Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I introduce a bill to require greater accountability for a prized federal asset, Union Station in Washington, D.C. My bill would require an annual audit by the Department of Transportation Inspector General of the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, USRC, and Union Station, which is owned by the Department of Transportation. For decades, no official audit has been performed and, increasingly, questions have been raised about the management and condition of the facility.

Commissioned by Congress, Union Station first opened in 1907 as a train facility for the nation's capital, with a much heralded design by the famous architect Daniel Burnham. The station once was the largest building in the nation's capital. However, Union Station deteriorated from a bustling transportation hub and commercial center as rail use declined in the 1950s. Following a long series of failed ideas, wasted federal funds, cost overruns, major utility needs and mismanagement, Congress passed the Union Station Redevelopment Act (P.L. 97-125) in 1981, authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to create USRC, a non-profit corporation, to spearhead the redevelopment of Union Station into a modern facility, to maintain and expand it into a great intermodal facility, and to protect the federal government's interest in the station. In 1988, Union Station, which had become a neglected, boarded up wasteland hardly fit for trains, reopened after a multi- million dollar renovation with federal funds as a beautiful historically restored facility, shopping mall, and major multi-modal transit hub and tourist destination.

When I chaired the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management, we held what likely were the first hearings on Union Station since the USRC was formed and the renovations were completed. I was astonished to find that there was no master plan to account for the major renovations and modernizations planned for inside and outside of the station, including reconstruction of Columbus Circle, expanded Metro access for the busiest Metrorail station in the region, development of Burnham Place, a three-million square foot mixed-use development project over the rail tracks, and indispensable expansion of the concourse and waiting areas for Amtrak, the Maryland Rail Commuter Service, MARC, and the Virginia Railway Express, VRE. Today, the various components of Union Station have developed a master plan for the station, including a separate Amtrak master plan that currently is being developed because of the urgent need to improve capacity and service along the Northeast Corridor. Yet both the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management have met significant resistance as we continue to press USRC to create an intercity bus deck in its existing space, in accordance with its mission to develop and maintain a true intermodal facility. It was only after two hearings and letters from the committee and from me that USRC developed a ``pilot'' intercity bus deck. Even so, after failed negotiations with intercity bus companies, it has required many meetings between USRC and me and my staff, a meeting with Chairman Mica and me, and the inclusion of the Department of Transportation, which, by statute, chairs the USRC Board of Directors, to finally jumpstarted meaningful discussions on a permanent intercity bus program.

The audit is particularly essential now because of increasing evidence that USRC may not be able to meet its mandate to be self- supporting. For example, Union Station contains the kind of popular retail shops and restaurants that pay significant taxes everywhere

else in the city, including in other federal buildings. However, USRC has asked the District of Columbia for a reduced Possessory Interest Tax assessment, a tax levied by the District on private businesses located in federal buildings. Yet USRC was given authority under the Union Station Redevelopment Act to negotiate lease agreements in this valuable property in order to ensure that the needs of Union Station would be covered, but USRC has negotiated a master retail lease that obligated USRC to pay half of any Possessory Interest Tax, thereby depriving USRC of significant funds that could be used for station maintenance and improvements. USRC says that its payment of the Possessory Interest Tax would hinder its mission of maintaining and preserving Union Station. The amount of the Possessory Interest Tax is small compared to Union Station's needs and casts further doubt about USRC's ability to meet its congressional mandate to make Union Station self-supporting.

Although USRC was created in 1984 to ensure that Union Station would be self-sustaining, it is impossible for Congress or the public to gauge the health and progress of USRC without a proper audit. Particularly today, when there are no federal funds to rehabilitate Union Station, as Congress provided before, it is essential that we have a definitive and continuing view of the financial viability of Union Station, beginning with a full annual audit that is made available to Congress and to the public.

Major planned development, ongoing negotiations on the intercity bus deck and questions about USRC's maintenance and needed improvements for Union Station make an official annual audit essential. With nearly 90,000 visitors passing through Union Station every day, Congress is obligated to track the financial condition of this great asset in order to protect the significant federal investment and to avoid another cycle of the disrepair that once led to the closure of the facility. The only responsible course is to require a full annual and public audit of this historic federal property.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would designate $300,000 from the National Recreation and Preservation Account for a National Park Service study of whether applying the same rules and regulations to all parks maximizes the highest and best use of individual parks, for the system as a whole, and for Americans who use our parks.

This is but a study, and it would require the National Park Service to look at how NPS, cities, counties and States, as well as other countries, manage their diverse parks and to suggest, from the available best practices, appropriate ways to help NPS meet the needs of individual communities within the basic uniformity necessary to operate a national system of parks. Today, the NPS applies the same rules and regulations to all its parks, regardless

of location, from the almost 1200-square-mile Yosemite National Park to small urban parks on street corners.

