, and they weren't in in any proposal you've made to date.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate, and further, Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 21, 2009, for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of House Resolution 469, the Clerk be directed to strike the words ``born and'' from the first whereas clause on page 1.

I would like to echo the remarks of my colleague, Mr. Sarbanes.

Prior to opening New Beginnings, the District of Columbia operated another juvenile detention facility, Oak Hill, at the same location. I represented that area of our State for some period of time. This facility was plagued with a history of escapes, and Oak Hill officials routinely, in my opinion, failed to notify area officials and local law enforcement when that occurred. In 2002, I facilitated an agreement signed by the D.C. Human Services Department obligating them to contact local police and communities in the vicinity about Oak Hill escapees.

Although that facility has now been replaced, I am dismayed that the District has failed to comply with the spirit of that agreement and, as Mr. Sarbanes points out, applicable D.C. law. I join with my colleague in urging the subcommittee to continue to work with the District of Columbia to ensure, first, that every effort to prevent future escape is undertaken and, second, that the local community, including law enforcement, be notified should an escape occur.

I thank my friend for yielding and I congratulate him on his leadership of this committee and say how pleased I am that my good friend, Jo Ann Emerson, is the ranking Republican on this committee. I thank her for her leadership--one of the very constructive Members of this body.

This subcommittee is a special subcommittee to me because I had the great honor of serving on this subcommittee for 23 years. I chaired this subcommittee for 2 years and then served as the ranking member when we had the hostile takeover of the institution by the other side, and they became the chair and I became the ranking member. So I have served on this committee for some time.

I rise today because I normally would have weighed in with the chairman and with the ranking member on the issue of pay for civilian employees. As a matter of fact, I had the opportunity to discuss with the chairman the provisions for pay in this bill.

The administration and I had a discussion some months ago with reference to their recommendation on civilian and military pay. I indicated to him that we are in a very unique situation in America today. We've lost millions of jobs, millions of people are concerned about losing their jobs, and I therefore perceived it as a relatively unique situation where Federal employees understood that there would be constraints that were not necessarily present in other years.

Federal employees are already constrained by the ECI, the Economic Cost Index, wage index, in the country. If people across the country don't get raises, they don't get raises.

However, for the 28 years that I have served in this body, there have only been 4 years where there has not been pay parity between the military pay cost-of-living adjustment and the civilian cost-of-living adjustment.

In 1985, the military received half a point more than the civilians. In 1994 and 1995, the civilians received in 1994, 1.7 percent more than the military and, in 1995, fourth-tenths of a point more than the military. In 2002, the military received 2.2 more.

Both the military and the civilian employees obviously perform great services for our country. I think there was a sense by the military and civilians that parity between the two made sense, and in fact the Congress, as you see in 24 of those 28 years, has followed that policy.

The chairman, in consultation with me, because I don't want the burden to be on him or the committee, and in discussion with those of us who represent a large number of Federal employees, concluded because of the uniqueness of our economic situation that agreeing to this lack of parity--not supporting it, but agreeing to it--that may be, for some, a distinction without a difference, but it is, I think, a distinction.

However, because of my concern and my discussions with Mr. Orszag in February or March, I went back to Mr. Orszag--and I want to read into and submit for the Record a letter dated July 9, 2009.

It says, ``Thank you for your June 24, 2009, letter regarding pay parity for Federal civilian employees and nonmilitary in noncombat zones.''

Now, the reason he references noncombat zones is because I think there is an appropriateness in the hazardous duty pay, whether they be military or civilian. We put people in harm's way and we put them at risk, and giving them greater compensation makes a lot of sense. I suggested this to the Armed Services Committee. That's not what we did here, but I will go on.

``Given the exceptional circumstances surrounding the economic downturn, the administration did not include equal pay increases for civilian and military pay personnel in its fiscal year 2010 budget submissions. Nonetheless, the administration shares your commitment''-- and, really, the commitment of all of us in this Congress who, for 24 out of 28 years, has fought for and affected pay parity as the policy of this Congress--``nonetheless, the administration shares your commitment to a strong civil service that can attract the talent we need to deliver the high level of performance the American people deserve from their government.''

