Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield just briefly.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER. 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. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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. HOYER. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. 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

Mr. HOYER. 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.