Floor Statements

I want to thank my very good friend from Maryland, Congresswoman Edwards. It's so typical of her to come to the floor on an urgent issue like this.

I have to chuckle when you say about my having been a tenured professor of law at Georgetown, the gentleman from Rhode Island who was one of my students and the gentleman from Detroit was another. So it makes me feel

pretty ancient, but it makes me feel very good, also, to see that my students got elected to the Congress while I was still here.

I can't imagine what the gentleman from Rhode Island went through because I never experienced it, but he probably had college loans coming out of college. Don't even let me talk about tuition at Georgetown Law School. A very good law school, but one of the most expensive in the country.

As a matter of fact, I'm still a tenured professor of law at Georgetown because under the rules of the House, you can teach and still be a Member. So I teach one course there every year. I'm coming to the end of the school year. I go over every other Monday just to keep my brain intact. Sometimes this is a place that gets your brain out of order. It's certainly out of order when it comes to student loans.

The notion that we have to come to the floor today to plead for student loans during a recovery from the great recession, when these great people get out of school, they are not likely to get a job. The very least you would think this Congress could do effortlessly would be to say, Look, you had to take loans; you have to pay interest. We know that means that you're going to be delayed years from doing what all of us did, which was to buy a house pretty early in our careers.

These students will not have the credit to buy a house. First of all, they'll have to pay off their loans. They can't liquidate them in bankruptcy. As with other debts. Now they face the possibility of a doubling of their interest. When Democrats were in power, we adjusted those interest rates. What a cruel hoax, to let them double, particularly since we're just coming out of a recovery.

College students are now beginning to get jobs for the first time. They have started out their careers without any jobs and are faced with humongous loans. I don't know how people go to graduate school like my good friend from Rhode Island.

Of course, if you go to certain kinds of graduate schools, there are stipends but for people in graduate education, there are only loans on top of their undergraduate loans. If you go to law school and medical school, you're really on your own. Those are professional schools. You're going with a huge amount of debt.

In my own district, which, remember, is only one city, the borrowers this year were almost 65,000, and if the interest rates increase, it will bring them to something over $13 billion.

I don't even want to tell my constituents that. They're depending on me to do something about it. And here on the floor we hear nonsense about ``how are you going to pay for it?'' Are you going to pay for it by stripping health care for women, children, for your parents in order to keep your interest rates from going up? Are you going to pay for it by leaving Big Oil alone in order to keep your interest rates from going up? Our values are way off-kilter when we haven't reached a solution by now, when we're this close to a drop-dead date. That's what it will mean for many students.

We haven't come to an understanding, first, that we'll raise it. The President had to go around the country, making it clear that this issue was on the front burner, because it certainly wasn't there until he did so. Now people come forward. For example, Mr. Romney said, he's for making sure these rates don't go up. But does he have an idea about how to make sure they don't go up? Why doesn't he tell our colleagues here in the House how to make sure they don't go up so that they don't hurt one group of citizens in order to help another group of citizens?

So we come to the floor today--I along with the gentlelady from Maryland and the gentleman from Rhode Island--because we don't intend to let this issue go until we, in fact, find a way to pay for the loans we have told young people to take.

We told them, Go to college. Yes, you'll have a little debt, but go to college and you are made. We've already broken that promise because they come out of college now, and they don't have the workforce opportunities that we, ourselves, had. Let's not break another promise--the promise that they will not be stuck with a debt which is much greater than the debt they already pay. The debt they already pay will delay their coming into the same kind of life style that their parents have. Yes, they're going home to live with their parents because, if you've got this student debt, you're hardly able to go out and rent an apartment in Washington, in Maryland, or in Rhode Island. Yes, they're going home. If we want to make sure that they're able to strike out on their own, the one thing we don't want to do is to burden them with a greater debt than they already have, and they have on the average a $25,000 debt.

Even when I got out of school--you know, that was sometime in the 18th century--I cannot imagine what I would have done with a $25,000 debt. Even in real terms today, that's a lot of money, friends. If we care at all about our young people, we will find a way that does not rob Peter to pay Paul in order to relieve them of this debt.

I want to thank my friend from Maryland.

I want to add to her list because importantly when our party, the Democrats, took control, the interest rates were where they will go in July. They were at 6.8 percent. We felt the pain, and we lowered those rates to their present 3.4. But the way they were phased in, they would go up again to 6.8. Do you see what we were trying to do in 2007? We recognized this was a major issue and took those rates down, which I'm sure encouraged many people to go to college in the first place.

Now we have young people with an unemployment rate of about 14 percent if you're between 20 and 24. That's terrible when you consider that nationally it's about 8 percent. And I'm very distressed that already there is an almost 15 percent increase delinquency rates in student loans, which will add to the interest rates were talking about and the interest rates that we're trying to keep at least level.

I want to thank you again for leading this Special Order so that America knows before it's too late.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a Washington, DC institution, which I have the distinct honor and pleasure representing in this body, that has been a local leader in the struggle for equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, LGBT, people: the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, DC, GLAA.

GLAA has, since its founding in April 1971, remained a respected and tireless advocate for political freedom for the District of Columbia and for equal rights for its residents.

GLAA continues in the vanguard of efforts to strengthen enforcement of DC's landmark Human Rights Act of 1977.

GLAA, by working with coalition partners, DC officials and the wider public, implemented a well-crafted plan of grass-roots action and education that helped achieve marriage equality in the District.

GLAA fights to ensure that LGBT residents are treated fairly and respectfully by DC agencies, from the police and fire departments to the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs to the DC public schools.

GLAA pushes for effective public health strategies and accountability in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

GLAA has rated all DC Mayoral and Council candidates in every election since the establishment of home rule, and uses a system noted for its fairness and nonpartisanship.

GLAA provides leadership in coalition efforts on a wide range of civil rights issues, from family rights to condom availability in prisons and public schools to police accountability.

GLAA activity opposes federal restrictions on the District's budget that adversely affect LGBT people.

GLAA enhances its outreach by maintaining a comprehensive website of LGBT advocacy materials, the GLAA Forum blog, and the DCGayEtc.com news aggregator.

On April 26, GLAA will hold its 41st Anniversary Reception honoring this year's recipients of its Distinguished Service Awards: Burgundy Crescent Volunteers, The Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League, Ruby Corado, Jeri Hughes, Will O'Bryan, and Jeffrey D. Richardson.

Burgundy Crescent Volunteers was founded in 2001 as a source of LGBT volunteers for gay and gay-friendly non-profit organizations in the District, Maryland, and Virginia, and brings LGBT singles and couples together for volunteer activities that are social in nature. The group, a non-profit, has over 5,000 members, who have provided over 100,000 volunteer hours to the community. Their good efforts have ranged from doing yard work for GLAA's founder, Frank Kameny, to pruning the cherry trees at the Tidal Basin.

The Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League, SMYAL, was founded in 1984 to promote and support self-confident, healthy, and

productive lives for LGBT and questioning youth ages 13 21, as they transition from adolescence into adulthood. SMYAL is the only Washington metro area service organization dedicated solely to supporting LGBTQ and questioning youth. The staff and volunteers concentrate on five activities: Life Skills and Leadership Development; Counseling and Support; Health and Wellness Education; Safe Social Activities; and Community Outreach and Education.

Ruby Corado has been a transgender rights activist in DC for over 15 years, focusing on the Latino community in the areas of health care, HIV, human rights, and immigration. She has been tireless and outspoken in defending and assisting transgender people, demanding justice for brutalized and murdered sex workers. She has been at victims' hospital bedsides, at meetings with police officials, and at crime scenes, and has organized vigils, bringing her own experience as a Latina transwoman to bear in promoting the interests of this at-risk community in our city. Ruby has worked as a program manager for Whitman Walker Health, Transgender Health Empowerment, and Latinas En Accion, a group she has led for many years.

Jeri Hughes has persistently and doggedly pressed the District government to increase its employment of transgender people. Her efforts led Mayor Vincent Gray to direct the Department of Employment Services to conduct Project Empowerment job training for transgender citizens. Her efforts to highlight violations of the DC Human Rights Act by the Department of Corrections have led to ongoing efforts by the city and activists to improve the treatment of the city's transgender inmates and detainees. Jeri Hughes helps transgender people every day in her job at Transgender Health Empowerment.