I support a unified national park system, but NPS should develop flexible standards that take into account the unique circumstances and population of individual parks and changing conditions throughout the country in keeping with congressional recognition of both conservation and recreation as primary reasons for our parks. The neighborhood parks in the District of Columbia, for example, serve a very different function from Yellowstone. Dupont Circle Park is a central urban community meeting place in the District, not a place for enjoying the greenery of nature, as much as we love our parks for that purpose. On any given day, you will find people playing chess, sunbathing, playing Frisbee or passing out fliers.

Madam Chair, I have come to the floor because I have tried, unsuccessfully, to get the Park Service to make small adaptations perfectly compatible with their mission to allow for the people in the parks in my own district, and I am certain that other Members have found similar roadblocks. For example, the Park Service won't allow bike share stations on or near Federal parks, and they are not permitting the three golf courses in the District of Columbia to be run as a public-private partnership. Both of these examples have run into the same one-size-fits-all concession concerns.

Yet the National Park Service could negotiate concession agreements that accommodate bike share in the future; and an inflexibility in Park Service insistence on concession contracts that do not allow capital investment resulting in an astonishing deterioration of invaluable capital-intensive golf courses in the District could give way to other approaches, such as public-private partnerships operating under long- term leases that would allow private funding to assist the Park Service with upgrading and maintaining these public assets with Congress, which the taxpayers can't possibly by themselves maintain.

Inflexible, one-size-fits-all policies keep Americans from using our parks for compatible purposes, such as bike stations, or, worse, condemn unique iconic resources to inevitable decline.

Madam Chairman, my amendment is of the lowest possible cost. It is for a study to tell us what to do, to tell the Park Service what to do, to allow people throughout this country who live in very different locations and have to use our parks in very different ways just how this must be done compatible with a uniform National Park Service.

I ask that my amendment be approved.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the remarks of the chairman and the ranking member. In light of those remarks and their generosity, I do withdraw my amendment and will work with them to try to implement it in other ways.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in celebrating the revival of ``The Rickey,'' a cocktail of Presidents and Members of Congress who, in the 1880s, frequented Shoemaker's Bar, which today is the home of the J.W. Marriott Hotel, near the White House.

The invention of The Rickey, made with a combination of gin or bourbon, half a lime, ice, and sparkling water, is attributed to Colonel Joe Rickey. The cocktail became well known nationally, appears in cocktail books, and was recently named the District of Columbia's native cocktail in a resolution introduced by D.C. Council member Jack Evans and approved by the D.C. Council.

This week at the J.W. Marriott, D.C. residents celebrated The Rickey as I unveiled a plaque commemorating it as a part of the city's rich history. Much of the energy for the revival of The Rickey as D.C.'s cocktail was driven by Garrett Peck, author of ``Prohibition in Washington, DC: How Dry We Weren't,'' and Bob Madigan, who acted as emcee at the celebration.

As Congress tries to reach a sensible compromise on the debt limit, we would do well to remember The Rickey, the drink dejour at a time when Presidents, Members of Congress, and members of the press on ``Newspaper Row,'' as that part of 14th Street was known, drank together and enjoyed good relations. Let us take the spirit of The Rickey to heart this week and settle our debt-limit differences. Having a Rickey might even help.

I ask the House to join me in commending the J.W. Marriott for their recognition of the political history of the city, especially to a part of Washington's history that will humanize politicians.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding.

Madam Speaker, the debt limit isn't the only deadline that is upon us. Here we are, facing Friday--D-day for the Nation's aviation system. This is the third Congress where our committee has passed this bill. Most of the sections of the bill do not have major disagreement. But, now, we are going for a bare 2-month extension.

On the policy rider, all I've got to say is, why make it more difficult when

you know that when it goes to the other body, it's either going to be stripped out or we're going to be facing another terrible deadline.

I appreciate that negotiations have been going on all along with staff. I do believe, though, that the failure of the majority to appoint conferees is a problem with this bill because, once members are appointed, it seems to me that sends another signal and gets another set of people in it to move the bill. So the conferees do matter and should have been appointed.

These are difficult issues, and they shouldn't be left to linger: Next Generation Air Transportation.

If we don't modernize our air transportation, we're going to be left behind even developing countries. Runway safety. We've had collisions on runways at airports right here where there are major airports. Aircraft noise, and we always have this issue, of whether or not the perimeter rule is going to be extended or violated again. Well, you know, I oppose increases of the perimeter rule, but I oppose even more not sitting down to figure it out with conferees at the table.

