Floor Statements

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I come to the floor today to begin a series of half-hour conversations containing information that I believe many Members of our House simply do not have, especially considering how often the Constitution and the Framers are cited. I have no reason to believe that there is any intention on the part of any Member to deny democracy to any American citizen in our great country.

So during these half-hour Special Orders, I will be offering some evidence and information that go back to the Framers and come forward into the era when the District of Columbia was granted home rule in order to try to inform Members of the standing of the District of Columbia, which is often referred to as the ``Federal district.''

It, of course, is not a Federal district. It is a hometown of more than 600,000 residents, which has been granted full and complete authority to govern itself--too late, of course, but finally. It was too late in this era, but not too late in the history of the country because, as the country began, the citizens, indeed, at that time had that right.

The Framers, of course, were confronted with a dilemma. They wanted a capital to be located here in the District of Columbia, and they wanted that capital to have the same rights as any other Americans. They had had an experience in Philadelphia of some concern, when veterans had marched on that capital, about who would defend the capital. They tried to sort out this dilemma and thought they had by creating the District of Columbia--whose residents would have the same rights as every other American citizen, but giving the Congress authority over the District. Let me indicate how that happened.

No one who has any knowledge of the history of our country can believe that the Framers fought against taxation without representation for everybody except the people who happened to live in the Nation's Capital. That would be sacrilege to say that of the great Framers of the Constitution, particularly since people from this very area, now known as the District of Columbia, went to war on the slogan of ``no taxation without representation'' and fought and died under that slogan. They didn't go and die under that slogan so that everybody but themselves could be freed from England and have full democracy.

It is also clear from looking at the Constitution that there were two Maryland and two Virginia signers who made clear that in the land they gave to the District of Columbia they weren't giving away their citizens' rights. So their citizens in Maryland and Virginia, during the 10-year transition period, in fact, voted for Members of this body and had the right to vote in Maryland and Virginia.

Some would call what Congress has done in the intervening years an abuse of power. I believe it is a failure to come to grips with what the Framers intended. In Federalist 43, James Madison says from the very beginning that there would be ``a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages.'' That's, of course, the man and the document we rely on when we need some legislative history about the Constitution.

It is very important to note that the first government in the city of Washington was established in 1802 when the District of Columbia became the Nation's Capital. At that point, contemporaneous with the Constitution, there was a city council elected by the people of the District of Columbia to fully govern this city the way the districts and the jurisdictions of the Members of this body are fully governed. In 1812, the city council was permitted to elect the mayor. Before that, the mayor was appointed. In 1820 and thereafter, the mayor was elected by the people. That continued until 1871.

It should be said that the status of the District of Columbia, until home rule was granted, was constantly a part of the mix, the long, tortured part of our history about racial segregation. Many of the perpetrators who denied home rule were Southern Democrats. It was only when a Southern Democrat who chaired the ``District Committee'' was defeated, after the Voting Rights Act was passed, that the District was granted home rule in 1973.

So this has not been a matter of party. If anything, the Republican Party had much cleaner hands until recently when, for its own purposes, it adopted the posture of deciding that there would be home rule when it wanted and that violates every standard, every principle of the Framers and Founders when members simply step in and try to abolish democratic policy and laws enacted by a local government to which they are not accountable.

It's important to note that when the Home Rule Act was passed in 1973, the first line said that the purpose was to ``restore'' to the citizens of the District of Columbia, ``restore''. Those words, I think, were chosen with great meaning and understanding of history, ``restore'' because it was clear that the people who lived in this city had every right of every other American citizen before the city was created, that those from Maryland, Virginia, who gave the land, saw to it that these rights were preserved. Only in the political maneuverings of the Congress itself has that right been at risk, but that right has never been at risk except for Members of Congress who did not adhere to the principles of full democracy for every citizen of the United States.

The purpose of the Home Rule Act was to restore, not to create, rights. Congress can not create rights for people born in this country. The rights are given with their citizenship.

Now the District of Columbia, if one looks at the Home Rule Act, and the trends of all of the legislation preceding the Home Rule Act, was never given partial home rule except when Members of Congress from other jurisdictions decide they want to make changes in the District. That is found nowhere in the Home Rule Act, and that flies in the face of every principle of those who created the United States of America and those who died under the slogan of ``no taxation without representation.''

We created a very diverse democracy, and we have held it together through a principle of local deference and local control. We have people in one part of the country who detest some of the laws and policies in another part of the country, but the first thing they will do is honor local control and the right of local citizens to elect people who are accountable to them. When those who are not accountable to them want to get something done they must go to those who are, indeed, accountable to them.

Congress thought about what enacting home rule would mean. It said, there are some specific exceptions. Congress did not leave it to the discretion of Members of this body to decide what those exceptions would be. Congress, in fact, did something very specific with respect to those exceptions because it understood that once home rule is granted, there would be differences between the local legislature and the Congress of the United States. So it said, this is what we mean, and this is what we do not mean.

These limitations on the District and its council need to be rehearsed and need to be understood by anybody who

believes in democracy as a principle here in the United States, as much as we believed in it when all of us stood up for democracy in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East and around the world. We have got to make sure that we're not seen as hypocrites since we are the first to rise when there is democracy that is ignored elsewhere, and appear to deny it in our own country. That is something the world will never understand.

The Congress, recognizing the differences, spelled out what the exceptions would be, and you can imagine why the exceptions were there. They have almost nothing to do with anything that a local legislature would want to enact. Occasionally they do, and the District simply cannot do it because it's in the Home Rule Act, and the District does not do it because it's in the Home Rule Act.