Will O'Bryan is Managing Editor of Metro Weekly, which he joined in 2005 as a community reporter. He previously served as a news reporter and arts editor for the Washington Blade, and as a media liaison for a nonprofit health organization. Prior to that, he was arts and entertainment editor for Just Out, the Pacific Northwest's premier LGBT publication. Will is an unwavering advocate for coverage of the entire breadth of the LGBT community, especially those who are often neglected. In his biweekly column, ``Stonewall Baby,'' he personally engages issues affecting our entire community. He exemplifies the quiet, unheralded commitment of the many people who do the vital work of building community.

Jeffrey D. Richardson is Director of the Mayor's Office of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Affairs, where he has taken the initiative to connect activists with key agency staff and get results. His tireless efforts have ranged from advocacy within the government to supervising young LGBT interns. He brings to his job the empathy and service-oriented approach that he developed in his career as a social worker. In his prior post as president of the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, he was a steady leader who worked amicably and productively with GLAA and other advocacy groups and this year's recipients of its Distinguished Service Award.

I ask the House to join me in congratulating the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance.

Mr. Speaker, now that the cherry blossoms have signaled that spring has come, I introduce the Lifelong Improvements in Food and Exercise Act (LIFE), authorizing a national initiative to attack a major health problem in the United States that cannot be remedied through the health care system alone. Growing problems of overweight and obesity are now found in Americans of every age, race, and major demographic group, and threatens the health of Americans like no other single disease or condition does. In fact, the key to eliminating many of the most serious health conditions is reducing overweight and obesity, not even the much need Affordable Care Act. The LIFE bill would provide $25 million in funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for a coordinated national effort to reverse increasingly sedentary lifestyles and diets that are high in fat and sugar.

Despite rising consciousness of this epidemic, from NBC's `The Biggest Loser' to a steady stream of diet books, startling rates of obesity among adults and children continue in the United States. In 2007, estimates from the CDC National Center for Health Statistics showed that the percentage of children who are overweight has more than doubled, and among adolescents, the rates have tripled since 1980. Today, 13 million overweight children have an 80 percent chance of being overweight adults, with the health conditions that follow, such as high blood pressure, heart disease, and cancer. The CDC reports that Type 2 diabetes, considered an adult disease, is now widespread in children. The healthcare system and the insurance premium of average Americans are paying the price for this generation. The consequences for kids will follow them throughout their lives if we do not act quickly and decisively. If we are serious about healthcare, we must start where the most serious health conditions begin: in the epidemic of overweight and obesity.

The LIFE bill seeks to provide the first national strategy by directing the CDC to pursue obesity and sedentary lifestyles in three ways: train health professionals to recognize the signs of obesity early and educate people concerning healthy lifestyles, such as proper nutrition and regular exercise; conduct education campaigns to teach the public about how to recognize and address overweight and obesity; and develop intervention strategies to be used in everyday life at worksites and in community settings. This legislation is the minimum necessary to address our most important healthcare crisis. Already, chronic diseases, many of which are caused or exacerbated by overweight or obesity, account for 70 percent of all deaths in the U.S., and 60 percent of U.S. medical care expenses annually. According to the Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity, the cost of obesity in the United States was more than $117 billion in 2000. The CDC highlights a study that estimates the annual cost to be $147 billion. Currently, it is estimated that between 300,000 and 400,000 deaths per year are related to obesity.

A focused national health initiative is necessary because unhealthy lifestyles have become a normal part of everyday life. Participation in high school physical education classes has dropped from 42 percent in 1991 to 33 percent in 2005. National data show an increase in unhealthy eating habits for adults and no change in physical activity. Changes in nutrition are equally critical because 60 percent of young people consume too much fat, a factor doubling the percentage of overweight youth.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation to mobilize the country now, before entirely preventable health conditions, that often begin in children, overwhelm the Nation's health care system.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring Francis Lee Contracting as the 2012 District of Columbia Small Business of the Year, as well as its principals, Brian Smith, Geary Powell, and Terry Smith.

Francis Lee Contracting is a District of Columbia small business specializing in excavation, grading, site concrete, clearing, grubbing, and demolition. After doing work in the initial stages of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DHS, headquarters construction project at the St. Elizabeths West Campus, Francis Lee Contracting was selected as a subcontractor to perform earthwork for the perimeter security fence there, because of the high quality of its work. Francis Lee Contracting is located in Ward 8, where the DHS headquarters construction is taking place and which is the section of our city with the highest unemployment rate. Francis Lee Contracting has worked to improve the local community and has hired Ward 8 residents.

Francis Lee Contracting has over 50 years of experience in the construction field, on both public- and private-sector projects, and has several certifications, including Certified Business Enterprise and certifications to work with the District Department of Transportation, the Maryland Department of Transportation, and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. Francis Lee Contracting continues to share its experience and knowledge with other small businesses by sponsoring and participating in training sessions about bonding and other aspects of the construction industry.

The House of Representatives is gratified when a local small business competes and is selected to perform work on a federal construction project because of its quality of work, as exemplified by Francis Lee Contracting.

I ask the House to join me in honoring Francis Lee Contracting and its principal, Brian Smith, for its outstanding accomplishments and commitment to the residents of the Distinct of Columbia, and in commending Francis Lee Contracting on becoming the 2012 District of Columbia Small Business of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, I've come to the floor today to inform the Congress of exciting new developments about the major priority for the District of Columbia for this year's Congress. These developments have come very quickly, both in the Congress and in the Nation.

We now have unprecedented momentum, both in the country and here in the Congress, to allow the District to spend its own local funds without coming to the Congress of the United States. That will seem very strange to Members of the public since they've never heard of a local jurisdiction having to bring its own local funds to a national legislature, which had nothing to do with raising those funds, for approval to spend them.

It is an anomaly whose time has passed. And I'm very pleased at the response we are getting in the Congress, and that we have gotten in very little time, less than 6 months.

We see it culminating in a national poll that, in essence, blesses the momentum we are seeing in the Congress for budget autonomy for the District of Columbia. This poll was released just this week, and it's been an important week for the District of Columbia, because the District has just celebrated Emancipation Day. The slaves who lived in the District of Columbia were emancipated 9 months before slaves in the rest of the United States. And there's some analogy here, my friends, because what was not emancipated was the budget of the District of Columbia. And that's what we're trying to free now.

And that's what the American people seem to want, by a very large majority. A polling organization that is bipartisan, called Purple Insights, using the traditional methodologies that you see in all the national polls, asked this question of Americans in all parts of the country, from both parties and Indepedents.

The question was preceded by the following: The budget of the city of Washington, DC, is funded by local residents' tax dollars. Do you think that decisions about Washington, DC's local budget should be made by Washington, DC, taxpayers and their own elected officials, or should those budget decisions be made by the U.S. Congress?

And here are the results. Seventy-one percent of the American people said the DC budget should be decided exclusively by the DC government. Only 23 percent said that the decisions should be made by the U.S. Congress.

What is most gratifying is the way in which these numbers reflect both parties. The polling organization broke down these numbers, and they were careful to ask people from both parties. For Democrats, the notion that the budget should be decided only by the DC government was 71 percent. But Independents were at 75 percent, and Republicans were at 72 percent. So, no matter where my colleagues come from, their constituents support the bedrock principle--no principle is more American--that if you raise the money, you get to decide how to use it. And you certainly don't go to a national body for approval.

And they looked at men and women. 68 percent of men, and 72 percent of women believe that the local government should decide the local budget and be the final decisionmakers.

If you look at regions of the country, Mr. Speaker, they had the same kind of virtually even breakdown in support of local control. If you look at the Northeast, it's 69 percent. You look at the Midwest, it goes up to 74 percent. You look at the South, it's 68 percent. You look at the West, it's 72 percent.

No red-blooded American is going to say, with a straight face, that you can take my local budget with my money in it and make the Congress the final decision-maker on that budget. That's what this poll shows.

The Republicans and the Democrats are virtually even. But more Republicans say that DC budgets should be made by the local DC government; that's 72 percent, 71 percent Democrats.