We've got the air ambulance operation issues, the oversight of foreign carriers and, of course, the notorious national mediation board issue, where what constitutes a majority could only be an issue in this Congress. Is it the majority of votes cast, or is the majority of those in the class or in the whole group? If it's a majority of votes cast, then, of course, it's what all of us in the Congress use every 2 years to get elected.

There are matters in this bill that the Congress has to do anyway that would be especially useful to do now as we recover from the Great Recession.

We should pass this bill providing jobs, which is something we have to do anyway, now, when it would count, would matter very much to the entire country. Let's reauthorize the entire bill and quit short-term extensions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute an outstanding Federal employee and citizen of the District of Columbia, Veronica Lewis, who is retiring this month after forty-one years of service with the Federal Government. Ms. Lewis, a dedicated public servant, is known for her contributions to both the government and to her fellow employees.

Ms. Lewis has lived and worked in Washington, DC all of her life. She began her career as a public employee in 1970 as a personnel information assistant with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In 1986, she became a secretary with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), where she is still employed today, in the agency's Division of Corporation Finance. She has been a loyal and dedicated Federal employee for the past 4 decades.

Ms. Lewis attended public schools in the District of Columbia. Prior to her career with the Federal Government, she worked for the Metropolitan Police Department and also as a teacher's aide at Taft Junior High School.

In 2000, Ms. Lewis was one of the original founders of the Federal employee union that now represents all of the non-management employees at the SEC National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), Chapter 293. She served as the union's chief steward for several years and, since 2006, has served as the vice president of Chapter 293.

Ms. Lewis has two children, Cecilia Vernette Camp and Edward Walker, and three grandchildren, Angela Lewis-Camp, Veronica Lewis-Camp, and Edward Walker, Jr. In retirement, Ms. Lewis plans to travel as well as to volunteer at St. Jude Children's Hospital. Her hobbies are dancing, traveling and bicycling.

Mr. Speaker, Veronica Lewis has been a dedicated civil servant all of her adult life, both as an SEC employee and as a leader of NTEU Chapter 293. It is appropriate that we honor her today for her many contributions and congratulate her on her retirement from the Federal Government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On any given day, if the American people listen to the speakers on the floor of the House of Representatives, they will come to the conclusion that many Members sure do hate government. At the very least, they certainly don't want the Federal Government involved in the lives of the American people in any way. Well, I've come to the floor not to give a lecture, but to offer an explanation because the American people are probably puzzled at something they recently saw.

They saw the residents of the Nation's Capital embarking on what I must tell you is a new phase of an old struggle: to preserve the right to local self-government--a battle residents won almost 40 years ago.

You would think that the speakers on the floor who hate government would be very quick to say what is also true about themselves. They like local government. They don't want the Federal Government involved with local government or certainly interfering with local government. Yet the very same speakers are the prime movers of interference with the local government of the District of Columbia.

So the residents of your Nation's Capital have embarked on a new phase of their struggle. I'm not talking about the storied fight for voting rights and statehood, because many Americans now know that this is the only jurisdiction in the United States whose residents pay Federal income taxes, go to war--have fought in every war since the Nation was created--but don't have full voting rights in the Congress.

No, I'm not talking about that because, unfortunately, today, the city is forced to fight simply to maintain local government--the local rights that are unquestioned everywhere in the United States except by some on the floor of this House.

After Republicans took control of the House in January, their obsession with the DC government became so fierce that the mayor and members of the city council--almost the entire legislative and executive branches--were arrested for sitting down in the streets in front of the Capitol in an act of civil disobedience. The world, at that time, was focused on people in the streets of the Middle East, who were demanding freedom, but was riveted by civil disobedience in the U.S. capital city, which included the highest officials of our own local government.

The sit-down occurred after the city was caught in a Federal Government dispute over cuts in the Federal budget, which had nothing to do with the city. The city government barely avoided being shut down, although the city's local funds were no part of the fight, but the Congress would not even allow the city to spend its own local funds to keep the city open.

That is the very essence of autocracy.

Congress still holds onto the antiquated practice of approving the city's locally raised budget, a budget that the Congress did not put one red cent in--$4 billion raised by the residents of the District of Columbia.

And House Republicans repeatedly refused my amendments to let the District government stay open by spending its own local funds. House Republicans have long rationalized such irrational treatment of the residents of the Nation's capital, but holding the District hostage in a Federal shutdown fight was a new nadir.

Republicans finally succeeded in getting hefty budget cuts in the 2011 appropriations bill, but still refused to seal the deal until their demands to take some of the District's home rule were met. They insisted on two riders. One prohibited the District from using its own local funds for abortion services for low-income women--which is done in 17 red and blue States because it's a matter of local money and local law. And they imposed private school vouchers on the city because that was the pet project of another Republican, Speaker John Boehner. Mind you that this city has almost half of its children going to public charter schools. It's about the last city in the world that you would impose an alternative school system on since it has already grown its own home-rule alternative.