For example, the District of Columbia cannot impose any tax on the property of the United States or any of the several States. Well, that's important because the property that is most valuable, the property that would yield the most revenue, is located in the center, the monumental core of the capital, and the District of Columbia would not have a thing to worry about if it could tax that property. It cannot be done.

The District of Columbia cannot lend the public credit, the credit of the local jurisdiction, for support of any private undertaking. The District cannot impose any tax, partial or whole, on the personal income of individuals who are not residents of the District of Columbia.

Now, I emphasize that one, because that's one that local citizens particularly resent. It's a ban on a commuter tax. What it means is, if you come into the District of Columbia to work, as hundreds of thousands do from the surrounding region, use the resources, the roads, partake of the same public amenities that residents do, nevertheless, said the Home Rule Act, the District of Columbia may not impose any commuter tax.

Well, the District, of course, resents that because there are commuter taxes all over the United States. But the District isn't asking to overturn the Home Rule Act; it's simply asking the Congress abide by the Home Rule Act. Maybe at some point Congress would want to reconsider this matter. I think my good friends of both parties from Maryland and Virginia would not want this matter reconsidered.

At the moment, I haven't heard anyone say out that this is the reason that you find people in the District of Columbia engaging in civil disobedience. It is when Congress intervenes into the local affairs of the District of Columbia. Yes, the commuter tax is a local matter, but it involves other Americans.

The Home Rule Act says Congress wants you to have as much--I'm trying to be fair--those who wrote it would say, we want you to have as much jurisdiction, as much authority over your own business as you can. Once you go to taxing those from another region, well, we are going to draw the line.

Well, the District resents it, but there is at least a theory for why that was done. There is no theory for trying to overturn a law of the District of Columbia simply because you disagree with it, pure and simple, no theory that can be mustered and certainly not from the Framers, who were clear that every citizen of the United States, including those who lived in the Nation's Capital, would have the full democracy they fought for in the Revolutionary War.

The Home Rule Act contains a height limit. Although many in the city would like to build high, the Home Rule Act recognizes that the monumental core has its own Federal meaning because that's where the monuments and the Capitol are, and they did not want those buildings which are central to our identity as a Nation overpowered by the tall buildings, even skyscrapers, we see in other big cities. But there, frankly, has not been a great deal of concern about that. Indeed, D.C. has its own height limit. The height limit helps the city when it comes to tourism. We, too, want everyone to see the monumental core, although you will find a healthy number of citizens here who would like to build as they build in other cities.

We are not trying to overturn the Home Rule Act now; we are trying to get observance of the Home Rule Act. And when you pass a law that says, for example, no District funds may be used on something because it offends your personal predilection, you then are violating the most basic principle of any democracy, and that is why I have come to the floor and will be coming to the floor throughout the year.

The District of Columbia may not enact any regulation or law having to do with any Federal court, any court of the United States. That's true of any jurisdiction. And there are a number of others. The District of Columbia cannot enact any law having to do with the National Zoo. That's a Federal zoo. I'm not sure why someone was concerned about that, but that's in the Home Rule Act. And you're not going to find the District Mayor or city council or residents going to the streets over the zoo.

They went to the streets because they passed a law that Members of this House sought to overturn--and with respect to at least one of them have succeeded--and that brings shame on our democracy, because if you were to ask the citizens of the United States or of any place in the world whether or not any Member of this body should be able to overturn a law passed by the local government of the District of Columbia in a democratic fashion, you would find almost nobody in this country who would say yes, and you would find almost nobody in the world who would say anything but, You cannot be serious; you, who preach democracy all over the world. If these are your principles, the place and the time to apply them is right here, right now, at home.

It is interesting to know that there was a lot of controversy until finally the Home Rule Act was passed, and it is no accident that the Home Rule Act was passed during the period of the sixties and the seventies when the great civil rights laws were passed. The country came to understand that you can hardly have civil rights laws and then have people in your own capital who have no mayor, no city council, no right to vote for local government, no vote in this body and still call yourself a democracy. All of that came together in the sixties and the seventies.

I'd like to refer to two Presidents from that era, the so-called home rule era. You will find that every President of the era--in the postwar era--agreed with the notion that the District of Columbia should have unlimited right to self-government except for the express and specific exceptions in the Home Rule Act. It was Richard Nixon who signed the Home Rule Act. President Lyndon Johnson, in his message on home rule made these comments:

Our Federal, State, and local governments rest on the

principle of democratic representation--the people elect

those who govern them. We cherish the creed declared by our

forefathers: No taxation without representation. We know full

well that men and women give the most of themselves when they

are permitted to attack problems which directly affect them.

Yet the citizens of the District of Columbia, at the very

seat of the government created by our Constitution, have no

vote in the government of their city. They are taxed without

representation. They are asked to assume the responsibilities

of citizenship while denied one of its basic rights. No major

capital in the free world is in a comparable condition of

disenfranchisement.

He laid it straight out. How did this happen? Well, the Congress got a conscience from time to time and there were periods when the District had its full home rule. This is one of those periods. The Congress does not intervene into the life of this city--except when individual Members disagree with its actions.

Let me read from Richard Nixon, who signed the Home Rule Act:

The District's citizens should not be expected to pay taxes

for a government which they have no part in choosing--or to

bear the full burdens of citizenship without the full rights

of citizenship. I share the chagrin that most Americans feel

at the fact that Congress continues to deny self-government

to the Nation's capital. I would remind the Congress that the

Founding Fathers did nothing of the sort. Home rule was taken

from the District only after more than 70 years of self-

government, and this was done on grounds that were either

factually shaky or morally doubtful.