If you look at those who oppose, the opposition shows the same breakdown. You have 24 percent of Democrats saying Congress should control the DC budget, and you have 22 percent of Republicans.

Where's your majority here?

The majority is where I think most people would have expected it to be. But I am grateful for a local organization called DC Vote for commissioning this poll. And DC Vote realized that the poll might come under some scrutiny, so it went to a polling organization which is known for its bipartisan reputation in polling.

That, of course, should be all we need to hear, but the fact is we have a parallel development right here in the Congress.

This week, Senator Joe Lieberman announced that he was preparing his own budget autonomy bill for the District of Columbia. Now, Senator Lieberman, who works in a very bipartisan way in the Senate--I am so sorry to see that he has decided to retire--has long been the foremost Senate champion of equal rights for residents of the District of Columbia.

The momentum for budget autonomy began with a Republican chairman in the House, Darrell Issa. I will have something to say about how that happened. We then had two more Republican leaders--House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and the Republican Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell--weigh in for budget autonomy for the District of Columbia. This week, citizens from the organization DC Vote were here in the Congress, speaking to Members about the latest poll results. But let me say something about the Members because it's the Members who have the last say here.

As chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Darrell Issa is responsible in the House for matters that involve the District of Columbia. His committee, and I've been here more than 20 years, had never had a hearing on the DC budget. He decided to have one. He listened to his witnesses, and he listened to the chief financial officer of the District of Columbia and to other District of Columbia officials.

What he heard was that the District of Columbia had the largest budget surplus in the United States, here in the middle of a recession, and that its budget and finances were in better shape than those of virtually any State in the United States. He heard the witnesses from his side as well as our side--the Republican side as well as the Democratic side--and from objective witnesses from the outside saying that the major problem the District faces are the inefficiencies and the premiums it pays on Wall Street because its local budget cannot be implemented until it is approved by the Congress of the United States. This creates huge uncertainty, of course, among bondholders and on Wall Street not of the making of our citizens but due to the fact that the Congress has to approve the City's budget.

Now, I can tell you that no one can remember when the Congress of the United States has changed the City's budget itself, and you can imagine why. A budget is a very delicate document to put together, and Congress does not have the kind of hearings you would have here to know what to take out and what to put in and how to sew it back together again. So what's the point of bringing it over here except tradition? The chairman listened to the problems with bringing the D.C. budget to the Congress and heard even more problems than he expected.

School begins in September, but by the time Congress finishes with the Federal budgets, even the earliest

point is September 30. The reason that most jurisdictions are on a July 1 fiscal year and not a fiscal year that begins on October 1, as the Federal Government does, is precisely because of the importance of schools in every jurisdiction. But in the District, our schools and our city are handicapped by the fact that the budget isn't approved by the time school opens.

That impressed the chairman, apparently, and he was impressed by the fact--and I will soon get to this issue--that the District government has faced shutdowns because its budget was here during fights over the Federal budget, which has resulted in the possibility of the shutdown of the D.C. government.

Chairman Issa listened at the hearing and did something I've never seen a chairman of a committee do before in my years in the Congress. He listened so intently, heard so well that he announced as the hearing ended that he intended to write a bill for DC budget autonomy. Everyone was surprised. His staff told us they had no idea in advance. Mr. Issa decided upon hearing the witnesses at his hearing.

That is, I must say to my colleagues and to members of the public, a civics lesson in committee work at its best. The chairman listened. The chairman made a decision. The chairman then went to work.

He worked on several versions of a budget autonomy bill, and exchanged them with me, with the mayor, and with other officials in the city. There were some issues, and we indicated what those difficulties would be operationally. Then, he announced his final proposal for a DC budget autonomy bill. I can tell you that, while it has its own form that clearly bears his signature, in many ways it mirrors my own DC Budget Autonomy Act.

You can imagine how thrilled we were that the chairman of the full committee had, indeed, decided that it was in the best interest of the District of Columbia and in the best interest of the Congress for the District's budget to remain in the District and to be implemented in the same way that the budgets of every other jurisdiction in the United States, except the budget of the District, are implemented. June 30 comes. On July 1, other jurisdictions begin to implement their budget. They prepare for school, and they are ready when school begins.

Mr. Issa's bill came to the attention of the President of the United States. The President had weighed in the year before for budget autonomy, but upon hearing of Mr. Issa's bill, he included in his own budget, which was submitted this year, the following language:

Consistent with the principle of home rule, it is the

administration's view that the District's local budget should

be authorized to take effect without a separate annual

Federal appropriation bill. The administration will work with

Congress and the mayor to pass legislation to amend the D.C.

Home Rule Act to provide the District with local budget

autonomy.

That's the President's statement, inspired by the Republican chairman's proposal for budget autonomy. I know that there are many in this Chamber and in the public who see rare instances--perhaps none--of bipartisan ideas from this Congress. There you see one. You see a Democratic President. You see a strong Republican chairman.

Mr. Speaker, that is not all.

Mr. Issa was moved, in part, to address budget autonomy because of the problems the District has had with Federal shutdown threats. Most of America is aware of the shutdown threats. By the skin of our teeth, we barely missed a shutdown a year ago. No one believes, of course, that the underlying issues had anything to do with the District of Columbia budget. Those issues are well-known. They involve disagreements between Democrats and Republicans over Federal issues like the Federal deficit. The District has long had a balanced budget, and as I indicated before, beyond its balanced budget, it has the highest surplus in the United States.

So why is the District of Columbia caught in Federal fights that lead to the possibility of shutdowns of the Federal Government?

If the D.C. budget is here, if the budget of the District of Columbia is here and has not been passed by the Congress--and it usually is not passed until, of course, the Federal budgets are passed, or certainly no sooner than September 30--then the District of Columbia's local budget gets thrown in the pot with a budget of--for instance--Health and Human Services, the Department of Defense, all of the Federal agencies that get shut down, though there's nothing that the District can do to extricate itself from this fight, because this fight does not involve any concession that the District can make--it involves only Federal issues--nevertheless, the District government will get shut down with the Federal Government.

There were three shutdown threats in 2011. The Federal Government didn't get shut down, although I can tell you it came so close to being shut down I don't even like to think about it. The problem is that every time there is the threat of a Federal shutdown, the local government of the District of Columbia has to spend time and money preparing to shutdown, whether or not it occurs.

Imagine your county, imagine your city pulling people together three times to prepare for a shutdown, to prepare for which agencies can keep going and which agencies to shut down. Because in the event of a shutdown, the only agencies that can be kept in operation are essential agencies. Three times the District of Columbia government had to do that. The District of Columbia is going through the same problems that every local jurisdiction is having as we climb out of the Great Recession. You can imagine what a waste of time and energy that was.

That was one of the issues that made Chairman Issa think through the notion of budget autonomy. I myself have had several bills to keep the District government from shutting down in the case of a Federal Government shutdown. I put in a bill each fiscal year saying that if the Federal Government shuts down, the District can spend its own local funds, no other funds, no Federal funds, nobody can spend those, but its own local funds. Those bills have not passed.

Just 2 months ago, I warned the mayor that we could be headed for a shutdown this year because the Senate and the House have different budgets. An agreement was reached between the two Chambers in the Budget Control Act about the level of spending in 2013. While the Senate has stuck to that number, the House is using another number. So if the two don't agree, and they each come forward with different appropriation bills, the country could be faced again with the possible shutdown of the Federal Government.

That's bad enough for the country, but suppose you were the mayor of the District of Columbia or a member of the city council and had to consider that there could be a shutdown of the District government over the fact that the House and the Senate are using different budget numbers this year? That would be enough to make you, I think, tremble, as I'm sure the District is now as it considers what to do. Of course, Congress is going to try to reach some agreement. But at the moment, they're going in absolutely divergent directions, despite having reached an agreement on what the number would be for the budget this year.

The President, noting these shutdown threats and the cost to the taxpayers of the District of Columbia, did something quite unusual. He not only submitted his views on budget autonomy--that he favored it--he submitted actual language that would keep the District open in case of a shutdown. I would like to submit that language for the record.