The bold autocratic insistence of these anti-home-rule provisions, as well as the near shutdown of the city government, finally led to an equally bold response from the city. You have to imagine that only the most provocative actions could have led the mayor of a great city and other elected officials to be escorted away in handcuffs.

House Republicans have devoted their first months in power to slicing away at the city's local home rule. They took control of the House on the promise of jobs, but have yet to introduce a jobs bill. From the first day of the 112th Congress, the House Republican majority has been preoccupied--mesmerized--with the internal affairs of a city whose local government, like many other jurisdictions, differs with them on some matters. This is America, get used to it. With heartbreaking audacity, they began by withdrawing the District's vote on the House floor in the Committee of the Whole. And this vote was only granted by rule--which is why they could withdraw it--but it had been approved by the Federal courts. Thus, Republicans in this House have withdrawn a legitimate vote of American citizens who pay

their full freight in Federal taxes and have fought in every war since the Republic was established, including the war that established the Republic itself.

After taking DC's limited vote, Republicans turned to taking away the city's home rule. A House-passed harsh anti-choice bill affecting the Nation's women contained an unprecedented prohibition affecting only the District of Columbia. Instead of the DC abortion rider--you have to add these riders on an annual basis--Republicans want a permanent law barring DC from spending its local funds on abortion services for low- income women. Imagine the Federal Government telling a local jurisdiction that, forever, it can no longer spend its local money on local matters that dozens and dozens of local jurisdictions spend money on every year and on a matter that is fully constitutional.

Most Americans support the right to abortion, although many others oppose it. In the District of Columbia, we respect those differences. Federal funds already may not be used to pay for abortions. But no one questions the long-standing practice of the 17 States I mentioned that use their own funds for abortions for low-income women. Now I understand that the anti-home-rule riders that some Members add to the DC appropriations bill are controversial. That's why we have a Federal union. There are some things we can do at the local level that you do not do in the Nation as a whole. We ought to have that respect for the residents of the District of Columbia just as we give that respect to every other jurisdiction.

This struggle continues now that the 2012 appropriation season has begun. The Appropriations Committee-approved bill includes only one DC rider, but that of course is one rider too many. However, it does show that there is some response to an expanded coalition that's been formed, and yes, to the civil disobedience and protest of the residents of the District of Columbia. More riders could still come on the House floor, but then more protests will come.

So great, though, is the continuing danger of interference with the District's right to govern itself that a national coalition of 100 organizations which, together have millions of members, has come forward with a weapon DC residents do not have. The national organizations have activated their members who live in congressional districts to warn Members of Congress that if they meddle in the affairs of the District of Columbia, their members will make it known throughout their districts. Most Members cast these votes almost anonymously. We know about them here in the Nation's capital, but it was hard to get word of them out. Now organizations are fanning out across the country telling on those, as we say, who meddle with the affairs of a local jurisdiction instead of attending to the affairs of their own district.

Nor has the District focused only on the Republicans. When it comes to local government, whoever makes a move is, as far as the residents of this city are concerned, subject to the same kind of protest. So hundreds of residents, just a few weeks ago, went to the White House and held a huge rally, the largest yet. Thousands of people from throughout the country and from all over the world were there and saw unprecedented civil disobedience right at the White House to protest the fact that the President of the United States, who is strongly supported in this city, nevertheless signed the anti-home-rule 2011 budget deal. I believe that this indicates that the residents are acting in a principled manner, not in a political manner. And they are saying as clearly as they can that they will not surrender any part of the home rule it took them 128 years too long to get. Can you imagine that the Nation's capital, until only 38 years ago, did not have a local mayor or a local city council, and was run by three commissioners appointed by the President of the United States? That had a lot to do with Southern Democrats who got a hold of the ``District Committee''-- since abolished. Although the District was a majority white city until the 1960s, they kept the District from getting home rule and voting rights because there were a sizeable number of African Americans in this city. That's just how deep this went. Republicans have taken over the role, not because of race, but entirely because of politics. Whichever way you cut it, they take away our rights. And when you don't have your rights, you see no difference. You don't ask the motive. All you know is everybody else has their rights, and you are an American citizen and you are entitled to the very same rights. You raised the funds. You and your local jurisdiction, you alone, get to say how those funds will be spent.

The Congress of the United States finally ceded its power over the District of Columbia in 1973. It took the civil rights movement to get it done. Essentially it shamed the southern Democrats into finally giving the District home rule. Actually, protesters overthrew the South Carolina Democrat who was in charge of the District Committee, and when the District Committee lost that Democrat, there were enough Members of Congress who believed in democracy so that the District got home rule. The city makes its own decisions on virtually everything, until somebody in the Congress pops up and says, ``That isn't in my ideological playbook, so you can't do it.'' As un-American as it gets.

