John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter in the Congressional Record a story from The Charlotte Observer about Joe Martin, a friend since college days, who was diagnosed nine years ago with ALS, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Today, Joe says, ``I do not have ALS. I had it.'' Joe wants to change the ``doomsday'' mentality about ALS, and show that people can survive, as he has for the last nine years. Joe, in fact, has not only survived but has published two books, an autobiography and a novel, and is at work on a third. Many members will remember Rep. Jim Martin, who left Congress to serve as Governor of North Carolina. Joe is Jim Martin's brother. As you will see from the article, Joe Martin and his wife, Joan, are establishing a web page which may be of interest to Members with constituents who have ALS. [From The Charlotte Observer, July 23, 2003] Joe Martin Tackles His Next Cause (By David Perlmutt) He can't talk, he can't walk, he can't move a single body part except for a finger, eyes and a few facial muscles, but Joe Martin is on yet another crusade. Nine years after he was diagnosed with ALS, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, the former bank executive and now novelist wants to change the thinking about the disease that paralyzed him and, according to that doomsday thinking, should have killed him. These days, he discusses his illness in the past tense. Martin, 63, is living proof, he says, that people can live-- and don't have to die--with ALS. ``For any practical purpose, I do not have ALS. I had it,'' Martin responded by e-mail. ``* * * My survival is just a fact, almost a foregone conclusion.'' Soon, he and wife Joan plan to post a new Web site that takes ``positive'' messages to ALS patients--despite doctors telling them they will die within two to five years. ``Joe wants people to get information that is positive, instead of the sad news,'' Joan Martin said. ``It will talk about living, never about dying. Joe tells people diagnosed with ALS, `If you have a doctor who talks about dying, get another doctor.' '' Martin also plans to go after investment money for technology he says makes survival an option--for example, the ventilator, a little larger than a laptop computer, that helps him breathe and a feeding tube that prevents him from choking on food. Both have given him renewed hope that he will live to be an old man. ``I knew all along we needed to change the way the world sees ALS, but to what?'' he wrote. ``If the world concluded that only someone with my money and connections could survive, people with ALS would be more depressed than ever.'' Martin, a force in the past for better race relations, is the brother of former N.C. Gov. Jim Martin and a retired bank executive. The ALS Association, he says, argues that many patients don't have his means and therefore ``we will give them only palliative care, easing them toward death, then use them to raise money. ``My passion is to save people from that deathtrap.'' Jerry Dawson, executive director of the Carolinas ALS Association, said the group's primary mission is: ``To help people live with ALS and to leave no stone unturned in the search for a cure.'' It is fighting ALS through research and lobbying Congress for research money, he said. Martin was diagnosed in October 1994. The disease kills nerves controlling arms, legs and muscles used to breathe, swallow and talk. It has the highest mortality rate among degenerative neurological disorders. In 1941, ALS killed baseball legend Lou Gehrig, whose name is tied to the disease. Patients generally die of respiratory failure. Martin believes ALS can do nothing else to him, since the ventilator helps him breathe. ``He can't fall. He can't choke. He won't starve. And with a ventilator, he can't stop breathing,'' Joan Martin said. ``. . . His eyes are never affected by ALS. So nothing else can go wrong with him.'' Martin sees three barriers to survival: Using Lou Gehrig as an icon of death: ``In the name of a true American idol, `advocates' use false claims with impunity . . .,'' he wrote in a recent letter to U.S. Rep. Mike Bilirakis, R-Fla., who chairs a House health subcommittee. ``How many people refuse treatment, accepting that fate?'' The ALS Association's ``commitment to death as the only remedy'': ``My crusade is to put the ALS Association on a different track or put them out of business. They or somebody else can raise more money by telling the truth, without sacrificing lives.'' Dawson said the association ``regards its work with people with ALS . . . to be its most vital mission.'' Technology: ``Technology makes survival possible but not attractive. Our Web site will encourage such things as ventilators . . . and headbands that transform brain waves into words.'' The average life expectancy after diagnosis, he said, predates new therapies and ``assistive equipment.'' Though silenced, Martin has become a loud advocate for ALS patients getting the treatment and equipment they need to prolong life. In 1998, he, his brother and friends raised more than $3 million to build the Carolinas Neuromuscular/ALS Center at Carolinas Medical Center. Dr. Jeffrey Rosenfeld, the center's director and CMC's chief of neurology, agrees that if Martin's body doesn't create a new problem--such as an infection--ALS can do little more to him. The center, Rosenfeld said, has adopted a philosophy of aggressively treating symptoms before they become debilitating . . Martin, he added, bought into that. ``I agree with Joe that if you're aggressive with the management of the disease, you can most definitely change the course