The language referred to is as follows:

Consistent with the principle of home rule, it is the

Administration's view that the District's local budget should

be authorized to take effect without a separate annual

Federal appropriations bill. The Administration will work

with Congress and the Mayor to pass legislation to amend the

D.C. Home Rule Act to provide the District with local budget

autonomy.

When the President submits the language to the Congress, that puts a very special emphasis on the need for what he is asking for.

Mr. Speaker, not only have you had the President and Mr. Issa; the majority leader of this body, Mr. Cantor, has indicated that he supports budget autonomy. His spokesman said that ``he is certainly willing to work with the District toward its goal of budget autonomy.'' That's the first time that a leader of my friends on the other side of the aisle has indicated public support for budget autonomy.

This afternoon, I want to thank Mr. Cantor personally for doing so. Mr. Cantor may have been moved by his own Governor. The Republican Governor of Virginia, Governor Bob McDonnell, wrote to Majority Leader Cantor indicating that he supports budget autonomy for the District.

One of the reasons he gave was that 100,000 Virginians come to the District of Columbia to work every day in the private and Federal sector, and that if the District government shuts down, those 100,000 residents from Virginia, who had nothing to do with this fight--just as the District of Columbia had nothing to do with the Federal fight--are seriously inconvenienced.

The fact that these two Virginians from our region have spoken out speaks to the practical reality behind budget autonomy. In addition, the Governor of Virginia made it clear he did not see how the mayor of the District of Columbia could run his city when he could not be certain when his budget would be passed. Here you have one chief executive speaking to another, and both from different parties.

The case we think, Mr. Speaker, has been made. It has been made here by the leadership of this body and the leadership of the Senate, and it has been made in the country as leaders have stepped forward to indicate that the rational thing to do, the American thing to do, if you will, is to respect the right of a local jurisdiction to spend its own local money without coming to a national body which has had nothing to do with raising those funds.

If I could inquire, Mr. Speaker, how much time I have remaining?

I want to summarize how much on the same page Democrats and Republicans are on the proposition that D.C. should control D.C.'s local budget. There's nothing radical about that one, my friends. It would be hard to go out in the street of your city or your county and get a different response.

So it's not surprising, but it's very important to have these poll figures, which back up where Chairman Issa is trying to take us, where Mr. Cantor is trying to take us, where the Governor of Virginia is trying to take us, where D.C. officials, and, I hope, the Congress will come this year. The polls show very gratifying numbers, but they are numbers that reflect where Americans always are. Americans are, first, local people. They want to do as much locally as possible. They understand that there are national issues. They know that one of those issues is not their own local money.

Mr. Speaker, this week, the District of Columbia celebrated D.C. Emancipation Day, and, of course, it's worthy of celebration, when this city was the first jurisdiction whose slaves were freed by Abraham Lincoln. Isn't it amazing that the Nation's capital had slavery in 1862?

But it is very hard to celebrate Emancipation Day in the District of Columbia when your own local funds cannot be spent by your own local people. We raise about $6 billion in local funds. It is a very diverse city of people from all walks of life with all levels of income, and there is absolute agreement across all political lines that the one thing we deserve is budget autonomy.

This year was the 150th anniversary of the liberation of slaves by Abraham Lincoln in the District of Columbia. We noted that the slaves had to be very grateful to be liberated because there was nothing they could do to liberate themselves. Armed struggle was certainly not possible for slaves here or anywhere else. Peaceful opposition to slavery would have brought armed struggle against their peaceful opposition, so they had to wait to be liberated.

The people of the District of Columbia understand it is up to them to liberate themselves, but they, too, cannot free themselves entirely. They do not have a Member who has a vote on the floor of the United States Congress. I vote in committee. I do not have the right to vote for final passage of any legislation.

Yet my residents have been in every war the Nation has fought since the Nation was created. We pay federal income taxes at the highest levels. We're second per capita in federal income taxes among the 50 States and the District of Columbia. So you can imagine that it is with some anguish that we send our own local budget to people we respect but people who have contributed nothing to the money we have raised in our city.

I thank all who have supported us here in the Congress, and I look forward to the day, which I hope will be this year, when there will be budget autonomy for the District of Columbia.

I yield back the balance of my time.

``The following is the actual proposal the president

included in his fiscal year 2013 budget to prevent a D.C.

government shutdown in the event of a federal government

shutdown:''

Sec. 817. Section 446 of the Home Rule Act (D.C. Official

Code sec. 1 204.46) is amended by adding the following at the

end of its fourth sentence, before the period ``: Provided,

That, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,

effective for fiscal year 2013, and for each succeeding

fiscal year, during a period in which there is an absence of

a federal appropriations act authorizing the expenditure of

District of Columbia local funds, the District of Columbia

may obligate and expend local funds for programs and

activities at the rate set forth in the Budget Request Act

adopted by the Council, or a reprogramming adopted pursuant

to this section.'' (Financial Services and General Government

Appropriations Act, 2012.)

Mr. Speaker, as we await a surface transportation bill, I rise to introduce a bill to reestablish a federal grant program for states that desire to develop racial profiling laws, collect and maintain data on traffic stops, design programs to reduce racial profiling, and train law enforcement officers, which I worked to get included in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA LU) in 2005. Despite the fact that the grant program was just a small piece of the very large SAFETEA LU bill, nearly half of the states participated in the program for multiple fiscal years. Racial profiling is a form of racial discrimination that is now back in the forefront of national concern because of the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin.

Racial profiling on roads built with federal funds is a violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, because it amounts to a government subsidy of discrimination. However, while it remains a widespread problem in our country, there is little experience in developing legislation in this sensitive area to address racial profiling while allowing for appropriate law enforcement. My bill would help states to better develop their racial profiling laws and to help law enforcement understand what role racial profiling plays in traffic stops.

My bill imposes no mandates on states. Instead, it simply authorizes a grant program, but does not require states to participate. However, it provides resources that many states and localities clearly need if they are to curb racial profiling.

Mr. Speaker, today, on Emancipation Day in the District of Columbia, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the 150th anniversary of President Lincoln's signing of the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act, which freed 3,100 slaves of African descent in the nation's capital. I have introduced a resolution today in honor of this historic day. The record should also reflect that the District of Columbia Council passed the following resolution in honor of the anniversary:

A Ceremonial Resolution

19-207

In the Council of the District of Columbia March 6, 2012

To recognize and preserve the cultural history and heritage

of the District of Columbia; to formally recognize the 150th

anniversary of District of Columbia Emancipation Day on April

16, 2012, as an important day in the history of the District

of Columbia and the United States in that, on April 16, 1862,

9 months before President Abraham Lincoln signed the

Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863 to begin to end

institutionalized slavery in America, President Lincoln

signed the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act

to release the 3,100 enslaved persons of African descent held

in the nation's capital, making them the ``first freed'' by

the federal government, at a cost of nearly $1 million, in

1862 funds, paid to the people who enslaved them; to

recognize that, after the Civil War, formerly enslaved people

and others commemorated the signing of the 1862 act by

parading down Pennsylvania Avenue in festive attire, with

music and marching bands, proclaiming and celebrating freedom

in the District of Columbia Emancipation Day Parade, which

was received by every sitting President of the United States

from 1866 to 1901; and to recognize that, on March 7, 2000,

the Council of the District of Columbia voted unanimously to

establish April 16th as a legal private holiday, the

Emancipation Day Parade resumed in the nation's capital in

2002, and, on April 5, 2005, District of Columbia

Emancipation Day was made a legal public holiday, recognized

annually on April 16th.