It is morally doubtful for any Member of this body to assume he or she has the right to tell the citizens of the District of Columbia how to govern themselves unless you are a member of

the local body that governs the District of Columbia. If that is a principle which applies to your district, it must apply to mine. So we greatly resent that we are allowed to govern ourselves except when some Member decides that some matter would be controversial in his district, so, therefore, he wants to deny the District the right to carry out that matter after that matter has become a matter of local law. Every Framer would turn over in his grave to recognize that we could come to the 21st century with such provisions.

Congress took action in the 110th and 111th Congresses to remove prohibitions on the District's use of local funds for medical marijuana, for needle exchange, and for abortions for low-income women.

In the 112th Congress, Republicans re-imposed the ban on the use of local funds for abortion. Who do they think they are? They are accountable to no one in the District of Columbia. They are in straight, sure violation of every principle of the founding document.

I believe that in good faith many Members, especially newer Members, are simply not aware of this history and not aware that it is grounded in the Framers' documents themselves. That's why, instead of assuming that any Member of this body would intentionally deny democracy to any American, I think the way to proceed is for this American, this Member, this representative of the people of the District of Columbia, to come forward on occasion with information and material that I hope Members will take under advisement.

I thank the Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank the chairman of the full committee for his generosity. I want to thank my friends on both sides of the committee for their assistance with H.R. 3902, especially the chairman of the full committee, my good friend, Mr. Issa, and the chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Gowdy, for working closely with us on this bill.

I also want to thank my good friends on our side, the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Cummings, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Davis, for their considerable support and assistance.

Mr. Chairman, like you, I will be brief because you and I are the only ones here who have a vote in committee on this matter.

The District of Columbia Special Election Reform Act is similar to the legislation I introduced last Congress, which, with the help of the chairman, was passed without objection by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and, with his help, quickly got to the full House for a vote.

Final enactment of the bill was prevented not by this House, but by an anonymous hold in the Senate, which fortunately no longer allows such holds in that Chamber.

This bill is of great importance to the District of Columbia, particularly now that the city council is faced with an example of a vacancy that this bill was designed to address--and had the bill been passed by the Senate, could have been addressed. However, instead of holding the special election that we are now required to hold on April 3, the day of the city's primary, the District must hold a special election on a different day, 1 month after the upcoming primary election, at a cost to the city of an additional $318,000.

Although this bill, therefore, cannot take effect before the upcoming special election, the bill will provide the District with the flexibility in the future to conduct elections without the redundancy of coming to Congress and without unnecessary cost to the city.

The District of Columbia Special Election Reform Act makes minor changes in the District's Home Rule Charter to provide the city greater flexibility to conduct special elections for vacancies in the office of Mayor, attorney general, council chair, and other members of the District of Columbia Council.

Current law requires that a special election be held on a rigid date, the first Tuesday occurring more than 114 days after a vacancy, offering the District no flexibility.

By the way, Mr. Chairman, there were complaints when the District of Columbia had a special election some time ago that the election had to be held on a religious holiday. The District had to say, We can't do anything about it, because it couldn't change the date itself.

Instead, this bill would establish a range during which a special election may be conducted. That range would be between 70 and 174 days, giving the District the necessary flexibility to make a special election coincide with an already scheduled election, reducing the chance the city would have to schedule costly multiple elections or do so in too short a time period, and allowing the city to maximize voter turnout, for example, by not scheduling the election on a religious holiday, and to reduce the time period when residents are without representation.

Mr. Speaker, this noncontroversial bill, which the committee passed by voice vote, provides the District with the necessary flexibility for holding timely and cost-effective special elections. It involves no cost whatsoever to the Federal Government.

The District of Columbia Special Election Reform Act is of little, indeed, no concern, I dare say, to the Congress. But the D.C. Council cannot amend the Home Rule Charter which spells out procedures and structural matters for setting up the District, so the Mayor and the council had to come to me to introduce this local bill.

Mr. Chairman, you indicated that such bills are not exactly congressional material. I hope that you and I can work together on a broader D.C. charter reform bill to give the District the authority to amend such local matters, such trivial local matters, as far as Congress is concerned, on its own, saving Congress from having to spend the time, its very valuable time at that, on uniquely local procedural matters affecting only the local government, the District of Columbia.

I urge passage of the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

I thank the chairman again for the haste with which he was able to get this bill heard today.

I have no further speakers, and I am pleased to yield back the remainder of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, this bill is a tragic exercise. It's a waste of time, and here's why. This is probably the only chance for a jobs bill this year, but it destroys almost 600,000 jobs. This bill is the only chance for every State to start on its backlog of projects for roads and bridges and transit, but it has cuts for every State except for five States. This bill is the only opportunity for Federal funding for mass transit across the country, but the bill defunds the Federal allocation for mass transit funding that began with Ronald Reagan.

This bill is the only major piece of Federal legislation that has paid for itself with user fees, but this bill uses Federal employee pensions from hard-pressed middle-income workers to subsidize roads for almost 300 million Americans. This bill was the only chance this year for a bipartisan bill based on the long history of bipartisan Transportation and Infrastructure bills, but it is rife with poison pills that guarantee that it will be stillborn.

Historically, the Transportation and Infrastructure bill has been our most popular bill. Even before coming to the floor today, this bill has received thumbs down across the Nation. That's what it should get here, too.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And I think, Mr. Speaker, in the next several days and weeks you're going to see people come forward to speak up for the silent majority in this controversy about contraception and what institutions should and should not provide. Whoever has been a silent majority, today it is the women of America, particularly women who may happen to work for Catholic hospitals, for a Catholic university as I did, for example, when as a Protestant I worked as a tenured professor of law at Georgetown University here in Washington, DC.

The Catholic Church has long accepted the laws against discrimination except as to the Church itself and the Church's own activities. And so you'll find in a Catholic hospital or Catholic university you must hire people regardless of their race or religion and the like.