Interestingly, many of the newest Members of Congress are among the most robust, the loudest, in making clear that they do not support Federal interference. I quote from the Republican Study Committee, which has a 10th Amendment task force, and I quote it as saying that the intent of the Republican majority's was ``to usher in a new era of federalism and to disperse power from Washington back to regions, States, local governments and individuals.'' How can people who have that principle now put the big foot of the Federal Government on the local government right here in their face, in defiance of their own professed principles? You can't have that principle as stated and not apply it right here as you vote on matters affecting the District of Columbia.

Remember that we're only talking about controversial issues: issues like marriage equality or reproductive choice or gun safety. These are controversial issues, but we allow people in local jurisdictions to vote one way or the other on how they want to handle these issues. Take their votes against DC needle exchange programs, for example, which have kept HIV/AIDS in large cities and small rural areas from being transmitted. What happened? DC got the highest HIV/AIDS rate in the United States. The DC needle exchange rider is an example of a rider that has killed people, that led to terrible suffering, that led to people getting HIV/AIDS. What did the people in the House of Representatives, in the Senate of the United States, have to do with the desire of the people of the District of Columbia to use the same weapons that are now used throughout the United States to control this terrible virus?

So those who want to dismantle our own self-government, our home rule, piece by piece, they should be prepared to fight and they better be prepared to fight where they live for they are now being targeted where they live, and not because, frankly, of these underlying issues that are very controversial but because of the overarching principle of self-government, and local self-government at that.

The first trial of the 74 residents who were arrested is going on right now. A number of those arrested paid a fine and chose not go to trial. Some of them are insisting on going to trial so that the point will never be lost. The first is an advisory neighborhood commissioner, Keith Silver. He pleaded not guilty on charges of unlawful assembly and disorderly conduct. He faces up to $250 in fines and 90 days in jail. He would not be the first American. When I was a very young woman, I was a member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and going to jail seemed to us to be just about the right thing to do when we were denied our rights. Now the only Americans denied such basic rights, ironically, are right here in the Nation's Capital.

May I inquire of the remaining time?

Mr. Speaker, what has been most encouraging to us is that we

now know we are not in this fight alone. Imagine having to fight against the almighty Congress when you are one jurisdiction, obviously without the means to let the entire country understand what is happening, and so most Americans had no idea until the arrests took place. Just as the District has been fighting for a vote in the people's House, the House of Representatives, and over and over again we found that most Americans thought we had the vote. There has been a nationwide survey done, and it is very interesting. It shows that more than 60 percent of the American people are for voting rights for the District of Columbia, and that survey has been cut open so as to see whether there are differences as to where people live, north and south, whether people have served in the military or not, whether people go to church or not, and the encouraging thing to those of us who live in the District of Columbia is that no matter how you cut it, Americans believe that if you pay Federal income taxes, you ought to have a vote in this body.

Yes, I have a vote in committee. Yes, I can speak as I am now. Yes, I have every privilege of the House--except that privilege that created the Nation, the privilege to vote, to cast the final vote. But, I have gone to funerals of young men who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet I could not vote yea or nay on whether they should have been there in the first place. Surely, if the American people realized that, there would be shame cast on the Congress.

Now the District is struggling, not for the voting rights and statehood it deserves but for the home rule and self-government it already has. It is far too late in history for any Americans to be struggling for the right to govern themselves at the local level as they see fit and to spend the funds they raise at the local level in any way they choose. That, my friends, if you are looking to the Founders, you will find that that was for them a first principle.

And so other Americans have now come to our assistance, and the difference between them and the residents whom I represent is that they have that vote on the floor of this House while we do not. As Members voted to take away some of the local rights of the district I represent every Member of this body could vote on that matter except the Member who represented the Nation's Capital that was the object of that vote.

You will not find any American anywhere who will say that that represents what they believe or what our country stands for. That is why every Member of this House has been sent or will be sent a letter, and I am reading from just one part of it, because this letter comes from the coalition of a hundred different national organizations: ``Should lawmakers continue to advance attacks on the District of Columbia's autonomy, we will make certain that our members--in every District--know how their representatives are spending their time in Washington: meddling in the affairs of a local jurisdiction, the District of Columbia, rather than focusing on their own residents and on the Nation's true, pressing business.''

I have spent my entire service in the Congress trying to rid the District appropriation of anti-home rule attachments. We were successful in clearing the DC appropriation bill of all of the anti- democratic attachments for the first time last Congress. We did not engage in that fight only to have them put right back on. We did not enjoy seeing Congress play shutdown chicken with the American people either, and Congress must not even think about shutting down a local government ever again over a Federal fight again.