Whereas, on April 16, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln

signed the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act

(``Emancipation Act'') during the Civil War;

Whereas, the Emancipation Act provided for immediate

emancipation of 3,100 enslaved men, women, and children of

African descent held in bondage in the District of Columbia;

Whereas, the Emancipation Act authorized compensation of up

to $300 for each of the 3,100 enslaved men, women, and

children held in bondage by those loyal to the Union,

voluntary colonization of the formerly enslaved to colonies

outside of America, and payments of up to $100 to each

formerly enslaved person who agreed to leave America;

Whereas, the Emancipation Act authorized the federal

government to pay approximately $1 million, in 1862 funds,

for the freedom of 3,100 enslaved men, women, and children of

African descent in the District of Columbia;

Whereas, the Emancipation Act ended the bondage of 3,100

enslaved men, women, and children of African descent in the

District of Columbia, and made them the ``first freed'' by

the federal government during the Civil War;

Whereas, nine months after the signing of the Emancipation

Act, on January 1, 1863, President Lincoln signed the

Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, to begin to end

institutionalized enslavement of people of African descent in

Confederate states;

Whereas, on April 9, 1865, the Confederacy surrendered,

marking the beginning of the end of the Civil War, and on

August 20, 1866, President Andrew Johnson signed a

Proclamation Declaring that Peace, Order, Tranquility and

Civil Authority Now Exists in and Throughout the Whole of the

United States of America;

Whereas, in December 1865, the 13th Amendment to the United

States Constitution was ratified establishing that ``Neither

slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for

crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall

exist within the United States, or any place subject to their

jurisdiction'';

Whereas, in April 1866, to commemorate the signing of the

Emancipation Act, the formerly enslaved people and others, in

festive attire, with music and marching bands, started an

annual tradition of parading down Pennsylvania Avenue,

proclaiming and celebrating the anniversary of their freedom;

Whereas, the District of Columbia Emancipation Day Parade

was received by every sitting President of the United States

from 1866 to 1901;

Whereas, on March 7, 2000, at the Twenty Seventh

Legislative Session of the Council of the District of

Columbia, Councilmember Vincent B. Orange, Sr. (D Ward 5)

authored and introduced, with Carol Schwartz (R At Large),

the historic District of Columbia Emancipation Day Amendment

Act of 2000, effective April 3, 2001 (D.C. Law 13 237; D.C.

Official Code 1 612.02a, 32 1201), and on that same date

moved an emergency version of the legislation that

established April 16th as a legal private holiday;

Whereas, the District of Columbia Emancipation Day

Emergency Amendment Act of 2000, which established April 16th

as a legal private holiday, was passed unanimously by the

Council on March 7, 2000, and signed into law on March 22,

2000 by Mayor Anthony A. Williams;

Whereas, on April 16, 2000, to properly preserve the

historical and cultural significance of the District of

Columbia Emancipation Day, Councilmember Orange hosted a

celebration program in the historic 15th Street Presbyterian

Church, founded in 1841 as the First Colored Presbyterian

Church;

Whereas, on April 16, 2002, after a 100 year absence, the

District of Columbia, spearheaded by Councilmember Orange

with the support of Mayor Anthony Williams, returned the

Emancipation Day Parade to Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., along

with public activities on Freedom Plaza and evening fireworks

(D.C. Official Code 1 182);

Whereas, the District of Columbia Emancipation Day Parade

and Fund Act of 2004, effective March 17, 2005 (D.C. Law 15

240; D.C. Official Code 1 181 et seq.), established the

Emancipation Day Fund to receive and disburse monies for the

Emancipation Day Parade and activities associated with the

celebration and commemoration of the District of Columbia

Emancipation Day;

Whereas, the District of Columbia Emancipation Day

Amendment Act of 2004, effective April 5, 2005 (D.C. Law 15

288; D.C. Official Code 1 612.02(a)(11)), established April

16th as a legal public holiday;

Whereas, on April 16, 2005, District of Columbia

Emancipation Day was observed for the first time as a legal

public holiday, for the purpose of pay and leave of employees

scheduled to work on that day (D.C. Official Code 1

612.02(c)(2));

Whereas, April 16, 2012, is the 150th anniversary of

District of Columbia Emancipation Day, which symbolizes the

triumph of people of African descent over the cruelty of

institutionalized slavery and the goodwill of people opposed

to the injustice of slavery in a democracy;

Whereas, the Council of the District of Columbia remembers

and pays homage to the millions of people of African descent

enslaved for more than 2 centuries in America for their

courage and determination;

Whereas, the Council of the District of Columbia remembers

and pays homage to President Abraham Lincoln for his courage

and determination to begin to end the inhumanity and

injustice of institutionalized slavery by signing the

District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act on April

16, 1862;

Whereas, the alignment of the (1) election of the first

African-American President of the United States, Barack H.

Obama; (2) dedication of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Memorial; (3) groundbreaking for the National Museum of

African American History and Culture; (4) 150th anniversary

of the District of Columbia Emancipation Day; and (5) 150th

anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1,

2013, are historically important for the District of Columbia

and for the United States; and

Whereas, the 150th anniversary of District of Columbia

Emancipation Day is a singularly important occasion that

links the historic Presidency of Abraham Lincoln with the

equally historic Presidency of Barack H. Obama, as the first

President of the United States of African descent.

Resolved, by the Council of the District of Columbia, That

this resolution may be cited as the ``District of Columbia

Emancipation Day--150th Anniversary Recognition Resolution of

2012''.

Sec. 2. The Council of the District of Columbia finds the

150th anniversary of District of Columbia Emancipation Day is

an important, historic occasion for the District of Columbia

and the nation and serves as an appropriate time to reflect

on how far the District of Columbia and the United States

have progressed since institutionalized enslavement of people

of African descent. Most importantly, the 150th anniversary

reminds us to reaffirm our commitment to forge a more just

and united country that truly reflects the ideals of its

founders and instills in its people a broad sense of duty to

be responsible and conscientious stewards of freedom and

democracy.

Sec. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon

the first date of publication in the District of Columbia

Register.

Well, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I did not know of the Emancipation Day of the Virgin Islands. I reciprocate and want to know more about the Virgin Islands' Emancipation Day. I want to thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands who handles these Special Orders for the Congressional Black Caucus on the floor, for the time and effort you have given this evening.

I want to thank my colleagues who have come down so far for this hour. You've just heard from my good friend, the Congresswoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee). I thank her for her remarks, and I thank her, as well, for mentioning Emancipation Day here in the District of Columbia, where thousands of residents marched down Pennsylvania Avenue today to claim the rights that every constituent of every Member who pays taxes in the United States already enjoys. I know that I speak for the District when I thank all of you.

And when I say that John Payton was a very, very devoted Washingtonian who would have particularly appreciated Emancipation Day today, I thank Congresswoman Barbara Lee, whose words always are important to hear as she probes the issues of the hour, and especially what she had to say tonight about John Payton. My condolences, first, to my good friend, Gay McDougall, John's wife, and to his siblings and his family. A memorial service was held today, so it's fitting that we should be able to get this hour to say a few words in tribute. I would like to devote my words to both the man and the lawyer. John was my constituent and my friend. It's important to get a feel for the man.

If I may inquire how much time we have remaining in this hour?

Mr. Speaker, there have been only six leaders of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund since Thurgood Marshall first went on the bench. You can imagine what quality of lawyer it takes to fill the role that Thurgood Marshall had at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.

John Payton was worthy of the role, worthy to become the sixth leader of the Legal Defense Fund.

If one looks at John's professional credentials, you would have thought that's enough of a life for a man, considering particularly that he is an African American who went to college and law school when blacks were only beginning to be admitted to the best colleges and law schools in the country. Before his life was over--much too early--John had been listed on this decade's list of most distinguished lawyers in our country. He had been president of the District of Columbia Bar.

John's life and work, of course, are etched in important Supreme Court cases. However, we, in the District of Columbia, feel especially the loss of John Payton because John Payton was--what was called Corporation Counsel is now called Attorney General of the District of Columbia. He took that post when he was asked by the Mayor to leave private practice in order to become the lead lawyer in the District of Columbia.

To understand John, though, one has to see how this extraordinary man melded his love of the law--including private practice--with the love of his professional life, civil rights. It's clear that John laid down an early marker for what his life would become, that it would be a life dedicated to eliminating racial discrimination.

John went to Pomona College in 1965 when these colleges were just admitting talented African Americans. He found himself at an elite private college surrounded only by people who were not at all like him--they were like him in many ways, but certainly not from his racial background. There were very few African Americans in his college and in the five colleges in Claremont, California, that group of very fine private colleges. So, John began early, right in college, to lobby the administration to recruit more African American students. And of course he wanted a black studies program because he saw that perhaps one of the reasons that there was so little interest in black students is there was too little appreciation for the role of African Americans in our history, so he lobbied for that too.