Now, the Church seems to be seeking a different rule on how you accommodate religion. We have accommodated the Catholic Church when it comes to hiring its own employees, for example. And the administration has accommodated the Catholic Church when it comes to the provision of contraceptives for its own church employees.

However, there are hundreds of thousands of women and men who work for hospitals, for universities, and other institutions that hold themselves out as nondiscriminatory and as accepting all people. For that reason the Church, of course, qualifies for Federal funds because it is accepted, as acting as a public institution in the place of a public institution.

We have a long and treasured history, Mr. Speaker, of religious accommodation. When I chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I recall the many cases in which we tried to err on the side of religious accommodation, but the accommodation must never be so broad as to trample on the rights of others. To accommodate the institution and not accommodate the people whose conscience is being trampled, of course, is precisely what the Constitution does not allow.

A broad accommodation to the Church that would relieve it of offering a health care service that is essential would penalize the rights of thousands of non-Catholics. So whatever the right of the Church is, it does not have the right to trample on the rights of others. That's how accommodation works.

The administration's own exemption is patterned on identical religious exemptions that have been tested in the courts and found to be constitutional.

I think the administration was looking at two things when it fashioned a very, very generous exemption for the Church in the health care law. First, it was looking for what was necessary to do as vital to the health care of women, but it was also looking to what was constitutional.

Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, I believe the broad exemption which the Catholic Church seeks which would penalize the rights of thousands of women who work for catholic-affiliated institutions who are not Catholic who do not share their views, whether or not they are Catholic, on this issue, if such an exemption were to be granted, then the administration, it seems to me, would find itself engaging in an unconstitutional exemption.

The administration has accommodated the Church. It has fulfilled its obligation to see to it that women have a vital health care service, and it has prevented an unconstitutional violation.

I am pleased to yield now to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, the party line from Republican leaders is that Republicans agree on a payroll tax cut holiday; they just need to find a way to pay for it. But Republican Members speak a different language. Georgia Republican Paul Broun told the press: ``The payroll tax holiday is just a gimmick to get Obama re-elected.''

That would be news to the average American family who will see its taxes increase by $1,000 on March 1 without a payroll tax agreement.

The press reports a serious Republican split with only a 50/50 chance that Republicans can get their Members to agree on a payroll tax deal. Line that 50/50 Republican split up against their near-unanimous opposition to having wealthy and corporate taxpayers contribute one dime to deficit reduction.

I'll leave it to the Republican leadership to reconcile these issues and their caucus. Meanwhile, the clock ticks louder each day. Republicans have 22 days to make up their minds on whether every worker who draws a paycheck deserves a tax cut.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the District of Columbia Special Election Reform Act. I introduced similar legislation last Congress, which passed without objection by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the full House. Final enactment of the bill was prevented, however, by an anonymous hold in the Senate, which is no longer allowed in that Chamber. This bill is of great importance to the District of Columbia, particularly now as the District of Columbia Council is faced with the sort of vacancy that this bill is meant to address. The District has to hold a special election just one month after the primary election, which will cost the city an estimated $318,000. Although this bill will not take effect before the upcoming special election, the bill will provide the District with the flexibility in the future to conduct fair elections without such redundancies and unnecessary costs. The District of Columbia Special Election Reform Act is of little concern to Congress, but the D.C. Council cannot amend the Home Rule Charter. All of the provisions in the bill have been passed or approved by the District of Columbia.

The District of Columbia Special Election Reform Act makes minor changes to the District's Home Rule Charter to provide the city greater flexibility to conduct special elections for vacancies in the office of mayor, attorney general, Council chairman and other members of the District of Columbia Council. Current law requires that a special election be held on the first Tuesday occurring more than 114 days after a vacancy. The bill would establish a range during which a special election may be conducted, between 70 and 174 days, to reduce the gap in local representation, while also allowing the Board of Elections to take into account important factors when scheduling a special election, such as maximizing voter participation and avoiding conflicts with religious and culture observances.

I very much appreciate the opportunity to work closely with the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa to develop this bill, and look forward to the bill being signed into law.

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property Realignment Act.

Both Democrats and Republicans agree that we need a system to dispose of and consolidate excess Federal property. I have worked diligently with the

chairman for such a bill for most of this year. However, the bill before us does not reflect the bipartisan compromise I agreed to. Moreover, I have just learned that the President also opposes the bill, and apparently, it does not even reflect a compromise among Republicans.

I opposed this bill in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and it passed on a party-line vote. The bill before us today is essentially the same bill that I opposed at the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee markup. Shortly after that markup, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on which I also serve, approved a bipartisan alternative bill by voice vote, which I supported because it did not have the issues I have with the bill before us today.

Why was the Transportation and Infrastructure bill rushed to the Rules Committee on Friday and quickly brought to the floor today?

Why didn't we take the time to craft a bill that could pass the House with bipartisan support and that could stand a chance to pass in the Senate?

Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, why isn't the bipartisan bill that I agreed to before us on the floor this evening? When I testified before the Rules Committee on Friday, I indicated that I would support the bill if the protections in existing law for the environment and the homeless were included in the bill. These protections are not included in the bill.

The Rules Committee reported out a bill with no self-executing amendments. Instead, they made several amendments--including mine--in order for full consideration. I could have done that all along. There are no assurances whatsoever that my amendments would be adopted on this floor. The only way to ensure that my amendments were included in the bill would have been for the Rules Committee to have adopted a rule that made my amendments self-executing and, therefore, a part of the bill before us today.