During the civil rights movement we called our approach passive resistance to tell the world we were nonviolent. But that was all that was passive about us. The operative word was ``resistance.'' Once we resisted, civil rights workers found we were not alone. Today, District residents are joined by allies who stand with us and are working with us. On this we have no doubt. The American people are with District residents when we say local laws are for local residents alone, and most especially when we insist that when it's our money, we mean ours and only ours.

The Nation's Capital should be the 51st State by now. The city's taxpaying citizens should at least have a vote in Congress, the very Congress that demands that the citizens who live here abide by the laws that the Congress enacts.

DC residents and their local leaders are fighting with all they have. What they need most now, and what I am gratified that they are receiving, is the support of other Americans who do have the basic rights that the citizens of the Nation's Capital are still seeking. ``Don't tread on DC.''

Madam Speaker, the Financial Services appropriation soon due on the floor will be contentious; but one section should be a piece of cake because it only requires Members to vote on the local budget of a city, the District of Columbia, already voted on and locally funded by the only elected officials accountable to voters and the only officials who have familiarity with that local budget.

I ask my colleagues to give the local budget of my city the same respect you demand for yours. Please do not tell local people how to spend local money. According to the Republican Study Group, its 10th Amendment task force intends, and I quote, ``to disburse power from Washington back to regions and States, local governments and individuals.''

Your principle, please honor it.

Madam Speaker, I come to the floor to alert Members who interfere with the local funds of a local jurisdiction, not your own, in this case the District of Columbia, that this year, it will be highlighted in your own district.

The debt limit discussions spotlight our differences, but one idea always has enjoyed the broadest support in this country and in this House. The Federal Government does not interfere with local matters, especially local funds not raised by the Federal Government.

The Framers formed a federal government only after trying a confederation, but it became clear that there were some matters of overarching concern that could be arbitrated only by a true national government. But, they were at great pains to reserve maximum freedom at the local level where people live.

Nothing is more local than the local funds a jurisdiction raises on its own from its own local taxpayers. You raise the funds, you get to say how they will be spent.

The principle applies to all. No second class citizens on local matters, especially local funds, and that includes

the 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia.

Congress ceded its power to run the District of Columbia in 1973 when it passed the Home Rule Act. It still approves the D.C. budget, but it does not change that budget.

Members of Congress, unaccountable to the electorate of the District of Columbia, have no right to use the budget process to direct spending away from matters that may be controversial to you but not to our own local jurisdiction. That is tea party doctrine; that is a principle of the Democratic Party.

License was taken to put controversial attachments on the 2011 budget deal and the world watched as the entire executive and legislative branches of the local government here were arrested in an act of civil disobedience.

This time a coalition of national organizations with millions of members are taking preventive action, and I quote from a letter all of you will receive: ``Should lawmakers continue to advance attacks on D.C.'s autonomy, we will make certain that our members in every district know how their representatives are spending their time in Washington, meddling in the affairs of D.C. residents rather than focusing on the Nation's true pressing business.''

Meddle with D.C.'s local funds, we will pull the covers off in your own districts.

Congress, this year ``don't tread on D.C.''

Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I too want to acknowledge my good friend, Lynn Woolsey, for 20 really illustrious years in the Congress. I cannot imagine why she would want to end her illustrious career here so early. We will miss her.

I should warn Members of Congress that a peculiar part of the Financial Services appropriations, which comes to the floor this week, will seem particularly strange, even inappropriate. It is a historical anachronism, and I can only apologize for it. We must quickly make sure that we enter the 21st century on the District of Columbia local budget. Yes, it is our budget. We raise it all in the District of Columbia. We are American citizens.

Some have said, But the District of Columbia is mentioned and comes under the Constitution. So be it. I'm a constitutional lawyer; I concede that. But in their wisdom, after 150 years of shame, the Congress of the United States decided to grant home rule, as we call it, to the District of Columbia. So that instead of having a city of hundreds of thousands of Americans run by a Federal body, the Congress said that we delegate, we use our power under the Constitution to delegate to the District of Columbia the ability to elect its local officials, and raise its own money--we were raising our own budget all along. And spend its own money. For the most part Congress has adhered to this delegation by law. After all, we raise $4 billion. That's more than some States.

It is, of course, the very essence of the principle of federalism embraced by both sides of the aisle of this body. Our federalism is what has held the Union together. We are a very different jurisdiction, so we have acknowledged different strokes for different folks. As if to reinforce that principle, a new crop of Republicans has come with federalism as a virtual original principle, giving new meaning to the notion of local control. Indeed, these new Republicans want the Federal Government out of even many Federal matters and to them turned back to the States. And so I imagine that the whole notion of the big foot of the Federal Government on the District of Columbia in local matters would particularly offend the new so-called ``tea party'' Republicans if they are adhering to their own principles.