This is the important sentence. I made it known to Mr. Serrano. I did not go over this with Mrs. Emerson. But, it says this, ``The administration is therefore committed in future years to the principle of pay parity between the annual pay increase for the Federal civilian workforce and members of the Armed Service serving in nonhazardous locations.'' Again, this is not about hazardous duty pay for people in harm's way. ``Thank you for your efforts on behalf of Federal employees,'' et cetera.

I rise simply to note that on behalf of the Federal employees I represent, the Federal employee representatives with whom I have had extended discussions, the Senate has taken action in their subcommittee. They did not effect pay parity either, although they effected a greater increase than is included in this bill.

Between now and the conference committee, I intend to be working with Mr. Serrano and Mrs. Emerson on what policy we believe to be appropriate, given the economic circumstances that confront all Americans.

Federal employees have the benefit of having stable, secure jobs. They very much appreciate that. They understand that they don't want their fellow citizens to be in distress and without them being cognizant of that distress and appreciation for the economic situation it puts us in.

So I thank the chairman, I thank the ranking member for their concern and their focus, and I look forward to working with him on this issue as they proceed through the process and we go to conference.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, July 9, 2009.

Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,

Majority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Majority Leader: Thank you for your June 24, 2009,

letter regarding pay parity for Federal civilian employees

and military personnel serving in non-combat zones.

Given the exceptional circumstances surrounding the

economic downturn, the Administration did not include equal

pay increases for civilian and military personnel in its

Fiscal Year 2010 budget submission. Nonetheless, the

Administration shares your commitment to a strong civil

service that can attract the talent we need to deliver the

high level of performance the American people deserve from

their government. The Administration is therefore committed

in future years to the principle of pay parity between the

annual pay increase for the Federal civilian workforce and

members of the armed services serving in non-hazardous

locations.

Thank you for your efforts on behalf of Federal employees.

We look forward to continue working with you in the future.

Sincerely,

Peter R. Orszag,

Director.

I thank the chairlady, my colleague and friend, Eleanor Holmes Norton. I thank Mr. Westmoreland for helping this legislation come to the floor.

Today the House pauses in solemn remembrance of the nine men and women who lost their lives when two Metro trains collided on June 22. It was, as has been said, the deadliest crash in Metro's history. Those whose lives we lost were a cross section of our Washington region. They never asked or expected to be memorialized together, but they were brought together in tragedy. Together we can say their names:

Mary Doolittle, 59 years old, of Washington, D.C.;

Ana Fernandez, 40 years old, of Hyattsville, Maryland, my district;

Dennis Hawkins, 64 years old, of Washington, D.C.;

LaVonda ``Nikki'' King, 23 years old, of Washington, D.C.;

Veronica Dubose, 29 years old, also of Washington, D.C.;

Cameron Williams, 36 years old, also of Washington;

Major General David F. Wherley Jr., 62 years old, and his wife Ann Wherley, 62 years old, both of Washington, D.C.;

And lastly, Jeanice McMillan, 42 years old, of Springfield, Virginia. Ms. Norton mentioned her activity and the professionalism with which she carried out her duties. It is clear that what happened was a computer failure or a line failure, some failure which was supposed to automatically notify the train that was moving that there was a train stopped in front of it. That mechanism failed. Today nine families are incomplete. There are nine fresh wounds that will be very slow in healing. Nothing, of course, can reverse those deaths; but we must learn from them, and we must act to prevent such tragedies in the future. On a practical level, we must ensure that funding is sufficient to accomplish that objective. On a personal level, we can choose to take from this the reminder of the fragility and uncertainty of our own lives and to act on that knowledge every day.