I will not stand here today to support a bill I've consistently opposed at Transportation and Infrastructure Committee markups on a hope and prayer that my amendments would have been adopted on the floor. I will not offer, as amendments, provisions I had every reason to expect would have been a part of the bill reported out of the Rules Committee. To offer my amendments separately is to greatly risk their defeat while the bill before us, which I oppose, still passes. I will not be used to give bipartisan cover to this bill or to paper over a divide among Republicans.

The subcommittee that I serve on had two excellent hearings on the creation of the Civilian Property Realignment Commission. I support the original bipartisan idea of assembling a Civilian Property Realignment Commission, but there are several portions of H.R. 1734 before us on the floor right now that do not reflect a revised bipartisan bill. I have consistently attempted to make the needed changes to this bill, and they were unacceptable at the full committee markup and then at Rules, where my changes were not incorporated into the bill on this floor today.

As subcommittee ranking member, I was not informed that if I wanted the changes in the bill, I would have to offer my amendments separately on the floor. Who would have agreed to that as a bipartisan compromise?

I have been consistent in offering amendments to this bill to eliminate the waiver of the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, and the inclusion of a review of excess Federal property for homeless service providers and other public benefit conveyances by the Civilian Property Realignment Commission that would have been created by this bill.

Curiously, the chairman now brings to the floor his own amendment concerning homeless providers which mirrors the homelessness section of the amendment assigned to me, but he does not include in his amendment the NEPA provision section of my amendment to which he and I agreed in order to reach a compromise.

The bill, as it stands, severely limits the review of Federal property for a possible transfer to homeless providers and other public benefit conveyances by the Civilian Property Realignment Commission. By bypassing McKinney-Vento in the disposal process, the bill unnecessarily reduces the pool of Federal properties available for transfer to homeless service providers. In these difficult times, extinguishing the right of first refusal for homeless providers would be a severe blow to a sector that has already had to contend with a huge downturn in charitable giving during the recent recession. The experience, moreover, with homeless service providers is that they take only the smallest properties. And I had already agreed to shorten the time period for providers to claim properties.

Secondly, the bill, as reported, would waive the application of the National Environmental Policy Act to some actions of the commission which I have always strongly opposed. Section 18(b) waives compliance with NEPA for the actions of the President, the commission, or any Federal agency when considering any of the commission's recommendations, except during the process of property disposal and during the process of relocating functions from a property being disposed of or realigned to another location.

It is important to carefully conduct the environmental review on any decision to close, relocate, or reconfigure a Federal facility in time for the commission to consider the full implications of its actions. The current language precludes a full review of the actions until after the decision to sell or dispose of a piece of Federal property has already been made. This problem could have easily been fixed by including language that required agencies to submit information about the environmental conditions of a building and any information that the agency might have had about the potential impacts to the environment if a property was disposed of, consolidated, or redeveloped. Therefore, I must oppose the bill before us, and I urge opposition until a bipartisan base bill reflecting the issues I have discussed is presented on the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I hope the gentleman is not implying that I do not keep my word, and let me be clear what my word was. I gave my word that I would support a bipartisan bill, not that I would support the opportunity to offer amendments on the floor.

The gentleman knows quite well that the NEPA amendment is an amendment that his side generally does not support. Let me be plain. They generally don't support NEPA. The reason that the gentleman was willing to somehow come forward with what would appears to be a redundant amendment on homelessness--since mine already had homelessness in it--is because he wanted to separate himself from the NEPA amendment, and he knows full well that I would never support his bill without the NEPA provisions that I have spent months--months-- changing.

This is a tragic collapse of what had been a bipartisan process until we went to the Rules Committee, when somebody made it clear, when somebody made it clear--and I don't know who it was--that this bill could be brought forward, the very bill I voted against, leaving it to this Member to take her chances that the other side of the aisle would support an amendment of the kind they have resolutely refused to support on the floor but that she believed that because a compromise had been worked out with the chairman, they might on this occasion support. I keep my word as well.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

I will take such time as I may require.

I wish that the chairman--he and I have had a very cordial and an amicable relationship. I only wish that he could guarantee that my amendments would, in fact, pass. I'm afraid that, watching his caucus in operation for a full year when they could not even agree whether or not the United States Government should go into default, I can't blame him for not being able to guarantee they will pass. But let me say why taking my chances that they would pass, even given his good faith hoping they would pass, is not enough.

If he, in fact, wanted to make sure that the amendment passed, then he, of course, would be on the amendment. Instead, he does something curious indeed. He looks at my amendment, dissects it, takes the part of the amendment that he regards as less controversial--and on his side of the aisle--both parts will be controversial, but the least controversial part--and he says, I take this part, it's exactly like the homeless part of the so-called Norton amendment, but the other part that I testified to in Rules Committee he is not identified with that amendment on this floor.

Now, I ask Members, what would you think if the chairman had gone with you to Rules saying he supported the amendment, and then when we got to the floor was willing to stand up--sorry--went to the trouble of pulling out one section of my amendment only to claim as his own? Why wouldn't he simply embrace my amendment?

Worse, why wouldn't he have made sure that this was a bipartisan bill so that I would not be put in this position? And this is important to understand. If I bring up my amendment separately and it goes down, what will be before the House is essentially the bill I voted against in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Do I look like a fool?

I voted against the bill that is on the floor today. In all good faith, the chairman cannot guarantee that the full bill with the changes that he and I agreed to will be the bill that, in fact, emerges here this evening. In fact, let me be even more blunt. What is more likely to emerge here this evening is the original bill that I, in fact, opposed on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The only way to make sure that my major objection, which was to NEPA, is included in the bill would have been for this bill to come forward with what I agreed to in the bill already. For me to have to come to the floor to beg that a part of this bill which was central to my agreement to support it now get a vote, especially from a side of this Chamber which has consistently voted against sections like the section that is at issue here, is to defy--is not to understand how to put together a compromise.