He pressed the admissions people to in fact recruit more African Americans. And he lobbied so hard the college asked him to take the job. So John, after he insisted that more African Americans be recruited, took the job himself and delayed going to law school. That was John Payton.

He went on to Harvard Law School, but he couldn't leave behind his dedication to human rights. He got involved in the very famous-- infamous, one might say--school busing controversy in Boston. While he was a law student, he found himself taking affidavits from black students who were injured because of racial violence in Boston.

In law school, he joined the editorial board of the Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review. You see the theme developing in John's life. Of course, many students have these themes, and we're pleased that they have them when they do, but there's nothing that says you've got to devote your life to any particular cause, and particularly if you're an African American and experiencing the first opportunities to, for example, join private law firms.

John did just that. He went on to practice corporate law here in Washington, D.C. at a prestigious law firm when it was rare for blacks to practice privately at elite law firms. He moved

up to head litigation in his law firm. And then he did something that describes how John Payton put together all of the ingredients of the life of a man of the law: he took leave from the law firm to become Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia. He recognized that he had been taking civil rights cases as a private lawyer pro bono, and, yes, he could come and serve his city as the lead counsel.

He met his wife, an Africa expert, interestingly enough, when he was monitoring elections in South Africa. And that was, as my good friend from Texas has said, a meeting that was made in heaven, perhaps--and she did not say it that way, I say it that way--because it's one of those wonderful marriages which bring together people of like heart and like mind.

John, of course, will be remembered for his work in many ways at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. For example, John continued to take the Legal Defense Fund along the road it had traveled so well as lead law firm and lead litigator for civil rights in our country; but he recognized that the Legal Defense Fund had already won many of the most important cases and that, therefore, the fund had to stay relevant, stay current. To quote him, when asked about whether he thought the problems of African Americans could be solved through litigation, he said:

I'd say we have a litigation focus, and some of our focus

is not litigation. With some things, you want to achieve a

solution without filing a lawsuit. You can go to the relevant

entities, a school board or mayor, and suggest a solution

without having to file a lawsuit.

Here is a man who brought from private practice problem-solving of many varieties, just the man for the Legal Defense Fund in this era.

Of course, John Payton will be remembered for cases of great importance. Sometimes the case needed a lawyer with such a fine technical sense of the law that all of the civil rights, issues revolved around whether you could find a lawyer whose mind was fine enough to tackle such an issue.

Lewis v. City of Chicago was such a case where African American firefighters filed a lawsuit charging discrimination by the city against African American firefighters. The city conceded that it had given an examination which had a disparate effect on minorities in violation of Supreme Court cases, but it argued a statute of limitations issue, that therefore John Payton and his African American plaintiffs could not continue.

It took a lawyer--a lawyer's lawyer--to take that case, argue that statute of limitations issue, go before the Supreme Court and get this Supreme Court to unanimously reverse the lower court, which had found that the statute of limitations voided the case.

Today, one of the core sections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is under attack. If that law goes down, we will be set back 50 years. It's the core provision of the Voting Rights Act that requires States which have engaged in intentional voting discrimination in the past to bring all of their voting laws--laws that impact voting rights--so that they can be pre-cleared by the Justice Department before they go into effect.

Northwest Austin Municipal Utility v. Holder was such a case, 8 1 decision upholding section 5.

It is impossible to overemphasize how important John Payton's victory was in sustaining this core provision of the Voting Rights Act. He did it and won a great victory for civil rights.

John Payton also was lead counsel in a case that is still very much discussed, a case, like a similar case that is going before the Supreme Court this very year. I'm speaking of the University of Michigan case, where the plaintiff sought to eliminate affirmative action in higher education, in both law and undergraduate schools. There was great trepidation that much of the progress that had been made over 25 years would end prematurely.

John handled these cases in the lower courts and argued the cases at the Supreme Court as well. The Court upheld the use of race as a factor, one factor, not the only factor, and affirmative action in higher education was saved.

I also would like to submit for the Record a piece written by a colleague and friend of John Payton, Joshua Wyner, W-Y-N-E-R. Joshua Wyner wrote a short piece after John Payton died which details one occasion that summarizes the principled nature of John's life. He was on the board of an organization called Appleseed, which does good works for the District of Columbia.

The District of Columbia had a financial control board during a period when the city was going through a financial crisis. The control board took control of the D.C. Board of Education.

The D.C. Board of Education had a terrible reputation. Its members engaged in infighting in order to keep half-empty schools open, for example, and all agreed the Board had done little for education in the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining? I want to leave some time for my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, the control board reached out to take control of the board of education. It had control of virtually every other arm of the D.C. government.

But John Payton and the board of Appleseed knew that the law which set up the control board gave it no authority to take over the board of education. It was an elected body. What to do?

Appleseed very much opposed the board of education. Yet, the control board had done an illegal act, except nobody knew it but technical lawyers or people who paid attention to the fine letter of the law.

The Appleseed board engaged in the appropriate debate as to whether it should sue the control board for illegal action in taking over the board of education. John Payton cast the deciding vote for the lawsuit, and he did so because, he said, he did not want to be part of an organization that failed to stand for the rule of law.

Note how John Payton handled this dilemma. He knew that the board of education didn't stand by the children. What he did, as a member of the Appleseed board, was to settle the case, ultimately returning power to the school board, and then went to work restructuring school governance, giving governance to the Mayor and eliminating the board of education.

So you see what John did. He stood for principle on both occasions. He found a principled way to keep the control board from exceeding its authority, illegally, and he found a principled way to eliminate the D.C. school board without using illegal means.

That is the principled life that John Payton lived. That is why he has left a vacuum in this city where he lived and in the law which he loved.

He said he never regretted leaving corporate law. Remember, while he practiced it, he was also doing pro bono cases for civil rights. But he never regretted leaving private practice, he said, because the best possible job for a man like John Payton was the job he had when he died.

John Payton said, on the 70th anniversary of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, when everybody was joyful, as well they might have been, for there is no organization that has done more for human rights in our country than the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF). While celebrating the LDF John Payton, its president, its director counsel, said, It's a mistake to celebrate too much about things accomplished when we see that some of the progress has been very uneven.

John was a man of great balance. He understood that, as he said, that African Americans had made extraordinary progress in the 70 years since the NAACP Legal Defense Fund was established, but that what had led him to civil rights in the first place continued and must continue to drive us.

The best way that we can remember our friend, his work, and the man himself is to understand that what he would want us to do is to find a way to help complete the work he was about at the end of his life. His inspiration to young lawyers, his inspiration well beyond the law was so significant that I say to my good friend from the Virgin Islands that I believe that we will have no hesitation, we will find no hesitation in the larger community in seeking to do all we can to continue the work that was the center of the life of John Payton.

We celebrate that extraordinary life today. We celebrate a great life in

American law. We celebrate a great Washingtonian. We celebrate all that John did and was as a man. We mourn his early passing. We celebrate and are grateful that in the time given to him he accomplished so very much.

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 30, 2012]

John Payton's Life of Principle

(By Joshua Wyner)

John Payton, who died March 22, was a great friend not only

to our nation but also to the place he called home the

District of Columbia. To his local and national work, John

brought an incredible combination of brilliant thought, deep

commitment to principle and unswerving dedication to

improving the lives of those who most needed help.

Everyone who loves Washington should take a moment to

observe this tremendous loss and remember a great man.

I met John in late 1995, when he and the other four members

of the original D.C. Appleseed Center board hired me as

executive director of the nonprofit, which works to solve

pressing problems facing the city. At the end of Appleseed's

first full and quite successful year, the organization faced

an enormous dilemma--one that could have sent the

organization down the wrong path.

The triggering event took place in November 1996, when the

congressionally created financial control board took over the

District's public school system.

With fiscal management of the city improving, everyone

committed to bettering the city knew that ground zero for

reform had to be the District of Columbia Public Schools,

where few kids received the education they needed to succeed

in life. There was no evidence that the D.C. Board--of

Education which was better known for fighting to keep open

half-empty school buildings in members' wards than for acting

to improve curriculum or teaching--could attract, hire or

retain a superintendent who could lead needed reforms.