of the disease,'' he said. ``. . . Joe has opted for the benefits of every aggressive intervention available.'' Those interventions are available to everyone treated at the Charlotte center, which pays the cost if the patient can't. Rosenfeld said: ``At the center, the patients and needs come first. The financial obligations come second.'' Martin is helped by a rare determination and his support system at home, Rosenfeld said. He's shown he can live with ALS. A year ago, he and Joan traveled overseas, and in December to New York, where they saw plays. He has written two books, one about living with the illness, the other a novel. He's writing a second novel; a computer allows him to type e-mails or faxes by focusing his eyes on letters. ``What Joe wants to show . . . you can go to the movies, you can see your grandchildren,'' his wife said. ``You can live with ALS.'' In the past, Martin has crusaded for causes such as better schools and race relations. He introduced ``Race Day,'' challenging Charlotteans to invite a person of a different race to lunch and to live tolerantly. Martin knows there is still much to be done, but for now he is focusing on ALS. Far from declaring victory, he became discouraged and upset last week by the ALS death of friend Glenn Mason of Charlotte. ``Glenn faced ALS with courage and thigh-slapping humor. He was important to changing attitudes about ALS and his death reminds us we have a long way to go. ``. . . I will accept victory when we make survival a viable and generally available option.''

Mr. SPRATT

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have gratitude for the gentleman's agreeing to the amendment. As long as it passes by voice vote, I will not ask for a record vote on final passage.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I offer this motion simply to ask the House to stand by a bipartisan compromise that we struck last May in marking up the defense authorization bill, the bill we are now sending formally to conference which deals with the development of low-yield nuclear weapons. Members of the House may have read, they may have heard that the Bush administration is pushing to repeal the so-called ban on low-level nuclear weapons research. They disavow any intention of building such weapons, but they at least seek the flexibility to conduct research in that realm. Let me tell everybody, they basically won that argument. Both the House and the Senate defense authorization bills propose changes to current law that allow the flexibility of research into low- yield nuclear weapons. The administration said this was a problem, the Department of Energy said it was a problem, existing law, so we have changed it. We have addressed the problem. I was an author of the so-called Spratt-Furse amendment in 1993. I believe that the language of that amendment as it now stands as amended in the committee mark is sensible and a fair compromise. That is what I am asking the House to do, to stand behind it. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member on our committee.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me take just a minute to explain the state of play and why it is important that the House provisions prevail over the Senate provision. The Senate defense authorization bill repeals these provisions in their entirety, but then backfills the gap with language that requires specific authorization of Congress to move from development into production of low-yield nuclear weapons. This amounts, really, to restating what the law already is, that to do something this significant with respect to a new product money has to be authorized and appropriated. The House bill is similar in consequence but better, in my opinion, because it makes it absolutely clear that any movement beyond just research will require Congress to change by law the nuclear weapons policy of the United States. The House and Senate both addressed these specific concerns raised by the administration and the weapons labs and the Department of Defense to permit more flexibility in basic research, but our version contains a stronger guarantee that the Congress is going to be a partner in any decision to go beyond the scope. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a nuclear physicist who understands what is at stake here better than possibly anybody in the House.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I rise to make one correction. The House bill does have language which we would like to retain. The gist of this motion is let us stand by the House language and reject the Senate language. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me simply put in context why we have this particular provision before us and why we are emphasizing it in this motion to instruct. The Spratt-Furse prohibition on low-yield nuclear weapons was a follow-up to the decision by President Bush, the first President Bush, on September 27, 1991, a historic day. That day he announced the withdrawal of all land-based tactical nuclear weapons from our overseas bases, particularly those in Europe, and all sea-based tactical nuclear weapons from surface ships, submarines, and naval aircraft. We decided to forgo the development of the follow-on to Lance, a battlefield tactical nuclear missile, and we sent a signal to the world by all of these decisions that we were serious about minimizing the role and possible uses of nuclear weapons early in a conflict and especially for tactical or theater purposes. We said that our arsenal in the future in effect would be a strategic arsenal, a strategic determinant, and we would not use nuclear weapons for