If you have a compromise and you come to the floor, you don't take out part of what the compromise was about, leaving the other part so that she can fend herself on the floor knowing full well that the chances of getting that part of the amendment passed are, based on past experience, are not very great.

So the reason I oppose it is because I believe that perhaps, and I don't know if other amendments on the Democratic side would be accepted or not, but I believe that as it now stands, the bill will look essentially like the bill that I spent all year opposing because my major reasons for opposing it have not been incorporated in the bill that will be the final bill voted on. And if I

were to depend only on an amendment on this floor to get this provision, which has always been controversial on their side in the bill, then I don't think there's anybody on that side would guarantee that on their side my amendment with the NEPA provision would, in fact, pass.

In that event, what I would be left with is the very bill that I have voted against for an entire year, and that is why I object to the way in which this bill has been handled.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I want the bill you and I agreed upon, Mr. Chairman, and that was the bill that had NEPA in it and that had homeless in it.

And let me ask you, why did you come forward with an amendment that only has the homeless in it, that is the exact mirror image of the homeless section of my bill, but you did not include the NEPA section?

Well, I don't agree that we're past the midnight hour, but I agree that we're past the point of no return.

The gentleman wanted to talk about cost. This bill costs $68 million, a great deal more than another bill that I do support, the Oversight and Government Reform bill. I serve on that committee as well. I was willing, since this bill was coming to the floor first and since I had worked with the gentleman on this bill all along, to support this bill, but I don't think you can make the case that this bill is less costly than the Oversight and Government Reform bill. I would have thought that my colleagues on the other side would have gotten together to work that problem of two different bills out for themselves.

My chief regret is to have spent a lot of time and effort and conversation that I believed was getting somewhere. Perhaps it was all a big misunderstanding. But if it were, if that's what it was, we certainly informed the other side about my concern before we came. That concern remains.

I don't have any further speakers. I regretfully cannot support the bill before us.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I support the Carnahan amendment, and I just want to indicate what the agreement was with the chairman.

In the base bill, we would have a bill that Democrats and Republicans would support. What we have here is a bill that somehow Republicans are divided on and that Democrats are expected to somehow carry over the finish line. If, in fact, this bill had come as a base bill, I think you would have had Democrats in larger numbers supporting this bill. Whatever Republicans wanted to do with the fact that the base bill did not always conform exactly to what they would have wanted would have been made up for on our side.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the achievements of African American women throughout our nation's history.

The Association for the Study of African American Life and History, ASALH, selected the achievements of African American women as its theme for 2012. ASALH has issued a statement, which I bring to the Floor.

``African American women have played a myriad of critical roles in the making of our nation. Their labor and leadership, their motherhood and patriotism, and their intellect and artistic expression have all enriched both the African American community and the Nation at large. In slavery and freedom, their struggles have been at the heart of the human experience, and their triumphs over racism and sexism are a testimonial to our common human spirit.''

``Many know of the accomplishments of a few prominent historic figures: Phillis Wheatley, the unlikely American patriot during the Revolutionary War, Harriet Tubman, the leader of the Underground Railroad from slavery, Ida B. Wells, the unyielding opponent of lynching, Rosa Parks, the mother of the modem Civil Rights Movement. Black women have been notable for standing against oppression. From Gwendolyn Brooks to Toni Morrison to Rita Dove, they have distinguished themselves in American letters, and in recent years they have been recognized as actors and recording artists with Academy Awards and Grammys.''

``The accomplishments of these exceptional women are the expressions of a vibrant culture in which African American women play a singular role. The labors, struggles, organization, and sacrifices of common women have made possible the prominence of heralded individuals. In churches, community groups, literary societies, sororities, and advocacy organizations, African American women have been the core of organized black life, but here their strivings have often escaped the gaze of the public, and hence their history is too little known.''

``Their story is unique in the annals of American history. Black women were held as slaves and middle-class black women labored while their counterparts were housewives. Subjected to a long history of stereotypes about their sexuality, morality, spirituality, and intellect, African American women have never succumbed to victimhood and have pressed forward to uplift themselves, their families, and their community.''

``To gain an understanding of the history of African American women is to broaden our understanding of a people and the American Nation. The Association for the Study of African American Life and History dedicates the 2012 Annual Black History Theme to exploring African American women's roles in and contributions to the making of America.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the work of African American women throughout our nation's history.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the historic Woodland Cemetery located in our nation's capital, one of the only remaining 19th centaury African American burial sites.

Woodland Cemetery was established as the successor to Graceland Cemetery, which decided to relocate due to the imminent expansion of the District of Columbia. Woodland cemetery initially interred the more than 6,000 African Americans who were buried at Graceland, but as time went on, the location became more desirable for prominent figures in the D.C. African American community. The cemetery is the final resting place for such notable individuals as, Blanche K. Bruce, the first African American U.S. Senator; Mercer Langston, the first African American President of Virginia State University and the first dean of Howard University Law School and also the first African American Member of Congress from the state of Virginia; and John Willis Menard, the first African American elected to Congress. There are also many other distinguished people, who made our country what it is today, buried on this hallowed site

Woodland Cemetery remained a highly desired location for African Americans to be interred until the 1970s. In the early 1990s Woodland earned the distinct honor of being placed on both the District of Columbia's Inventory of Historic Sites and the National Register of Historic Places. Today, the daily operations of the cemetery are entrusted to the Woodlawn Cemetery Perpetual Care Association, which is comprised of mostly volunteers who have loved ones buried there. The main focus of the association is to preserve the cemetery and to raise funds to renovate and restore prominence to this sacred site.