Yet the control board's takeover was almost certainly

illegal. The structure of the school board was written into

the city charter, which also contains provisions for how the

charter itself can be amended. Nothing in the law authorizing

the control board allowed it to change the charter.

Appleseed had a choice: Give in to urgency and follow the

straightest path to reform or stand for principle and fight

an illegal action by an unelected body. After a lengthy

debate, the Appleseed board chose--by a single vote--to sue

the control board to reverse the takeover. John cast the

deciding vote. He knew from his days as D.C. corporation

counsel that desperately needed reform almost certainly would

not be led by the school board. But he also made emphatically

clear that he (I still recall his words) ``would not be part

of an organization that failed to stand for the rule of

law.''

Appleseed filed suit and eventually settled with the

control board, which returned power over the school system to

the school board. Then Appleseed began a project to properly

change the governance of the schools. Our research and

advocacy helped pave the way for the enactment of a law--

approved by referendum--to fundamentally restructure school

governance, including a sunset clause that ultimately led to

the mayor's assuming responsibility for DCPS. In the end, our

city benefited more than would have been possible had the

control board succeeded, because the structural change that

took place ultimately led to improvements in student outcomes

that have long outlived the control board.

Originally opposed to the lawsuit, I learned a great lesson

from John (and his colleague Alan Morrison, who filed the

lawsuit): Successful pathways to needed reforms can and must

be grounded in principle.

I had the great privilege of working with John in recent

months on a project to improve our nation's community

colleges, where so many of the African American students that

John cared deeply about are trying to gain the skills they

need to succeed in life. As with everything else he worked

on, he asked (and helped answer) the tough questions,

demanded adherence to principle and pushed toward solutions

that would improve the lives of vulnerable Americans.

Our city and nation are much better off for John's time

here. His presence will be missed, but it will also endure in

the many people whom he showed how to find thoughtful

solutions to persistent problems and ground those solutions

in principle.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The American people will be puzzled by why we can't get out what has traditionally been the most popular bill, the transportation bill. And they will hope that we're not on a road to the 20-plus extensions that we had with the FAA bill. It won't do to say, like two kids: You did it, too; therefore, we can do it.

None of us should have done it.

But in any case, we know we don't have to do it this time because the Senate has passed a bill that we could pass as well. So we know the compromise can happen because they've passed a bill with more than two- thirds of their own house, including many Republicans, signing on.

Compromise is possible if you believe in compromise, and I'm afraid that this bill shows that we have a majority that does not. They are on record saying that they must have 218 votes from their caucus alone. That says to the American people, we need to pass a bill that will have only people from our party voting for it. But, the Senate has passed a bill with both parties compromising. Which is the party that does not believe in compromise? You always have to compromise.

There is not a whole lot of difference in the amount of money in these bills; $52 billion per year for the House, $54 billion per year for the Senate.

The problem is poison pills. The problem is not treating the transportation bill as it has always been treated, as a bipartisan bill. The problem is not caring that you are effecting the recovery if you pass a series of 90-day bills.

We should be speeding the recovery instead of hanging, clinging to a bill that would kill half a million jobs.

It's time to compromise. This side is holding out its hand for a compromise. We need colleagues on the other side to hold out theirs.

Mr. Speaker, as the cherry blossom season begins, bringing thousands of Americans here, I rise to reintroduce the United States Commission on an Open Society with Security Act of 2012. The bill expresses an idea I began working on when the

first signs of the closing of parts of our open society appeared after the Oklahoma City bombing, well before 9/11. This bill grows more urgent as an increasing variety of security measures proliferate throughout the country without any thought about the effects on common freedoms and ordinary public access, and without any guidance from the government or elsewhere. Take the example of government buildings. Federal building security has gotten so out of control that a tourist passing by a Federal building cannot even get in to use the restroom or enjoy the many restaurants located in areas otherwise devoid of such amenities. The security for Federal buildings has too long resided only in the hands of non-security experts, who do not take into account actual threats and, as a result, spend lavish amounts of taxpayer dollars on needless security procedures. For example, several years ago, Government Accountability Office investigators carried bomb-making materials into 10 high-security Federal buildings and then assembled them in the bathrooms. This scandal shines a light on the failure to use risk-based assessments in the allocation of resources.

The bill I reintroduce today would begin a systematic investigation that fully takes into account the importance of maintaining our democratic traditions while responding adequately to the real and substantial threat that terrorism poses. To accomplish its difficult mission, the bill authorizes a 21-member commission, with the President designating nine members and the House and Senate each designating six members, to investigate the balance of openness and security. The commission would be composed not only of military and security experts, but, for the first time, they would be at the same table with experts from such fields as business, architecture, technology, law, city planning, art, engineering, philosophy, history, sociology, and psychology. To date, questions of security most often have been left almost exclusively to security and military experts. They are indispensable participants, but these experts cannot alone resolve all the new and unprecedented issues raised by terrorism in an open society. In order to strike the security/access balance required by our democratic traditions, a diverse group of experts needs to be at the same table.

For years, parts of our open society have gradually been closed down because of terrorism and the fear of terrorism, from checkpoints on streets near the Capitol, even when there are no alerts, to applications of technology without regard to their effects on privacy.

Following the unprecedented terrorist attack on our country on 9/11, Americans expected additional and increased security adequate to protect citizens against this frightening threat. However, in our country, people also expect government to be committed and smart enough to undertake this awesome new responsibility without depriving them of their personal liberty. These times will long be remembered for the rise of terrorism in the world and in this country and the unprecedented challenges it has brought. We must provide ever-higher levels of security for our people and public spaces while maintaining a free and open democratic society. Yet this is no ordinary threat that we expect to be over in a matter of years. The end point could be generations from now. The indeterminate nature of the threat adds to the necessity of putting aside ad hoc approaches to security developed in isolation from the goal of maintaining an open society.

When we have faced unprecedented and perplexing issues in the past, we have had the good sense to investigate them deeply before moving to resolve them. Examples include the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission), the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (also known as the Silberman-Robb Commission), and the Kerner Commission, which investigated the riots that swept American cities in the 1960s and 1970s. The important difference in this bill is that the Commission seeks to act before a crisis-level erosion of basic freedoms takes hold and becomes entrenched. Because global terrorism is likely to be long lasting, we cannot afford to allow the proliferation of security measures that neither requires nor is subject to advanced civilian oversight, or analysis of alternatives and repercussions on freedom and commerce.

With no vehicles for leadership on issues of security and openness, we have been left to muddle through, using blunt 19th century approaches, such as crude blockades, unsightly barriers around beautiful monuments, and other signals that our society is closing down, all without appropriate exploration of possible alternatives. The threat of terrorism to an open society is too serious to be left to ad hoc problem-solving. Such approaches are often as inadequate as they are menacing.

We can do better, but only if we recognize and come to grips with the complexities associated with maintaining a society of free and open access in a world characterized by unprecedented terrorism. The place to begin is with a high-level commission of experts from a broad array of disciplines to help chart the new course that will be required to protect our people and our precious democratic institutions and traditions.

I want to thank the gentlelady from New York for the consistent leadership she has given to this important legislation since it was passed. It took us a number of years to get it passed in the first place, and it's never been off her radar screen.

I especially want to thank my good friend from Wisconsin, who has come forward in a very compelling way to ask that we vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can consider the Violence Against Women Act, which may well expire, making it--I fear--a real target for the Appropriations Committee because the law will not have been reauthorized.

Mr. Speaker, I visited a safe house last week in my district because I wanted to hear why a woman would make the decision to stay at home with an abuser rather than leave. I'm not sure I understood in my heart why she would assume the risk rather than leave. I'm glad I went. There were eight women there, different ages. Some had children. For the first time, when I heard the stories of these women, I understood in the most poignant and practical way what a ``hotline'' actually means, what a ``rape crisis center'' means. After that experience, the notion that when this legislation expires, the Appropriations Committee would have before it unauthorized appropriations, which become a target in and of itself, was just too much to bear. Yet the reauthorization bill has gone nowhere here. At least in the other body, the bill has been passed out of committee. It is a bipartisan bill, with several Republicans as well as Democrats on it.