tactical and theater purposes anymore, such as the Davy Crockett, to take out tanks or nuclear artillery, rounds, and sea-based mines and things of that kind. This move away from tactical nuclear weapons prompted the Soviet Union to move in the same direction; and Gorbechev shortly announced the elimination of their warheads, their land-based tactical nuclear missiles, mines, and artillery shells. He announced that he was removing warheads from surface-to-air missiles and removing sea-based tactical nukes on naval aircraft. Taken together, these steps marked a major step away from tactical nuclear weapons and a step toward global security. The initiative by the first Bush administration helped us persuade Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Belarus to forswear nuclear weapons after the breakup of the Soviet Union. It also made it easier for the United States and our European allies to convince much of the rest of the world to extend indefinitely the nuclear proliferation treaty, or NPT. Now, the NPT is not the final, definitive answer to our proliferation concerns, but the world would be a lot riskier place without it. It definitely makes it harder for nations or terrorist groups to obtain nuclear materials and nuclear know-how, and it establishes the authority of the war community to question and inspect the activities of States that are a signatory to this treaty. I think a return by the United States back to the days of tactical nuclear weapons, especially nuclear weapons designed to be more usable by virtue of low yields, would send a troubling signal, a signal that nuclear weapons just maybe are useful for tactical purposes, battlefield purposes, strategic purposes, and were really just an extension of conventional weapons for the same tactical purposes. It would indicate that we see tactical utility in these weapons, and it would reverse the step that was taken in 1991. I do not think we need to go down that path. Now, there are some who will say that we need to do this because we have to have weapons to take on deep, hard targets. The actual numbers are classified, of course, but even if we can improve the ability of our nuclear weapons to burrow in the hard terrain and into geologic formations such as granite, simple physics tells us we are going to come up way short of reaching the underground bunkers that we are really worried about, like those in North Korea. Some say that we need these new weapons, these low-yield weapons, deeper penetrators, because we need the heat and the gamma rays and the X-rays of a nuclear weapon to destroy the chemical and biological agents that might be stored in deep underground bunkers. But if the fireball and the X-rays and the gamma rays are to reach the bunker, then we need to use, we are told by qualified experts, weapons that are much, much bigger than 5 kilotons; and using even a 5 kiloton weapon has consequences that have to be dealt with, fallout, for example. Alternatively, if we want to use the pressure and blast of a nuclear weapon to crush a bunker, then we already have weapons to do that job. Supporters of full repeal also say that our restraint thus far on developing these tactical theater and battlefield nuclear weapons has not really had any effect on nations that are bent upon acquiring them, North Korea being a prominent example, but I am not so sure about that. Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan in a momentous decision all decided to rid their countries of nuclear weapons. Brazil, South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan have taken similar steps; and numerous countries have signed the NPT. So before we repeal this long-standing language in the code, we should keep in mind the effects that surround us and also, also I think we should point out what is already in this bill. This bill will reduce the amount of time it takes to resume underground nuclear testing. This bill will call for a review of nuclear weapons for ``bunker-busting'' missions, the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. This bill will call for building a brand-new, multi-billion-dollar facility to produce plutonium pits for nuclear weapons. Just the beginning, planning money, but these things that are in here of a still-robust nuclear policy but one that is slanted towards strategic usage and not tactical usage. Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman of our committee for his generosity and collegiality in allowing us to reach an agreement on this. I know it is a compromise for him. He has his doubts, and we have our disagreements. But, nevertheless, I appreciate his kindness in doing it.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the newly crowned NCAA Division II Men's Golf Champions, the Francis Marion University Patriots. On May 23, at the Crosswater Golf Club course in Sunriver, Oregon, the Patriots claimed victory in a four-day tournament over 18 of the best golf teams in the country. But, Mr. Speaker, they did not just win. In what can only be described as a true team effort, Francis Marion ran away with the title, ending the tournament with a 3 under par 1,149, which defeated second-place Rollins College by an amazing 14 strokes! In golf, more so than in other sports, an outstanding team starts with outstanding individuals; and Francis Marion's squad was most definitely a collection of outstanding individuals. The team was led by coach Jonathan Burnett, a native of Florence, South Carolina who just finished his sixth season with the team. The players were anchored by Junior Fredrik Ohlsson from Goteborg, Sweden and Senior Dylan Keylock from Johannesburg, South