The appropriation that will come before this body already intrudes on the District of Columbia with one rider, a rider involving abortion services for local women. That's embedded in it. If this Congress holds to principle, there certainly will be no more.

The world saw the reaction the last time the Congress tried to add attachments to the District of Columbia appropriation. It was in the budget deal of 2011. At a time when people in the Mideast were in the streets against their government, it was our government that went into the streets, and you saw elected officials from the top of the government, both the executive and the legislature, arrested in acts of civil disobedience because of intrusion on the way that the citizens of the District of Columbia spend their own local money. And the White House was not exempt. Residents also went to the White House and some were arrested right there because the White House agreed to the 2011 budget deal at the very last minute.

Now a new national organization composed of national organizations that themselves have millions of members across the United States have come forward to help us, and they have sent letters to Members of Congress saying that you will not be able to anonymously any more engage in intrusion on the local affairs of a local jurisdiction. We are activating our members to let them know if you intrude by voting for any attachment that takes away the ability of the District of Columbia to spend its own local funds as it sees fit. Local taxes, my friends, local issues. Not your business unless you raise the money.

Some of these issues are controversial. That also is the essence of federalism. We, of course, bow to the differences among us instead of trying to take away our rights to embrace those differences. Much that occurs in your district is enough to raise the hairs of my own citizens. We would not want to deprive you of your rights. We ask that you do not deprive us of ours. There will be consequences.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduce a resolution designating the last Saturday in July as National Dance Day to combat obesity and overweight through dance of all kinds. This year, each community throughout the country is encouraged to celebrate National Dance Day on Saturday, July 30. In the nation's capital, National Dance Day will be celebrated at the Sylvan Theatre on the National Mall.

Our country has a notorious adult and child overweight and obesity epidemic. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, childhood obesity in the United States has more than tripled in the past 30 years. In the United States, almost one-third of children and teenagers ages 2 to 19 and 68 percent of adults ages 20 and older are obese or overweight. We can promote physical activity among children and adults while having fun dancing, an exercise that most enjoy.

On the National Mall, ``So You Think You Can Dance'' producer and celebrity judge Nigel Lythgoe, the Dizzy Feet Foundation, and the Larry King Cardiac Foundation will host a variety of dance groups that will perform the dances that keep them fit. A Flash Mob will also have everybody dancing for fun and physical fitness on July 30.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the resolution and to encourage dancing for physical exercise on National Dance Day and throughout the year.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, more than 25 years ago, the Congress charged the Defense Department to identify and then to clean up and remediate properties which the department had owned or leased in order to test chemical munitions. Congress did so because these munitions had left hazardous substances related to the work of the department. There are more than 2,000 such sites in nearly every State, all the Territories and in the District of Columbia.

My concern is with those sites in congested residential parts of our country where there may be dense populations located by formerly used defense sites. A classic case and perhaps the most important--but I'm sure not the only one--was the World War I chemical weapons site for the United States of America. It happened to have been right here in Northwest Washington, DC, in a portion of what is now American University and its surrounding neighborhood known as Spring Valley.

The Army is making good on its duty to clean up these formerly used defense sites (FUDS), including the site in the District of Columbia, but we have no information on the health effects of these leftover chemical munitions. They have been found in people's back and front yards. They have been found, at least here, in people's gardens. Entire houses and garages, as it turns out, unknowingly were built on this debris. The site here in the District of Columbia was found by accident by a utility contractor digging into a trench. The neighborhood had no knowledge. The city had no knowledge of these leftover munitions. Again, I stress that there are surely other sites around the United States, and I cite this case as an example.

This land, in the District of Columbia at least, was used for the research and development and testing of chemical explosives, and it was able to be done in this city because there wasn't any local government, and there wasn't any home rule. I guess, since the city was administered by the Federal Government, they could simply make a munitions testing site in this city. Hundreds of pounds of chemical agents and explosives were developed and released throughout the environment. We have found in the Spring Valley section of the city arsine projectiles, mustard gas projectiles, lewisite projectiles, and other kinds of chemical toxic waste left over from undetonated ordnances.

When World War I was over, the Army simply used the site where they'd been doing the testing as a dumpsite. They buried these munitions right where they were testing. Now, that was the way in which you disposed of these munitions at the time. In the Spring Valley area that is a classic case, there are 1,200 private homes, 30 Embassies and foreign properties, Sibley Hospital, Wesley Seminary. There may be other metropolitan areas that have formerly used defense sites as well. Spring Valley may be the prime target because it is such a well- established neighborhood where chemical agents and munitions were once used.