On June 22 we lost nine irreplaceable men and women. May we honor their memories by acting to prevent a future tragedy and by instilling confidence in the safety of America's subway.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspensions bills, as is the custom, will be announced at the close of business today.

In addition to the suspension bills, we will also consider the 2010 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriation Act and the 2010 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act.

Well, I expect to complete the appropriations bills and also the large item that will be on the agenda is the health care legislation that we hope to pass before we leave on the August break. Prior to that, I intend to have on the floor a provision dealing with statutory PAYGO.

We have not yet determined exactly whether that bill will be free standing or whether it will be on another bill that would be reported to the House. In addition, the food safety bill is possible. The committees are still working on other matters, and we hope to have the food safety issue resolved. That came out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, but there are a number of other committees, including the Ag Committee and your own committee, Ways and Means, that have expressed interest in that.

Those are essentially the items that we intend to deal with between now and the August break.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As the gentleman I think knows, because I think he got a preliminary schedule from my office which had us working the first week in August, I received comments from both sides of the aisle from a lot of Members who have young children, school-aged children. One of the realities is, we called around

the country, and a lot of the schools are going back into session anywhere between August 15 and August 25, some later, but a lot of the schools, and Members on both sides of the aisle were concerned that if we did not break on July 31 that they would be unable to have a vacation with their children during the summer months. As a result, we concluded that we would end our session on the 31st, a week before the Senate concluded. Originally, as I say, we were both scheduled to be in the first week of August. Obviously, as the gentleman knows, the good news is that because of our rules, we are able to get our work done more quickly than the Senate is able to get its work done. So we think that we can accomplish what we need to accomplish within the time frame available.

I thank the gentleman for his observation with respect to trying to work together to reach an agreement under which we would have confidence that we could consider the appropriation bills within the time frame available to us. We are on a good schedule now. As you know, we have passed seven of the 12 bills from the House. We have five more left to go. My expectation is that we will complete those.

Let me say that he and I have now been talking, I think, for somewhere in the neighborhood of about 3\1/2\ months about this issue. Early on I made a proposal that, from my perspective, did two things: one, it provided for time frames in which we would consider legislation; and two, it provided to the minority party, which does not control the Rules Committee--we were both in that situation for a period of time--but nevertheless, provided your party with the opportunity to offer such amendments as it deemed desirable, that it wanted to offer.

With respect to the two bills that you asked me about, I have not had an opportunity to discuss with Mr. Obey or with the subcommittee Chairs of those two committees the specific rule that they are looking for and whether or not they've been able to reach any agreements with their counterparts, the ranking members on those two subcommittees. So I can't answer your question at this point in time; but as we have had discussions, I want those discussions to continue. I will say to my friend that I had a discussion with one of your Members who is on the Appropriations Committee today who came over to this side of the aisle. We were talking about it, again, with a continuing effort to see if there is some way we can provide for the objectives of, I think, both of us.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First of all, the gentleman puts a lot of thoughts and words into my mouth that aren't necessarily there. Let me say to the gentleman that as he knows, some 3\1/2\ months ago I did, in fact, come to the gentleman, I subsequently came to the leader and indicated that I thought that we could reach agreement if, in fact, we could reach an agreement on time limits; and I was prepared under those agreements to have the minority choose such amendments as they wanted to offer, rather than have the Rules Committee do that. That offer was rejected, as the gentleman knows. It was rejected relatively emphatically by Mr. Boehner in a meeting in my office, attended by Mr. Lewis, Mr. Obey, Mr. Boehner and myself.

Now you quote Mr. Obey. In November of '06 the American public decided that they wanted to change the leadership in the House and Senate. They did so. Mr. Obey took over as chairman of the committee, as he had been chairman in years past. Of the 12 bills, Mr. Obey brought 10 bills to the floor under open rules. We did so under the understanding that you would give to us exactly what we gave to you under time agreements. Notwithstanding that, we debated those bills for 50 hours longer than the time constraints that we had agreed in '06 with you, the year before, when you were in charge of the House of Representatives.