Africa, who finished fifth and sixth respectively in the individual standings at the National Championship. Also playing key roles on the team were Senior Matt Dura from Sumter, South Carolina, Senior Juan Pablo Bossi from Alta Gracia, Argentina, and Junior Per Hallberg from Ytterby, Sweden, who finished an impressive 14th, 24th, and 44th respectively at the National Championship. Junior Luke Wilcox and Freshmen Adam Hart, Luke Hart, and Battle Hartman also contributed to the team's successes this season. For their efforts, Ohlsson was chosen to as a first team All American, Dura and Keylock were selected as third team All Americans, and Bossi and Hallberg gained honorable mention recognition. Keylock and Ohlsson also earned Peach Belt Conference All-Conference honors for the second time, and Dura earned Peach Belt Conference All-Tournament Team honors for the second time in three years. Though these gentlemen excelled on the links, perhaps more impressive was the fact that they simultaneously excelled in the classroom. In addition to their athletic accolades, Ohlsson, Dura, Keylock, and Bossi also earned 2003 academic All-America honors in marketing, management, finance, and business economics respectively. Only two other student athletes from Francis Marion have ever earned both athletic and academic All-America honors in the same year. I am encouraged to know that long after their collegiate golf careers are over, these young men will still be striving as economic leaders in our country. That is truly something worthy of the title ``All American''. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to have the opportunity to speak to you about these extraordinary young men and their extraordinary achievements. It is truly a privilege to represent a state that turns out such talented students.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, last month a trusted and respected employee of the Ways and Means Committee named Al Davis died of complications resulting from a tragic traffic accident and I want to offer my sincere condolences to his family and loved ones. Al was a kind, caring, and generous man who was dedicated to the public good--a rare commodity in this body today. As many of my colleagues have said on many occasions, Al Davis was a tremendous asset to the Democratic Members of the Ways and Means Committee. Moreover, many of my colleagues who are not on the Ways and Means Committee benefited from his expertise--even if they didn't know it as his handiwork. This is because Al was the person behind the summaries and one-pagers that often helped members understand very complex tax and budget legislation. On numerous occasions I needed to consult with Al in order to produce documents that would help me understand arcane budget principles and make sense of Federal budget projections. As members of the Committee knew, Al was a dedicated public servant who will not soon be forgotten. The Ways and Means Committee and this Congress as a whole will suffer without his presence. Al Davis will truly be missed by all of us.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, let me explain to the House how under this Republican bill that we have just passed, compared to the Senate bill, taxes can be raised or child tax credits can be denied to many of our service men and women serving in places like Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan. Let us take for example an E-6, a staff sergeant with two children who makes $29,000. His family will qualify for the full child tax credit, get this, so long as he stays stateside, in the United States. His pay is $29,000. He has to make more than $10,500 to qualify. Subtract the 105 from the 29, you get 18.5; multiply it by 15, he is fully qualified for two child tax credits at $1,000 apiece. Now let us assume that he is assigned to Iraq, Afghanistan, or a combat zone. His pay while he is in a combat zone is tax-exempt. Let us assume he stays there 8 months. That is two-thirds of the year. Two- thirds of his income is therefore tax-exempt. It is not considered to be taxable income. His taxable income, therefore, is about $9,700, less than the $10,500 threshold. As a consequence, for serving in Iraq, serving in Afghanistan, he loses the two child tax credits. Is this necessary? Absolutely not. The Senate bill avoided this problem. The language was there in the Senate bill. For some reason that has yet to be explained to these service members, much less the whole House. We do not know why it was dropped; we just know it was dropped. As a consequence, an E-6, an average serviceman or woman serving in a combat zone, will be denied the benefit of these child tax credits that we are giving other people. Perversely, the longer he stays in the combat zone, the less his entitlement to these two child tax credits. That is absolutely outrageous. We should never have passed this bill; but having passed it, we certainly should pass the motion to instruct. Maybe Members can say the reason we did that is we had to trim back this child tax credit so we could fit it into the overall bill. But this chart right here shows down in the little blue corner how much of the total cost of this bill is committed or required for the refundability of the child tax credit to apply to families making less than $26,000. There it is right there, $3 billion 48 million. This represents the additional cost of the bill, all the other provisions that were extraneous, and this is the additional interest. It did not have to be done. There was plenty of room. Will somebody please tell us why we are treating our service members in this manner?