The amendment requires the Secretary to allocate $1 million to study the human health effects of left-over munitions in congested residential areas. Just as the Department of Defense and the Army have acknowledged their obligation to clean up and remove hazardous substances, especially munitions that have been left behind through their testing, they also have the obligation to investigate whether there are any remaining health effects. That is all we are asking; that there be a study as to whether there are any remaining health effects at this former munitions site from World War I and other sites like it in congested residential areas.

Offered By: Ms. Norton

Amendment No. 107: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, today I introduce a resolution welcoming the Fourteenth Dalai Lama to Washington, DC, July 6-16, 2011, and recognizing his extraordinary example and commitment to world peace, non-violence, human rights, religious freedom and democracy.

The Dalai Lama welcomed me and other members of a congressional delegation, led by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, into his home in 2008. It is, therefore, a special pleasure to welcome him to my congressional district and the Nation's Capital. Tibetan children, monks, and exiles lined the streets to greet our delegation in 2008, and I know that my colleagues would want to join me in returning that welcoming officially.

Although the Dalai Lama has visited the Nation's Capital many times, this year, he will preside over the fifth Kalachakra teaching in the United States, the first in the Nation's Capital, which will be held at the Verizon Center. The Kalachakra seeks to enhance the Dalai Lama's non-violent teachings, as well as to reduce conflict and promote peace, both individually and globally.

I urge my colleagues to join me in welcoming this recipient of both the Nobel Peace Prize and the Congressional Gold Medal, and in wishing him a happy 76th birthday today.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following:

Whereas, the year 2014 marks the centennial of World War I, often referred to as the ``Great War;''

Whereas, the National Mall is home to memorials for America's major 20th century conflicts--the World War II Memorial, the Korean War Veterans Memorial, and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, with the exception of a World War I Memorial;

Whereas, the District of Columbia War Memorial, managed by the National Park Service, was dedicated to the more than 26,000 District of Columbia residents who, without a vote in Congress, served bravely in World War I, including 499 who were killed;

Whereas, a memorial dedicated to all Americans who served in World War I should be located in our nation's capital, in a well-traveled area commensurate with the importance of World War I in the nation's history;

Whereas, members of Congress and other Americans desire to establish a commission to ensure a suitable observance of the World War I centennial;

Whereas, the National Park Service, the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, and the American Battle Monuments Commission have specifically determined that either adding a new National World War I Memorial in the vicinity of the District of Columbia War Memorial or re-designating the District of Columbia Memorial as a National World War I Memorial would violate the Commemorative Works Act: Be it therefore

Resolved that, the District of Columbia War Memorial should remain a memorial dedicated solely to the D.C. residents who served in World War I; and, be it therefore

Resolved that, a proper location for a memorial dedicated to all Americans who served in World War I shall be determined; and, be it therefore

Resolved that, Congress should authorize a study or commission to determine a proper location for a memorial dedicated to all Americans who served in World War I.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce an essential bill for the redevelopment of the Southwest Waterfront in the District of Columbia. The bill transfers unencumbered ownership of the Southwest Waterfront from the federal government to the District. Although the District has owned the Waterfront since the 1960s, the land has been encumbered by restrictions put in place by Congress before the District got home rule; a time when development by the city was not contemplated. My bill updates outdated legislation and allows for the highest and best use of the land.

The bill would amend the D.C. Code to allow the District to transfer the property by quitclaim deed, to update the site description of the land to conform with its current configuration, to allow for the sale of condominiums on the land, to remove references to an urban renewal plan that has expired, to remove references to the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, which no longer exists, and to expand the permissible uses for the Fish Market in order to allow the sale of other foods, beverages, produce, and flowers.

The District of Columbia has created a 21st-century vision for the Southwest Waterfront and is actively engaged in a revitalization and redevelopment that will draw visitors down 10th street from the National Mall. However, as was typical for District land before home rule, the original law restricts the use of the land along the waterfront to lease-only arrangements, driving down the useful value of the land and making it impossible to replace antiquated structures with new buildings for new uses. The restrictions on the land serve no federal purpose and seriously limit needed revenue for the city. Federal officials have been consulted on the transfer and have no objection to it.

The federal government has no interest in the waterfront land other than the Maine Lobsterman Memorial and the Titanic Memorial, which have been carved out of the transfer. Because of the current restrictions on the land, part of the waterfront is an underused eyesore. However, the redevelopment will bring 2.5 million square feet of mixed-use development to the waterfront, including public and private docks, restaurants, office buildings and residences, providing jobs and local revenue at a time when they are most needed.

This is a noncontroversial bill that removes out-of-date laws and involves no cost to the federal government. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.