I ask the House to join me as we recognize the historic value of this hallowed place not only in the month of February but year round.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, Washington is the headquarters of the Congress. It is not the headquarters of Federal employees. Eighty-five percent of them live in other cities and in towns and suburbs.

Let's all agree that deficit reduction is a priority, and that it is appropriate to lead from the top. Nor should Federal employees be exempt from this leadership by example. But it starts at the top, not at the bottom of the Federal workforce.

These Federal employees live under often greatly differing costs of living, depending on where they live in the country. It is up to us to lead by example, not Federal employees, although they should not be exempt from this leadership role.

However, it is an unfair ruse to compare the most-favored Federal employees, Members of Congress, with the least favored, Federal employees across the board. Some are paid a great deal, some are paid very little, some come from high-cost areas of the country, some come from low-cost areas of the country.

Most of our constituents will understand who we were voting for and who we were voting against.

Democrats have a long history of respecting civil servants. Republicans have spent years deriding them in good times and bad. They know full well also that Congress would not dare take a raise now, and they know that Federal employees should not become, as they apparently have, the proverbial piggy bank for all-purpose deficit reduction.

We have had two freezes that were almost automatic on Federal employees. That's the very reason why this bill should be sent to committee to determine what is fair now in the third year after $60 billion in cuts.

Precisely because there have been two almost automatic freezes with no hearings, it is time to send this bill to the committee to determine what is fair for Federal employees. Have they contributed enough or, using my standard, leadership by example, should they contribute more? If you want to lead by example, Members of Congress should stand up and ask for a freeze for themselves, by themselves, like men and women.

Mr. Chairman, could I make a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. Chairman, could I make an inquiry at this time?

I ask the Chair: Is it true that there will be no more Members heard on this issue after 5:40?

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Speaker, we have here one for the books. The Democrats offer a 100 percent private-sector solution to the most costly health care crisis affecting the American people, and Republicans want to repeal it. This is going to go down in history.

The Obama administration is a victim of its own honesty. It, in good faith, put the CLASS Act into the health care bill knowing that we can't do without it. Then the administration looked carefully at the cost factors, and it did the right thing. It informed the Congress that it was suspending implementation of the CLASS Act. It certainly did not repeal it or ask for its repeal, nor should we. Here is why: the Medicare crisis before us, as I speak, is dwarfed by the long-term care crisis.

We know it because that crisis, the CLASS crisis if you will, is already here.

That crisis, my friends, is long-term care. Who pays for it? We pay for it. We, the taxpayers, because Medicaid pays for it. They're coming at an increasing clip because the fact is that the number of Americans who are living longer, who don't have the resources themselves, grows exponentially. Government is now paying 100 percent.

Let's look at the CLASS Act. That is a 100 percent privately financed plan. It means that we should all, not wait for long-term care to be needed when we would have to ask the government, through Medicaid, to pay for nursing home care. We should begin now to take care of our own long-term needs.

What are you going to do if we don't have the CLASS Act--pass off the elderly who are in the nursing homes? To where? To whom?

Clearly, the CLASS Act is the only solution, unless you want the Federal Government to continue to pick up the loss for those who need long-term care, and that is what people in nursing homes are there for. Only 8 percent of Americans buy long-term care insurance.

I bought long-term care insurance, and then I was a little concerned to read that people who have bought long-term care insurance find they are not going to get what they thought they paid for.

I think this House ought to be having hearings on what is out there now if we want to encourage people to buy their own long-term care insurance. We are doing none of that. We are not encouraging people to do what the CLASS Act would encourage them to do. Instead, we are saying repeal this private sector solution.

That makes no sense, because when the crisis comes, the elderly are going to come to us. They are going to say they have no long-term care; they want what the last generation had. You spend down your resources and then Medicaid picks it up. That's the solution on the table now. If you want a private solution, this is golden. It is in law.

We should grab it, keep it, have hearings on it. How can we make it feasible? Thank the administration for deciding not to implement it. They had an alternative. They could have allowed it to lie dormant, gone on with the rest of the health care bill. Instead, they told the truth.

Now we are here trying to repeal it, knowing full well that when the crisis is upon us, we will never be able to put forward a private, 100 percent private solution because it will be too late.

Take this for what it's worth. You have a bird in hand.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois. This compromise only reminds me of how much I regret that he has decided to retire. He was such a valuable chair of our subcommittee and member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I can only wish him all the good fortune his extraordinarily productive years in the Congress have earned him.

But I thank both sides of the aisle for this short-term extension, short-term, I am assured, to wrap up some details. This is a bill that is really a great deal more bipartisan than it would appear. Yes, there were some tough items, as in any piece of major legislation.

I do regret the major reason for the standoff. This bill, it seems to me, could have been before us long ago but for at least one provision which could have been settled, and that was the provision in the bill that would have insisted that no-shows be counted in labor elections, the no-shows be counted as for one side or the other. And in this case, they would have been counted as a ``no'' vote against joining the union.

You know, you could argue just the opposite, that if you really were against the union, you're the ones who show up. So it seems to me that was a thumb on the scale, but you don't know how it would come out. And some kind of compromise has been reached on that. I will have to wait on that compromise. But I'm very pleased that we've moved ahead on a compromise because the President had said over and over again he was going to veto the bill if it had that provision in it. So since we knew it was going to be vetoed, it was up to us to get to a compromise much earlier and to get on to other tough issues in the bill. And I recognize that more time is needed on those issues.

One of those issues, by the way, has to do with just how much traffic we are going to tolerate at Reagan Airport, with the idea that if an individual Member from the west coast would prefer the convenience of landing at Reagan, then the whole bill should bend in that way. I ask that we consider----

So, in winding up the bill, I ask that we keep in mind the fact that a very fragile compromise has been reached to allow the three other airports in this region and the economic assumptions involved to divide up the air traffic as has been allowed.