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, in 1 minute I want to tell you why this bill, compared to the Senate bill, taxes could be raised, could be raised on enlisted men and women serving in Iraq by as much as $1,000 per child. It is a fact, a shocking fact about this bill. Let us take an E6, a sergeant, making $29,000. You have to make more than $10,500 in order to qualify for the child tax credit. That leaves him if he is state-side $18,500 times the 15 percent, two child tax credits for his two children. But let us assume now he goes to Iraq and let us assume he stays 8 months. That means $18,500 of his income, because he is in a combat zone, will not be subject to taxation. It is not taxable income. Therefore, his taxable income is only $9,500. What happens? By going to Iraq, by serving his country for 8 months in a combat zone, his family loses both of the child tax credits. This is not necessary. The Senate bill worked it out. It was deliberately deleted from the Senate bill, for what reasons I would certainly like the other side to explain. Let me tell my colleagues one other thing. At this desk is a military tax fairness bill passed by the other body. If we really want to do something for the military, call it up. Because in every respect, the bill at the desk is more liberal, more beneficial to our service men and women. I hope you will answer the charges I have just made, rather than supporting the provisions included in this bill. This is an outrage.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I have the sad duty of informing the House of the death of Tom S. Gettys, who served in the House of Representatives from 1964 to 1974, representing the Fifth District of South Carolina, and served even longer as administrative assistant to Rep. James P. Richards. On Sunday, Tom Gettys and his wife, Mary Phillips, went a last time together to the First ARP Church in Rock Hill, South Carolina. On Sunday evening, he slipped quietly away, dying in the town he loved, where he had spent his life, much of it serving the people. The term ``public servant'' is often misapplied, but in the case of Tom Gettys, it is a perfect fit. He was a school principal and coach; right-hand aide to a high-ranking congressman; a naval officer who volunteered for duty and served in the Pacific; a postmaster; a night- school, self-taught lawyer; and for ten years, a Member of Congress. As congressman, he endeared himself to the people who elected him. If folks in the Fifth District revered Dick Richards and admired Bob Hemphill, they loved Tom Gettys. They loved him because he had an easy- going affinity for all sorts of people, and because he put his constituents first and worked hard for them, and they knew it. When he was at the top of his form, Tom Gettys retired. He had the good grace not to hang on in Washington to capitalize on his relationships, but instead came back to Rock Hill, hung out his shingle and practiced law. As a young lawyer, I used to run into him checking titles with the rest of us in the clerk of court's office. This was the self-deprecating side of the man that people appreciated. He took his work seriously, but never himself. I saw this side of Tom Gettys when I was in Washington in the 1970s and walked with him to the House floor. Tom knew the capitol police, the elevator operators, the doorkeepers, all by first name. He told me later that having been a staffer, he knew who ran the House. I got an even better insight when Tom visited me soon after I was elected. I begged him to sit and talk, but could tell he had something else on his mind, and soon found out what it was. He wanted to go downstairs to the Longworth Cafeteria and speak to Odessa. Odessa ran the breakfast line, and was a spirited soul, full of chatter and advice, which she dished out freely while you decided how you wanted your eggs. Tom seldom came to Capitol Hill without visiting Odessa. Tom Gettys belonged to the old school, to the era before pollsters, spin-masters, and 30-second spots, and he often told me, it was a good thing. He enjoyed introducing me as the ``second-best looking congressman to represent the 5th District.'' I enjoyed telling him, ``Tom, if good looks had anything to do with being elected to this office, you would have lost to Bate Harvey in 1964.'' He was not some political artifact, crafted to win elections. He was the genuine article--of the people, by the people, for the people. When many of his conservative colleagues voted against Medicare, Tom Gettys stood with his people. He voted for it, and was proud of it. If he were to give his own farewell, he would tell us that marrying Mary Phillips White surpassed all of his achievements, and Julia and Beth were their crowning glory. He was a doting grandparent and used to say that if he had the chance to come back after dying, he would want come back as one of his grandchildren. Those of us who learned from Tom Gettys and looked up to him will miss him. We will miss the wisdom he shared with us, and the stories that never grew old. He exemplified what life in a democracy is about. He earned the satisfaction every public servant wants: he left his country better than he found it.