So Mr. Obey concluded--and I did as well--that those time agreements

would not be honored and were not honored. Now I know there is a disagreement between your side and our side as to why they weren't honored. But there is no disagreement that they took 50 hours longer to consider those bills than was the case in '06.

Now having said that, we then went to Rules. I offered an agreement some 3\1/2\ months ago that was rejected. We then went to the bills, and we had gone to markups. Now we had a markup just the other day in committee on the Financial Services bill and the Energy and Water bill. I'm not sure exactly the number of amendments that were offered but most of which were not germane to the bills. That markup took until after 1 a.m. in the morning on nongermane amendments.

You and I have been discussing, trying to come to grips with time constraints. But I will tell you that time constraints--and you've indicated, trust us on good faith. I tried to get some indication of what ``good faith'' means, what criteria could I judge good faith on. We haven't reached agreement on that. But I will tell you that during the CJS debate on the rule, Mr. Lewis was asked on the bill that came to the floor under an open rule--Mr. Lewis said this after being asked, ``Can we reach a time agreement?'' He said, Because of that--referring to the 127 amendments, et cetera, et cetera, that were preprinted in the bill, 104 of which were Republican amendments.

Now under an open rule, of course, as the gentleman well knows-- which, by the way, he serves on a committee that hardly ever reports its bills under an open rule. Hardly ever does a bill come out of the Ways and Means Committee that has an open rule. It's closed. You guys decide what to do, you bring the bill to the floor, and say, Take it or leave it.

Now here's what Mr. Lewis said in response to that question: ``I think the time limitation you were discussing was like for 8 hours or something,'' which is essentially what the bill took in the year 2006 when you were in charge. ``I'm afraid my conference might very well have a revolution on its hands, and you might have a new ranking member,'' was in response to, could he agree to time constraints.

So I tell my friend that he is right. I have tried to reach an agreement on where we could have a time agreement, and you would offer such amendments as you deemed to be appropriate within the time frame agreed upon. Unfortunately we didn't reach such agreement. I talked to Mr. Obey about that, and I talked to the Speaker about that. I believe that had we reached agreement, we would have proceeded on that course.

Now that does not mean because we did not proceed on that course that I don't want to continue discussing it. I want to assure the gentleman of that, because I believe that the more open our debate is, the better we are. The gentleman is correct when he characterizes my feeling as that. But it has to be within the context of being able to get the American people's work done in a timely fashion. I know the gentleman has indicated he agrees with that. Unfortunately in 2007, the last time we really did appropriation bills--we didn't do them last year, again, because extraneous amendments were offered to a number of the bills in the Appropriations Committee, and we didn't move ahead on those, as you did not move ahead in some of your years. I think that was, from my standpoint, unfortunate.

But I tell the gentleman in closing that I am hopeful that as we move ahead, we can do so perhaps through agreement. Now in terms of Mr. Obey, Mr. Obey is the chairman of the committee. Mr. Obey and Mr. Lewis have talked. They have not reached agreement, as Mr. Lewis indicated he could not. And frankly, the subcommittee chairmen have not reached agreement. I'm sure that the gentleman understands that, as majority leader, I'm very concerned about what the chairmen of both the committee and the subcommittee feel in terms of how their bills are handled on the floor, and we try to accommodate them.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I will certainly have a discussion with that. It sounds to me a little bit like the offer that I made 3\1/2\ months ago, so I certainly am going to consider it in light of the fact it sounds a lot like the offer I made. I will be in further discussions with the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First, before I go to the gentleman's specific issue, I want to make it very clear that, first of all, Mr. Obey, contrary to what was represented, did not make his decisions in a vacuum. This was discussed. I don't want any implication that Mr. Obey arbitrarily and capriciously acted on his own.

When the determination was made, as a result of the conversations that ensued between chair and ranking members, both of the full committee and of the subcommittees, that was a collective decision that was made. It was not Mr. Obey's alone. So any implication that that was the case is not accurate, I tell my friend.