I also want to say that when we get to these union provisions, do remember that in every society, one of the cardinal tests of whether or not you have a free society is whether there is a right to organize a union.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the Tuskegee Airmen for their excellence in aviation, their courage, and their role as trailblazers for equality. On January 20, 2012, the movie ``Red Tails,'' which depicts the story of the Tuskegee Airmen, debuted nationwide.

The story of the Tuskegee Airmen, as they would become known as, begins long before they fought in World War II. Their first fight began at home, against racial discrimination. Prior to WW II, the U.S. Army Air Corps prohibited African Americans from serving as pilots, because the U.S. government believed that African Americans were incapable of flying an airplane. In October 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt ended the ban on African Americans serving as pilots in the Air Corps. However, it was not until January 1941, in response to pressure from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Chicago Defender and other African American newspapers, and only one day after Howard University student Yancey Williams threatened to sue the Secretary of War because the Air Corps still had not accepted any African Americans pilots, that the War Department created an all-black squadron in Tuskegee, Alabama, the U.S. Military was racially segregated at the time. Soon thereafter, the Airmen received a visit from First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. During the visit, she asked Charles ``Chief'' Anderson, the head of the program, ``Can Negros really fly airplanes?'' Chief Anderson replied: ``Certainly we can; as a matter of fact, would you like to take an airplane ride?'' Mrs. Roosevelt accepted and upon landing, she turned to Chief Anderson and said, ``I guess Negros can fly.''

By the spring of 1941, the training of the first group of Tuskegee Airmen, the 99th Fighter Squadron, commenced. The squadron consisted of 13 African American men, all of whom were college graduates and had earned their pilot licenses prior to serving in the Air Corps. The Airmen trained under difficult conditions, from overcrowded classrooms and airstrips to racist officers. In 1943, the Airmen were sent to North Africa, and Europe to fight. In their first mission, they managed to shoot down six German aircraft.

The Tuskegee Airmen were known as the ``Red Tailed Angels'' because of the red paint on the propeller and tail of their planes. In all, approximately 990 men graduated from Tuskegee's pilot training program but only 450 of them were sent overseas for combat assignments. These heroes managed to destroy over 409 German airplanes and 950 railcars, trucks, and other vehicles. The Airmen flew, 1,578 missions over Europe and North Africa, escorted more than 200 bombing missions, and were the first to sink a battleship using only machine guns, remarkable accomplishments for a group of men whom the military thought could not fly. In total, the Red Tails were awarded 150 Distinguished Flying Crosses, 744 Air Medals, 8 Purple Hearts, and 14 Bronze Stars. The accomplishments of these brave soldiers helped pave the way for President Harry Truman's decision to integrate the military in 1948. In 2007, several decades after they completed their last mission, President George W. Bush presented the Congressional Medal of Honor to the Tuskegee Airmen, a well-deserved recognition for a group of men who had to fight two battles, one at home and another abroad.

Not surprisingly, there are currently 31 Airmen living in the D.C. Area. Residents from the District of Columbia, particularly students from Dunbar High School, the-then segregated public high school for black students here, were selected in a disproportionate number as Tuskegee Airmen.

I ask the House to join me in honoring the accomplishments of the Tuskegee Airmen and in thanking them for their service.

Mr. Speaker, if I asked the average American, what should be the first vote in the House? For sure, she would say extend payroll tax, unemployment insurance, and the doc fix. What is our first bill? Disapproval of raising the debt ceiling. For what? To remind Americans that Tea Party Republicans brought us the loss of our triple A rating for the first time in American history? A new year demands a new start.

The payroll tax is the best way to eat into Congress' 84 percent disapproval rating. Do the inevitable. No poison pills. Any add-ons will be understood as just that by every American who draws a salary or who is unemployed or who is a senior.

Do it to get it over with and get on with a year of working on jobs. Come over to the side of the street with the 99 percent. You may grow to like it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the International Federation of Black Prides' Annual Meeting and Technical Assistance Meeting, which will be held in Washington, D.C., from January 13-16, 2012.

The International Federation of Black Prides, Inc. (IFBP)--a 501(c)(3) with offices in Washington, D.C., Jacksonville, FL, and Los Angeles, CA--is a coalition that promotes a multinational network of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Black Prides and community-based organizations dedicated to: promoting grassroots organizing around issues affecting the Black LGBT community; promoting community health and wellness; providing technical assistance to its member Prides; promoting unity; and ensuring educational development, economic empowerment, and individual and collective self-determination.

The mission of the IFBP is to build awareness of and pride in the diversity of the black LGBT community. Each local Black Pride is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the mission of the IFBP. Each Black Pride hosts year-round services and activities in addition to a multi- day festival that celebrates the rich cultural heritage of the black LGBT community through educational workshops, health seminars, artistic events, and activism on the local level. Since its formation in 1999, the IFBP has grown to include 32 domestic member-and-affiliate Prides and three international Prides. D.C. Black Pride, which will celebrate its 22nd anniversary in May 2012, was a charter member of the IFBP.

The IFBP is led by a national board comprised of eight members--four officers, three At-Large members and one Ex-Officio member. The board consists of: Dwayne Jenkins, Chair; Kimberly Jones, Vice-Chair; Anthony Hardaway, Secretary; Elizabeth Burch, Treasurer; Victoria Kirby, Member At-Large; Rev. Eric P. Lee, Member At-Large; Charles E. Nelson II, Member At-Large; and Earl Fowlkes, Jr., Ex-Officio Member.

I ask the House to join me in welcoming all who are attending the IFBP's Annual Meeting and Technical Assistance Meeting.