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), also a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of this Special Order.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight to honor Al Davis, a dear friend, who died in the prime of life in a tragic, wholly unnecessary accident. But in his 56 years, he made a huge, if unheralded, contribution to the government of this country. We have lost a close associate, a valuable colleague. The House has lost part of its institutional memory and its analytical ability, particularly in the bramble bush we call tax policy; and the country, the country has lost a genuine, if sometimes critical, patriot. Before Al became the chief economist for the Committee on Ways and Means, he was the chief economist for the Committee on the Budget; and it was on the Committee on the Budget that I came to know him best. Mr. Speaker, if I might digress a minute, I would say that from 1969 to 1970 I served as a young officer, Army officer in the Pentagon and interacted with Congress and its staff; and when I came here in 1983 as a Member of Congress, the most striking change I found in the institution was in the staff, Members' staff and committee staff both. The number of staff had increased several fold, and the professional quality has increased even more. And more than I had ever appreciated, I soon found out how the House literally could not function without our staff. Their roles are often off stage. They make, however, those of us on stage look good. They keep the debate moving forward, and they see to it that the House churns out its enormous work product of bills and reports and conference agreements and correspondence and countless other documents. Even among the excellent staff that is throughout the House on both sides of the aisle, Al Davis stood out. He was noted for two areas of expertise: the Tax Code and Social Security. And in those fields, he had few peers. He was good because he knew what he was doing, believed in what he was doing, and never tired of what he was doing until he got it right. I often asked Al a question and got a tentative answer. Then, a week later, long after I had forgotten the question I put to him, I got from Al a memo, a fax sheet, a graph, a table, whatever. He then came up and explained it to me meticulously in a way that anybody, me included, can understand; because Al was not just our analyst or our economist, he was our tutor. Not only did Al produce memos that answered the questions we put to him, but he also came forth with memos containing answers to questions we should have raised but did not. I can remember myself more than once in the well of this House struggling, coping to defend our position, only to have Al appear from the benches back here with a memo he just happened to have written in anticipation of this issue. He was a Democrat, make no mistake about it, but he did not pull punches for partisan purposes. If one wanted a sophist to help rationalize a poor policy proposal, you did not want Al Davis. On the other hand, if we had the right position, if we were principled, if we faced entrenched opposition, special interests, and found our policy hard to defend, we wanted Al Davis on our side, because he would cut to the core of an issue and bend every effort to help us. His encyclopedic knowledge, his keen mind, his corporate memory, his sense of principle, his passion for the truth, and his patience in explaining it made Al Davis a joy to work with, a colleague that we cherished, a friend we will never forget. The House will go on without him, of course, but the debate about taxes will be a little less incisive, the explanations of Social Security will be a little less clear, the arguments against the deficit not quite so compelling without the work of Al Davis behind them. He served his Congress, this Congress, and his country well, and those of us who worked with him will be inspired for a long time by his example, moved by what he taught us, consoled by his humor, for as long as we serve in the Congress of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), former chairman of the Committee on the Budget who also worked with Al Davis on the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who serves on the Committee on Ways and Means and knew Al in that capacity.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), also a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), also a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, there have actually been job losses in the private sector, gains in the public sector, but the net job loss is somewhere around 2.2, 2.3 million people. The private sector job loss number is 3.1 million jobs since the peak of this recession, which was March 2001, shortly after the President took office.