Now, with respect to the stimulus package, the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we believe the Recovery and Reinvestment Act is working. We believe there are an awful lot of policemen, firemen, teachers, who are still protecting the public safety, fire and police. And teaching our children, class sizes have not increased because of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, because of the investment we made in States to try to stabilize their fiscal condition, which is very, very bad, as the gentleman knows.

The gentleman was not here, of course, but in 2001 and 2003, Mr. Dreier

and I were here, some others on the floor were here. We adopted an economic program that the leader, your present leader said, and others said, Mr. DeLay said and other members of your leadership said, and the President of the United States said, would build an extraordinarily robust economy, would take our country to new heights of economic well- being.

The gentleman I am sure probably knows these figures, but during the last year of the Bush administration, after having passed, without the Democrats stopping it or changing it or modifying it, after adopting the economic program and pursuing it for 7 years, from 2001 to December of 2008, in the last year from January to December, we lost 3.189 million jobs. 3,189,000 jobs were lost, the worst economic performance of any administration over 8 years in the last 75 years. In other words, since Herbert Hoover. The worst performance.

Now, in the last year of the Clinton administration, I tell my friend, we gained. In the last year, when, as you recall, there was a slight slowdown, we gained 1.9 million jobs. So the turnaround from the last year of the Clinton administration and the last year of the Bush administration was 5 million jobs. That was the economic status that was left, the legacy of the Bush administration and of the policies adopted by the Republican Congress from 2001 to 2006 which was not changed, as you recall, because President Bush had, of course, the veto.

The fact of the matter is that the Clinton administration created an average of 216,000 jobs per month on average over 96 months. The Bush administration, under the economic policy that you promoted then and are promoting now, I don't mean you personally, but your party is promoting. And let me say this again, under the Clinton administration, 96 months, an average of 216,000 jobs a month were created, plus. Under the Bush administration, the average job performance over 96 months was 4,240 jobs per month. You need 100,000-plus to stay even in America.

Now let me give you an additional figure. In the last 3 months of the Bush administration, you lost an average of 650,000 per month. Over the last three months, we have lost far too many, but an average of 450,000 per month. In other words, while we are not in the plus place, which is why I expressed on Fox News my disappointment, I can't imagine there is anybody in this Chamber, the President is disappointed, the Vice President is disappointed, the American people are disappointed that we are not creating those 216,000 jobs per month that we did under the Clinton administration, and we are still losing jobs because of the disastrous economy that was inherited.

I tell my friend that it was not just the facts that argue that, but Secretary Paulson, Ben Bernanke and President Bush said we had a disastrous economic crisis that confronted us at the end of the Bush administration's economic policy conclusion and asked us to respond very vigorously to that.

As you know, during the course of the Bush administration, we did that. Unfortunately, it has not been enough. We did that again with the Recovery and Reinvestment Act which we think is succeeding. But my friend would, I think, fairly observe that his 2001 tax cut after 130 days had not turned America around; in fact, in my view, never turned America around.

Now your leader talked about on that same show, well, we created 5 million jobs. There was a spike up, and a disastrous spike down, which is why, as I said, 3.18 million jobs were lost during the last year of the Bush administration.

We believe that the Recovery Act can work. We think it will work. We hope this economy comes back from where it was left us on January 20, 2009. America is experiencing pain. Too many of our people are experiencing pain. We regret that. It is disappointing. We need to take such efforts as we can to correct that.

I will tell my friend in addition to that, at this point in time there is no intent to have an additional bill on the floor. The administration is not talking about it. We are not talking about it. I was asked a question in the press and I said rightfully, we certainly wouldn't put that off the table. We will consider steps that need to be taken in order to address the economic crisis that confronts our Nation, but there is no plan at this point in time to offer an additional bill of that type.

If the gentleman would yield, let me say that looking in the past is not fruitful unless you learn from the past.