Ms. Moore's amendment essentially does no more than incorporate the Senate bill, which is tailor-made for our consideration, because in keeping with the way in which reductions are taking place--20 percent is very painful--but there is a 20 percent reduction in the reauthorized act, even though with any reauthorization you would expect an increase. Yet even with that reduction, we cannot get the bill on this floor. So we must do what we're doing this afternoon.

If you want to talk about a bill that is worth the money, there are very few bills where we can show the kind of cause-and-effect that we can show here. There has been a 50 percent drop annually in domestic violence. And the reason for that is there's been over a 50 percent increase in reporting. Women are not afraid to come out because they know that if they report it, go to the police station, the police will tell them where there is a safe house.

Don't leave women out on the streets. Don't leave their children with no place to go. Vote ``no'' on the previous question in order to allow the House to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, which I think would receive bipartisan support if it were heard this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Van Hollen for his brilliant and balanced work on the budget.

Shakespeare's sonnet says, ``Let me count the ways.'' I am finding it difficult to count the reasons to oppose the Republicans' unbalanced, no-growth budget that threatens to send us back into a recession.

But when the tightest fist in the Federal Government, the OMB, says that the Republican budget would, and here I'm quoting, make it ``extraordinarily difficult for the Federal Government to do its basic business,'' I listen.

The Federal Government, Mr. Chairman, is labor intensive. When the OMB says that there will be 4,500 fewer Federal agents on the border, working criminal cases and performing national security, I listen.

When the OMB says we won't be able to meet basic standards for food safety, I am listening.

We simply cannot keep freezing pay for Federal employees, which amounts to deep cuts or replace every three with only one employee and expect to continue protecting the American people at the same time.

The Republican budget kicks Federal employees while they are down and kicks their vital work right along with them. It guarantees the growth of the unaccountable contractor sector, which remains untouched in the Republican budget.

So much for the phantom savings at the expense of Federal employees.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the National Cherry Blossom Festival and the Centennial Celebration, commemorating the 100-year anniversary of the gift of trees and the enduring friendship between the United States and Japan.

Each year, the National Cherry Blossom Festival heralds the coming of spring and produces diverse and creative programming promoting traditional and contemporary arts and culture, natural beauty, and community spirit, showcasing the best of Washington, DC to the world.

More than one hundred years ago, the combined vision of unlikely partners led to the world-renowned majestic cherry trees that line the Tidal Basin in our nation's capital. Eliza Scidmore, the National Geographic Society's first female board member, Dr. David Fairchild of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, First Lady Helen Herron Taft, Mayor Yukio Ozaki of Tokyo, and Dr. Jokichi Takamine, goodwill ambassador, world-famous chemist, and the founder of Sankyo Co., Ltd. (today known as Daiichi Sankyo), all worked together to bestow Washington, DC with more than 3,000 cherry trees in 1912. This gesture of goodwill was honored in a simple ceremony on March 27, 1912, when First Lady Taft and Viscountess Chinda, wife of the Japanese ambassador, planted the first two trees at the Tidal Basin. Today, the trees are a national treasure enjoyed by millions, and, as First Lady Taft envisioned, a wonderful backdrop for cultural and community events of all kinds.

Today, the National Cherry Blossom Festival unites the region for over one million visitors each spring, who look forward to signature events like the National Cherry Blossom Festival Parade, world-class entertainment, cultural performances and more, primarily free and open to the public. Our Nation's greatest cultural institutions participate, including the National Gallery of Art, The Kennedy Center, and Smithsonian, with over 50 area organizations participating in total.

The National Cherry Blossom Festival greatly benefits the nation's capital. The Festival generates over $126 million annually for Washington, DC, and has received many accolades and international recognition.

Among the many special commemorative initiatives to mark the historic Centennial Celebration, the Government of Japan has designated the Centennial Celebration an official anniversary event. The United States Postal Service has issued Cherry Blossom Centennial Forever stamps, and the American Bus Association has named the Centennial Celebration the top event for group travel in 2012. Millions of people have enjoyed the National Cherry Blossom Festival, and millions will continue to create cherished memories here in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the work of the National Cherry Blossom Festival and the message of peace, friendship, and international understanding it carries on each year during the Nation's greatest springtime celebration.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for leading this Special Order for our good friend and colleague, Donald Payne, whose passing leaves me shocked and deeply saddened after his 12 terms of outstanding service in the House of Representatives.

Don was a friend. He was more than a colleague. He was the kind of friend you could always strike up a conversation with about matters technical or just matters at hand because Don was easy of manner but strong of conviction.

Don was a real path breaker and history maker. He came to Congress as the first African American to serve in Congress from the State of New Jersey. He followed the great Peter Rodino, who had served Newark for decades. Newark had become a majority African American city, but Don grew up in a neighborhood that was as Italian as it was black and felt comfortable with people of all ethnic groups.

When Congressman Rodino, who was then chair of the House Judiciary Committee, retired--this was, of course, before I came to Congress, but it was much commented upon--Don, who had run against him several times and was the logical person to win that seat, plunged into his work for a city that needed a man of his depth of understanding and conviction of their problems, their education, their health care, their housing needs.

For Newark, when the Congressman came here 12 terms ago, personified, symbolized the great urban communities of our country and the upheavals that they were undergoing. He plunged into that work, and yet he was able, at the same time, to become perhaps the House's most expert Member on Africa and the Caribbean.

Don was a leader on Africa, who did not work from the newspapers or the journals, but traveled the continent and came back with firsthand information. For the Congressional Black Caucus, Don was the go-to man. Nobody from the caucus moved on a matter affecting Africa without going to Don

first. Go to the expert first, find out if you're on the right foot, and then perhaps move forward.

Don was rigorous in his evaluation of the leadership of the various countries of Africa. He never withheld when an African leader needed the strong criticism of the United States and his own strong criticism. Thus, his leadership was trusted all across the Congress when he stepped forward with his views. He worked with every President because Republican and Democratic Presidents alike have been involved in the issues affecting Africa; and they, like us, turned to Don on those issues.

Where will we find such a Member today? Is there such a Member who has devoted so much of his life not only to urban America, but especially to Africa, who knew everything, knew everyone, and knew anything we needed to know?

Don will be greatly missed by this Chamber. He will always be remembered. I know I speak for us all when I say that his family has our deepest sympathy and our everlasting love.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1710 and am pleased to speak in support of the bill that names the United States courthouse located at 222 West Seventh Avenue in Anchorage, Alaska, as the James M. Fitzgerald United States Courthouse.

Judge James Martin Fitzgerald is considered one of the founding fathers of law in the State of Alaska. He dedicated his life to public service and was well respected throughout the Alaskan legal community. Judge Fitzgerald was a World War II veteran, serving in both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marines. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and an Air Medal for his military service and was honorably discharged in December 1946.

After his military service, Judge Fitzgerald earned his LL.B. and B.A. simultaneously from Willamette University and graduated in 1951. Soon after graduation, Judge Fitzgerald was appointed as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Ketchikan, Alaska, and Anchorage, Alaska, earning a reputation as a prosecutor willing to take on corruption in law enforcement. In 1959, he was appointed by the governor of Alaska as the legal counsel for the State, and shortly thereafter was appointed as the State's first commissioner of public safety. Judge Fitzgerald was later appointed as a Superior Court judge in 1959 and in 1972 to the Alaska Supreme Court.

In 1975, President Gerald Ford appointed Judge Fitzgerald as the first district judge for the District of Alaska. Nine years later, Judge Fitzgerald was appointed chief judge for the District of Alaska, where he served until he assumed senior status in 1989. Judge Fitzgerald continued to serve as a judge in Alaska and on the Ninth Circuit until his death on April 3, 2011. In total, Judge Fitzgerald spent 53 years on the bench. Because Judge Fitzgerald took on his first judicial appointment the same year as Alaska achieved statehood, he had a unique role in shaping all Alaskan jurisprudence.

Because of Judge Fitzgerald's service as a member of the U.S. military and his contribution to the Alaskan and the U.S. legal community, it is appropriate to designate the United States courthouse located in Anchorage, Alaska, as the James M. Fitzgerald United States Courthouse. I commend my colleague from Alaska who sponsored this bill for his recognition of the judge, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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