The point of my recitation was that the policies proposed in 2001 and 2003 demonstrably did not work, and I read the results of those policies which were the policies of the Bush administration. What I pointed out is that it is the same formula that is being recommended once again from your side of the aisle. So it is instructive to learn from what didn't work in the past.

I reject your assertion that the Recovery and Reinvestment Act hasn't worked. I have pointed out to you that we have lost a third less jobs over the last 3 months than we lost during the last 3 months of the Bush administration.

Is losing one job one too many? It is. Is it a disappointment? It is. But after a quarter and a little more of effectiveness, 95 percent of Americans got a tax cut, got money in their pocket, as you know, as a result of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. There is $65 billion of construction jobs being affected. Has it gone out fast enough? It hasn't. Is it starting to pick up? It is. Was the thought 10 to 15 percent would be spent within the time frame we are now talking about? Yes, that was the projection. Has that happened? Yes, it has. So that projection was correct. Is unemployment higher than we anticipated? Yes, it is, because the recession and almost depression, according to Bernanke, that we inherited from the last administration was so deep and so endemic that we are having real trouble getting out of it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate, and further,

when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 2009, for morning-hour debate.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I want to announce to the House that because of the importance of this event, I want to assure all Members that we are going to make sure that the schedule accommodates the event.

announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I have two duties that I want to perform tonight. One is a very happy one, and I will do that first.

This institution has existed for a little over 200 years. One who sits among us has served for a quarter of that time. He is a historic figure. He is one of the most masterful legislators that ever has served in this body. He is a man of great integrity, intellect and, as I said, legislative skill.

He has chaired one of this Congress's and this House's most important committees with broad jurisdiction and has dealt with matters across the spectrum of the jurisdiction of that committee. But 25 years from now, when he retires, he will be remembered most for his leadership on health, on health care for all Americans, on a passion to ensure that each and every American has the availability of affordable, quality health care. We are engaged in that issue on a bill that will be sponsored by this gentleman.

Today, he is 83 years of age, 83 years young. My colleagues, as all of you know, John Dingell is revered by many, feared by some, respected by all.

Let me now yield to my colleague and friend, the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner.

Mr. Chairman, I know that every Member would, if we were going to take the time, rise to express their deep affection and respect and admiration for you, my friend. And I count it a great honor that you have been my friend for every year that I have served in the Congress, and I am looking forward to being with you for a long time to come.

Honoring Sally Crowe

Now, ladies and gentlemen, I said I rose for two purposes, one was happy. Obviously, that was the happy one.

I came to Congress 29 years ago. John Dingell came to Congress 53 years ago. Sally Crowe came to Congress 57 years ago. You may not know Sally Crowe by name, but you know Sally Crowe.

Sally Crowe was the hostess who greeted all of us in the House restaurant. She was a wonderful spirit. She died while we were on break this month. She died after having had a very substantial fall. And others may have retired, as she surely could have. She chose not to retire, however, and she returned to the place that she loved and served so well.

We are all advantaged by those who are not known widely outside this institution, but who served this institution with a devotion to country, devotion to the institution, and devotion to each and every one of us and, in Sally's case, to the guests who came and visited with us and ate with us in the dining room or were visitors here and ate there.

She was courteous, kind, respectful, affectionate. I will remember Sally with great affection. Her family lives in my district.

I want to say on behalf of all of us to her family how much we appreciated her love, her service to us and to her country; and I want to yield to my friend, Zach Wamp of Tennessee.

I want to thank my friend, Zach Wamp, for his memory of Sally and his expression of love on behalf of all of us.

Sally was awarded the John W. McCormack Annual Award of Excellence for Service to the House. Without Sally Crowe, life in this building would have ground to a halt in many respects. Now it won't grind to a halt, it won't grind to a halt because we are advantaged by so many who care for this institution. And we thank them all.

But today, we remember a wonderful, decent, good, loving human being, our friend, Sally Crowe. God rest her soul.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore