Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the United States Parole Commission Authorization Act of 2010 to permanently authorize the United States Parole Commission (USPC). This bill is intended to prevent a replay of a narrowly averted catastrophe in 2008, when Congress nearly failed to temporarily reauthorize the USPC before its authorization expired. Since 1992, Congress has temporarily reauthorized the USPC five times. Now that the USPC has continuing responsibilities for Federal and District of Columbia Code Offenders, it is important to stabilize this important public safety agency with the same kind of authorization as other Federal law enforcement agencies.

The first three-year reauthorization of the USPC began when the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA) abolished Federal parole and replaced it with determinate sentencing, requiring a sentencing judge to impose a fixed term of supervised release that is served by offenders after completing their prison terms. In order to accommodate Federal offenders convicted of crimes while parole was still in effect, the SRA called for the USPC to remain in existence until November 1, 1992, and the USPC has been temporarily reauthorized five times since then. Today, the agency grants, denies or revokes parole from Federal offenders who are not otherwise ineligible for parole, and makes determinations regarding supervised release for others.

The USPC, however, has had important new responsibilities for more than 10 years. To help alleviate a serious financial crisis in the District of Columbia, and at the city's request, the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act (Revitalization Act) transferred the responsibility for, and the costs of, certain state functions from the District to the Federal Government, including the transfer of responsibility for D.C. Code Offenders from the D.C. Board of Parole to the USPC. The Revitalization Act also eliminated parole in the District, and instituted the District's version of determinate sentencing, similar to the Federal system. The USPC's duties with respect to D.C. Code Offenders vary according to the date on which the crime at issue was committed. For D.C. Code Offenders who committed crimes before August 5, 2000, and are not otherwise eligible for parole, the USPC is currently responsible for granting, denying or revoking parole, and making determinations regarding supervised release. For D.C. Code Offenders who committed crimes after August 4, 2000, and who are sentenced to a determinate sentence of imprisonment followed by a term of supervised release, the USPC is responsible for making determinations regarding supervised release.

The USPC also has other ongoing duties. These responsibilities include granting or denying parole for United States citizens convicted of crimes in a foreign country who elect to return to the United States to complete their sentences, parole-related functions for certain military and state offenders, and decision-making authority over state offenders who are on state probation or parole and are transferred to Federal authorities under the witness security program.

Today, however, most of the USPC's day-to-day work involves District of Columbia Code Offenders. As of September 2009, the USPC had or will have responsibility for approximately 2,500 Federal offenders and approximately 9,500 D.C. Code Offenders. Eventually, the USPC will have jurisdiction over almost no Federal offenders, but will continue to have jurisdiction over D.C. Code Offenders.

There are two primary reasons for permanently extending the life of the USPC. First, as then-Attorney General Ashcroft reported to Congress in 2002, ``there is no District of Columbia or federal agency, other than the USPC, with the staff, procedures, and infrastructure in place to effectively assume the functions of the USPC.'' And, as Edward F. Reilly Jr., then-Commissioner of the USPC similarly pointed out in his 2008 statement before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, there is no other entity with the statutory authority to do so.

Second, and most important, the failure to extend the life of the USPC raises serious due process and ex post facto issues for offenders. In addition to its other provisions, the SRA requires the USPC, before its expiration, to schedule a release date for all parole-eligible offenders. Thus, without an extension, the USPC would be required under federal law to set release dates for all parole-eligible Federal prisoners, within 3 to 6 months before its expiration, or face due process challenges for a failure to set such release dates. This requirement could mean an arbitrary adjustment of prisoners' release dates, as well as the stripping of inmates of their right to contest their release dates, to periodic review and modification of those release dates, and to an earlier release date, after the USPC went out of existence.

This issue has already arisen. In a case before the Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2008, the petitioner argued that with the expiration of the USPC at the end of that year, and the ``winding up'' provision in the SRA requiring the USPC to set a release date for offenders within 3 to 6 months before the USPC's expiration, the USPC's decision to set a reconsideration hearing date instead of a release date violated the SRA. In response, the U.S. Attorney did not refute this claim but argued that Congress would likely extend the USPC, rendering moot the petitioner's claim that his right to the setting of a firm parole release date before the USPC's expiration had been violated. The Third Circuit then directed the U.S. Attorney to provide information regarding the pending expiration of the USPC

and the likelihood of its extension. Responding to this directive, the U.S. Attorney argued that the costs of failure to reauthorize the USPC were so high, and the constitutional issues so serious, that reauthorization was essentially guaranteed. ``Congress itself has expressed concern over potential ex post facto problems that a failure to authorize might create,'' the U.S. Attorney wrote, relying on language from the legislative history of the Parole Phaseout Act of 1996. `` `Constitutional requirements, specifically the ex post facto clause, necessitate the extension of the commission or the establishment of a similar entity authorized by statute to perform its functions.' ''

The Third Circuit crisis in 2008 led Congress to reauthorize the USPC just in time, but only for another 3 years. The ordeal dealt a serious blow to the USPC. This year, we seek to obtain reauthorization not only well ahead of time, but to avoid a ritualistic reauthorization of a permanent law enforcement agency every 3 years. It will be particularly important to bear in mind that the close call the USPC had in the Third Circuit, could be repeated in the other 11 circuits. It is clear that a timely, simple reauthorization would have been beneficial to all concerned--the USPC, Congress, and the courts. I ask Congress to permanently extend the USPC to ensure the smooth and constitutional operation of the Federal and District of Columbia criminal justice systems.

One has to congratulate the other side for chutzpah. After racking up most of what is now the deficit, they have gotten religion on the deficit in the middle of a recession. When conservative and progressive economists say when the only body that has any money is the government, you better spend it for jobs.

I wonder if in this House we would at least do what they did in the other body yesterday, when five Republicans crossed over to actually be for a modest jobs bill. It certainly is not the bill that I would have wanted, but what is noteworthy is that the majority of Republicans actually voted against the jobs bill yesterday that spent only $15 billion.

Were you afraid that that would contribute to the deficit? How much are you willing to help the American people get out of the deficit that you left us and get out of the economic morass that you have bequeathed us? One begins to wonder if we could even get unemployment insurance passed. We have sent over a bill to the other body which is far larger. Let's hope that we can get more such bills passed.

Madam Speaker, I rise to ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring the 100th anniversary of the Howard Theatre and its contribution to music and entertainment on historic U Street in Washington, DC.

The Howard Theatre was the only theater in the Nation's capital where African Americans could enjoy live music, dance, drama and comedy during the era of racial segregation in Washington, DC.

The Howard Theatre provided a gateway to the historic U Street corridor and currently is being preserved for historic renovation. We commend Howard Theatre Restoration Inc. for spearheading the preservation of the Howard Theatre.

Known as ``the largest colored theatre in the world,'' the Howard Theatre welcomed talent regardless of color. Many legendary music greats appeared at ``The Howard,'' among them, Ella Fitzgerald, Billy Taylor, The Supremes, Chuck Brown, Petey Greene, Dick Gregory, and Redd Foxx.

Madam Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in applauding Howard Theatre Restoration Inc. for its work to preserve the Howard Theatre legacy, and in commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Howard Theatre for its contribution as a premiere entertainment venue for people of all races and backgrounds and as a showcase of national and international importance for African American entertainers of the day.

I thank the chairman for his courtesy and generosity and for his help in perfecting this resolution. I thank the gentlewoman on the other side as well. I thank them both for the excellent history of Langston they have offered this morning, up to and including its present-day facilities, not only to serve golfers but to serve the children of the District of Columbia.

Madam Speaker, I will endeavor not to repeat what they have said but will only indicate why I have brought the bill forward at this time and especially during this month, Black History Month, when I know Members look for reasons in history, particularly in living history, to celebrate African American contributions to American life.

So why do I choose a golf course--I who do not know an iron from a tee? I choose a golf course because I am in such great admiration of this golf course, which has served the people of the District of Columbia for now over 70 years and which was started even before I was born, when young women, apparently not the male golfers who predominated then and predominate now, insisted that there had to be somewhere for African Americans to play golf.

What Members may not recognize is that the District of Columbia was a legally segregated city. It was segregated by the Congress of the United States. Brown v. Board of Education was brought by five jurisdictions. One of them was the District of Columbia. It was one of the Brown cases. Every part of this city was segregated except the buses. When these women found that they could not play on the public golf courses here, they petitioned the Secretary of the Interior, Harold Ickes, for the right to play golf like everyone else.

The Federal Government did something that it has never done before and has never done since. It started a segregated golf course. The Federal Government had not done that before. It didn't buy in to Jim Crow, For this was long after the Civil War. But in order to have a golf course in a segregated city, you had to have a black golf course, so that is what we got. This golf course became nationally known because many celebrities came to Washington and it was the golf course that black celebrities had to play on from Joe Lewis to Members of Congress who today are frequent players at the Langston the golf course.

This golf course is one of the great undervalued properties in the District of Columbia. It has gotten great interest from people who want to remake golf courses. Because of its historic significance, they see it as a real prize.

My hat is off to Jimmy Garvin, whom you have mentioned in your remarks, both of you have mentioned in your remarks, because what Jimmy Garvin has done is to build up a golf course which was built on a trash dump. I don't think that's so bad today. We want to build more on tire dumps so that we can make greater use of what we are throwing away. But it certainly indicated where this golf course came then, and, of course, it is not in the best condition today.

I have also introduced the Golf Course Preservation and Modernization Act of 2009, and long ago I recognized that the Federal Government and National Park Service were not in a position to make this into a class A golf course, but along with the East Potomac Park and Rock Creek Golf Course--imagine a city with three golf courses--my bill would indeed form a public/private partnership so that the money would essentially come from the private sector.

If we look at Black History Month as a way to celebrate not only where black people have been but where they are, it's important to understand the institutions that they revered and that they preserved and still preserve because those institutions, for example, as we now see black golfers now regularly on golf courses, had they not been present, then of course there would have been no way for black people to play golf at all. So we were grateful even for a segregated golf course. Black people in the District of Columbia indeed were very grateful that Harold Ickes, in fact, answered the petition with a golf course. And today, close to 71 years later, we should, I think, pay tribute not only to the fact that if that was the only way to do it, that's what the Federal Government did, but we've now come to a time in this city when every facility is open to everyone.

We cherish this golf course for its great history and particularly those who keep that history alive like Jimmy Garvin and the Langston Golf Course.

I thank the generous gentleman from Georgia and our colleague on the other side as well for

their words and for bringing forward this resolution honoring the United States Navy, and especially honoring Medgar Evers.

There is some context that is necessary here. Mississippi was not only late to the civil rights movement, Mississippi was last to the civil rights movement. And there was a reason for that. Because it was delayed. Remember the sit-ins began February 1960, just 50 years ago. That was celebrated just yesterday with the opening of a civil rights museum in Greensboro. Years passed. And you did not see young people coming forward in Mississippi, young and foolish, and a young law student, because Mississippi was so heralded for its reputation for violently opposing civil rights. That is where I wanted to be.

From my first day in Mississippi in June of 1963, I was baptized by crisis. I spent the day with Medgar Evers. I was only a second-year law student, but there were so few people with the skills associated with lawyers who had been in the movement, that he tried to get me to stay in Jackson. But I had committed to Bob Moses, the legendary head of a tiny movement in the delta area of Mississippi, to go to the Mississippi delta.

I spent the day with Medgar Evers taking me around to meet members of the movement, to try to get me to remain, and finally depositing me at--was it a Greyhound or a Trailways bus station? I do not recall. But he put me on that bus, he went home, and he was assassinated in his own driveway. I had learned about it the next morning when a tiny little girl came to wake me up in a sharecropper's house who had accommodated me as a member of the movement to say that Mr. Evers has been shot. The moment exists in my brain and in my heart to this very moment, that unspeakable moment.

Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. John Lewis was the chair of SNCC at that time. Young people had come forward to risk arrest and beatings literally in every State of the union except Mississippi. But there was nobody like the four young students in Greensboro who stepped forward in 1960. And yet I come to Mississippi in 1963, and I assure you not to sit in. But there hadn't been a single sit-in in Mississippi. So here came a middle-aged father and husband and said, ``Okay, I will lead the sit-ins in the biggest city in Mississippi.''

Medgar Evers was not a student. He was not young and foolish the way the students were. He had a lot to risk, and he risked it all. He and a very few others stepped forward to do that first sit- in at a Woolworth's. He paid a price that day. They were beat horribly. And he paid the ultimate price when they took his life in that driveway.

It is time for the United States of America now to step forward, as Medgar Evers did, and recognize this one of a kind American hero. I applaud our country and our Navy for naming a United States Naval ship the Medgar Evers.

Madam Speaker, today, as we come close to the enactment of historic health care legislation, I introduce the Lifelong Improvements in Food and Exercise Act (LIFE), authorizing a national initiative to attack a major health problem in the United States that cannot be remedied through the health care system alone. Growing problems of overweight and obesity are now found in Americans of every age, race, and major demographic group, and threaten the health of Americans like no other single disease or condition does. In fact, the key to eliminating many of the most serious health conditions is reducing overweight and obesity. The LIFE bill would provide $25 million in funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for a coordinated effort to reverse increasingly sedentary lifestyles and diets that are high in fat and sugar. Despite rising consciousness of this epidemic, from NBC's ``The Biggest Loser'' to a steady stream of diet books, startling rates of obesity among adults and children continue in the United States. In 2007, estimates from the CDC National Center for Health Statistics showed that the percentage of children who are overweight has more than doubled, and among adolescents, the rates have tripled since 1980. Today, 13 million overweight children have an 80 percent chance of being overweight adults, with the health conditions that follow, such as high blood pressure, heart disease, and cancer. The CDC reports that Type 2 diabetes, considered an adult disease, is now widespread in children. The health care system is already paying the price, and the consequences for kids will follow them throughout their lives. If we are serious about health care, we must start where the most serious health conditions begin: in the epidemic of overweight and obesity.

The LIFE bill directs the CDC to pursue obesity and sedentary lifestyles in three ways: train health professionals to recognize the signs of obesity early and educate people concerning healthy lifestyles, such as proper nutrition and regular exercise; conduct education campaigns to teach the public about how to recognize and address overweight and obesity; and develop intervention strategies to be

used in everyday life at worksites and in community settings. This important legislation is the minimum necessary to address this major health care crisis. Already, chronic diseases, many of which are caused or exacerbated by overweight or obesity, account for 70 percent of all deaths in the U.S., which is 1.7 million each year, and 60 percent of U.S. medical care expenses annually. According to the Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity, the cost of obesity in the United States was more than $117 billion in 2000. Currently, an estimated 300,000 deaths per year are related to obesity.

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

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

Madam Speaker, on December 11, 2009, I was not able to be present for votes on four amendments to H.R. 4173, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' rollcall vote 963 and rollcall vote 964, and I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 965 and rollcall vote 966.

Madam Speaker, the District of Columbia Omnibus Authorization Act is a welcome committee innovation designed to achieve greater efficiency in handling local District of Columbia matters, most of which are of little importance or concern to Congress, but must come to Congress because they are restricted by Federal statute and cannot become D.C. law until approved by congressional action. All of the provisions in this bill have been passed or approved by the District of Columbia.

This bill contains several land-transfer provisions. In an important effort to continue to balance the city's growing need for land with the National Park Service's (NPS's) mission to protect park land, we are encouraged by the NPS's willingness to move forward with a few small land transfers. The land transfers consist of six small, unused parcels of land scattered throughout the city. Two of the parcels complete a previous Federal transfer to allow the development of the southwest waterfront to move forward. The other four small land transfers, mainly parts of schools and libraries, include a portion of the Marie H. Reed Community Learning Center in northwest Washington,

the old Meyer Elementary School site, the Shaw Junior High School recreational fields, and the southwest library site. Each of these small parcels will allow the District to develop play fields, encourage new development, and improve livability in the District of Columbia.

Also transferred is full ownership to the southwest waterfront, another important effort in the continuing revitalization of undervalued and underused areas, burdened by Federal ownership, which the Federal Government has no interest in using. The District of Columbia has created a new vision for the southwest waterfront that will draw visitors down 10th Street from the National Mall to the waterfront area. However, for reasons largely forgotten from the time of the original transfer of land to the District of Columbia from the NPS in 1960, the original law restricts the use of the land along the waterfront to lease-only arrangements, effectively cutting the city off from building any multi-use structures on the site and driving down its useful value. The restriction on the land, allowing the District only to lease the land, cuts off the District from moving ahead with residential plans that are necessary for badly needed taxpayer growth. Neither the NPS nor the Federal Government has any interest in the waterfront land, nor does it have interest in the future of the southwest waterfront parcels, other than the Maine Lobsterman Memorial and the Titanic Memorial, which have been carved out of the transfer.

An issue integral to the southwest waterfront development is the authorization to narrow the Washington Channel. This bill would narrow the Washington Channel from its current 400 feet to 200 feet, allowing the District to build new piers out into the Washington Channel, to repair existing piers, and to facilitate the redevelopment of water- based activities on the waterfront. The Army Corps of Engineers is supportive of the change, but cannot make this change administratively, and the Coast Guard has indicated that there are no safety concerns in the proposed changes.

In addition to the land transfers, the bill makes several small, noncontroversial statutory changes that also are of no importance to the Federal Government, but will help the District run more smoothly and effectively. For instance, section two of the bill would eliminate the unnecessary restriction on the sale and advertising of lottery tickets in the ``federal enclave'' and in the Shipstead Luce area, which both include areas of downtown D.C. The current prohibition has a tremendous fiscal impact on the District and on private businesses.

Section three of the bill will allow the District to spend unanticipated local revenue that comes in after the District has submitted its budget to Congress, and will give the District authority to take money out of its cash reserve fund for cash-flow management, not to exceed 50 percent of the balance of the fund. Congress has approved these measures in the past, and this legislation simply seeks to make them permanent.

Section seven would exempt bonds issued by the District of Columbia from Federal, state, and local taxation. Currently, tax-exempt bonds issued by the District of Columbia are exempt from taxation only by the District and by the Federal Government. In contrast, bonds issued by Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands are exempt from taxation by each of the 50 States. This change is necessary to avoid disadvantage to the District in the sale of its bonds because this tax-exempt status will increase the demand for the District's bonds and, lower the interest rates that the District bonds pays on its bonds.

Section eight amends the D.C. Code to give the D.C. courts necessary authority and flexibility to operate efficiently and effectively. First, section eight eliminates the District's statutory requirement to hold judicial conferences on an annual basis. Given how accessible literature and information are through the internet, and specifically from the D.C. courts' websites, annual conferences are an unnecessary and time-consuming expense. This section simply gives the D.C. courts the discretion to hold judicial conferences either annually or biennially. In addition, this section gives the D.C. courts authority to delay or toll judicial proceedings in an emergency. The D.C. courts recognize the need to prepare for a catastrophic event, such as a terrorist attack or an act of nature. The D.C. courts already have authority to conduct sessions outside of the District if emergency conditions within the city prohibit normal operations. However, in emergency situations, conditions may impede the transfer of operations to outside of the District for a period of time. In these situations, the D.C. courts must have the authority to delay or toll proceedings. Similar bills have been introduced here in Congress regarding the Federal court system, and several States have enacted similar legislation. Finally, this section will give the D.C. courts authority to offer voluntary separation incentive payments or buyouts. These buyouts will allow the courts to respond to their future administrative and budget needs. Currently, Federal agencies and the Federal courts have the authority to offer buyouts.

Section nine of our bill makes minor changes to the District's Home Rule Charter. This section would permit an increase to the salary of the District's Chief Financial Officer, CFO, currently set at level I of the Executive Schedule. The charter mandates that the District's CFO ``shall be paid at an annual rate equal to the rate of basic pay payable for level I of the Executive Schedule''. The current law does not allow deviations either below or above that level. The District must have the authority to offer a higher annual salary to allow the District to compete with other jurisdictions to hire and retain the most qualified CFO. This section also reduced the timing for special elections for ward council members in the District from 114 days to 70 days to reduce the lapse in local representation, which is necessary and important to the citizens of the District. Current law already permits appointments for vacancies in the office of the Mayor, city council chair, and at-large council seats. This provision simply fills a necessary gap. Further, this section would amend the Home Rule Charter to allow the District to spend from its contingency reserve and emergency reserve funds when they exceed the minimum required balance as set by the charter. The District will continue to be required to replenish the funds if they fall below the minimum required balances.

We ask that the House pass this bill in a bipartisan manner, as it always has done for the D.C. omnibus authorization bills.

Madam Speaker, I introduce the District of Columbia Medicaid Reimbursement Act of 2009 today to raise the federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP), or contribution of the federal government from 70 percent to 75 percent, and to reduce the District's unique role as the only city, except for New York, that pays any portion of Medicaid, an expense that is carried by states and counties in our country. New York City, the jurisdiction that powers the economy of New York State, contributes a 25 percent local share to Medicaid, while the state pays 25 percent, less than the District's statutorily mandated 30 percent contribution. I introduce this bill because the District's continuing responsibility for the share of Medicaid costs typically borne by entire states is a major component of the District's structural deficit and a threat to the financial stability of the city itself, according to the District's Chief Financial Officer (CFO). Today, in the midst of an unprecedented recession and of structural change in the U.S. economy, this burden is not sustainable. Yet the District, unlike other cities which have lost significant populations, has no state economy to share this burden. More than 25 percent of District children and adults are enrolled in Medicaid, compared to 12 percent in Maryland and just 9 percent in Virginia. On average, the District spends over $7,000 per enrollee, while Maryland and Virginia spend $5,509 and $5,177, respectively, reflecting serious health conditions that are concentrated among big city residents in this majority African American city.

In 1997, as part of the Balanced Budget Act, Congress recognized that state costs were too high for any one city to shoulder. To alleviate the resulting financial crisis in the District, Congress increased the federal Medicaid contribution to the District from 50 to 70 percent, and took responsibility for some, but not all, state costs--prisons and courts--relieving the immediate burden, but the city continues to carry most state costs.

In 1997, a formulaic error in the Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) allotment reduced the 70 percent FMAP share, and as a result, the District received only $23 million instead of the $49 million due. I was able to secure a technical correction to the Balanced Budget Act of 1999, partially increasing the annual allotment to $32 million from FY2000 forward. I appreciate that in 2005, Congress responded to my effort to get an additional annual increase of $20 million in the budget reconciliation bill, bringing DC's Medicaid reimbursement payments to $57 million as intended by the Balanced Budget Act. However, this amount did not reimburse the District for the years a federal error denied the city part of its federal contribution, and in any case, of course, was not intended to meet the structural problem this bill partially addresses. Now, with health care before the Congress, the time has come to close the loop on this leftover issue.

The District has taken important steps on its own to reduce Medicaid costs through greater efficiency, and to treat and prevent conditions that prove costly when hospitalization or expensive treatments become necessary. The District Medicaid agency won federal recognition as one of only two Medicaid programs nationwide to exceed the federal government's child immunization goal for school-age children at 95 percent, and improved its fraud surveillance, recovering $15 million in fraudulently billed funds. The city's novel DC Health Care Alliance, for which federal approval is pending, would allow coverage of residents and provide more early and preventative care, avoiding huge Medicaid costs when health conditions become severe and Medicaid becomes the only option.

The DC Medicaid Reimbursement Act of 2009 is the eighth in the ``Free and Equal DC'' series. This series of bills addresses inappropriate and often unequal restrictions placed only on the District and no other U.S. jurisdiction. Although today's bill cannot address the entire structural problem that the District faces because the city is not part of a state, the bill would at least make the city no worse off than the only other city that contributes to Medicaid.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this increase that will help my city's most needy residents.

Madam Speaker, on November 4, 2009, I was not able to be present for votes on amendments to H.R. 3639, the Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on: rollcall 845, rollcall 846, rollcall 847, rollcall 848, and rollcall 849.

On November 6, 2009, I was not able to be present for votes on amendments to H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 869, and I would have voted ``no'' on: rollcall 870, rollcall 871, rollcall 872, and rollcall 873.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Democratic bill to bend the curve that has seen health care costs rise three times faster than wages.

Mr. Speaker, I support the Affordable Health Care for America Act both because of the extraordinary step forward it brings the nation and my district, the District of Columbia. First, I took steps to assure that the Affordable Health Care for America Act we expect to pass tonight would treat the District equally with the 50 states (although it does not do so for the territories). Consequently, the bill will provide coverage for 14,000 uninsured D.C. residents and affordable credits to help up to 134,000 D.C. families pay for coverage; will improve employer-based coverage for 363,000 District residents; will improve Medicare for 75,000 D.C. seniors, including closing the prescription drug donut hole for 3,300 seniors, as well as providing free preventative care and wellness check-ups for all seniors; will allow 22,200 D.C. small businesses to obtain affordable health care coverage; and will save about 400 District families from bankruptcy resulting from unaffordable health costs. The bill also will reduce the cost of uncompensated care by $126 million for the District's besieged hospitals and health care providers.

I am proud of the remarkable advances made by our bill, even though it does not meet all that I pressed to achieve. The Congress, of course, is not known for perfect bills, but the extraordinary diversity of our Democratic Caucus--from right to left--has assured that this bill represents a cross-section of the American public--urban, suburban, and rural. The incredible diversity of the Democratic Caucus, representing Republican, right-leaning, moderate, and progressive areas, meant that we could go to the floor only with a bill that sensitively put all of America together into one convincing bill. That is why we have produced a bill that satisfies deficit hawks, more wary of increasing deficits than of most other issues as well as single- payer advocates, who believe that only Medicare for all can sufficiently reduce costs while providing adequate health care to the middle class and the uninsured. Thus, there can be no doubt that the Affordable Health Care for America Act is a balanced bill.

The bill's greatest achievements are that it will reduce the deficit over the next 10 years and into the future while covering 96 percent of the American people; will end discrimination by insurers who dropped or refused to renew or sell coverage because of health status; and will ensure that coverage is affordable by providing subsidies for people in employer-based health care or through the insurance exchange of private insurers as well as a consumer option to drive down the cost of health care while operating on a level playing field with other insurers.

I particularly support this bill because it will take off the burden that the District of Columbia heroically took on, beginning with the Williams administration, to offer health care to the uninsured, without any assistance from the federal government, rather than subject them, as well as the District, to costly emergency room care, the most expensive available. The District's Health Care Alliance, which provides insurance to more than 50,000 residents lacking health insurance, who do not qualify for Medicaid or Medicare, is collapsing under the weight of increasing requests from individuals without insurance. The city had to cut its Health Alliance budget this year to 46,000 individuals, although a year ago 48,000 individuals had registered and 55,000 were expected to register in the 2010 fiscal year.

At my ``Fact Check Town Hall Meeting on Health Care Reform,'' which observers said was notable for its civility and the diversity of residents attending, it was apparent that District residents strongly support the approach taken by today's bill. By September, my office had received 2,000 contacts on health care reform, almost all supporting the reform efforts underway in the House, with only nine residents expressing opposition to any reform. Also, 276 District residents had written in opposition to parts of the proposed bill, and 220 of them opposed the public plan. Most who opposed the public plan, appeared to believe that such a plan would affect their employer-based plans, which this bill ensures cannot happen.

I believe that this bill is strong and compelling enough to offer stiff resilience to those who have been unwilling to take on the special interests and who may now believe their best hope is in the other body. Tonight, this bill provides the best hope for the health care of our nation's longsuffering people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for the extraordinary work that he and others have done on this bill.

The extraordinary diversity of our Democratic Caucus, Mr. Speaker, from right to left, has ensured that this bill represents a cross- section of our country, urban, suburban and rural. The incredible diversity of our Democratic Caucus, representing Republicans, right- leaning, moderate, and progressive areas meant that we could not come to this floor today without a bill that sensitively put all of America together into one convincing bill. That is why we have produced a bill that satisfies deficit hawks who are more wary of increasing deficits than of most other issues, as well as single-payer advocates who believe that only Medicare for all can markedly reduce costs while providing adequate health care for the middle class and the uninsured.

Thus, there can be no doubt this evening that the Affordable Health Care for America Act is a balanced bill and the best bill for the citizens of the United States of America.

The extraordinary diversity of our Democratic Caucus--from right to left has ensured that this bill represents a cross-section of the our country--urban, suburban, and rural. The incredible diversity of our Democratic Caucus, representing Republican, right-leaning, moderate, and progressive areas, meant that we could come to this floor today only with a bill that sensitively put all of America together into one convincing bill. That is why we have produced a bill that satisfies deficit hawks, who are more wary of increasing deficits than of most other issues, as well as single-payer advocates, who believe that only Medicare for all can markedly reduce costs while providing adequate health care to the middle class and the uninsured. Thus, there can be no doubt that the Affordable Health Care for America Act is the best bill for the citizens of the United States of America.

The bill's greatest achievements are that it would reduce the deficit over the next 10 years and into the future while covering 96 percent of the American people; would end discrimination by insurers who dropped or refused to renew or sell coverage because of health status and would ensure that coverage is affordable by providing subsidies for people in employer-based health care or through an insurance exchange of private insurers and a consumer option to drive down the cost of health care while operating on a level playing field with other insurers.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Madam Speaker, today I introduce the District of Columbia District Attorney Establishment Act of 2009, continuing a series of bills that I will introduce this session to ensure a continuation of the process of the transition to full democracy and self-government for the residents of the District of Columbia. This bill is the seventh in our ``Free and Equal D.C.'' series of bills to eliminate anti-Home Rule legislation and to remedy obsolete or inappropriate congressional laws to the local affairs of the District of Columbia or denials of federal benefits or recognition routinely granted to other jurisdictions.

This bill would establish an Office of District Attorney for the District of Columbia, to be headed by a district attorney elected by D.C. residents. This bill would effectuate the November 2002 referendum in which D.C. voters overwhelmingly (82 percent) approved a locally elected District Attorney.

This important legislation is designed to put the District of Columbia on par with every other local jurisdiction in the country by allowing D.C. residents to elect an independent district attorney to prosecute local criminal and civil matters now handled by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, a federal official. Under this bill, the new, locally elected district attorney would become the city's chief legal officer. The United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia would remain and, like other U.S. Attorneys' offices in the U.S., would handle only the federal matters under its jurisdiction. As presently constituted, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District is the largest in the country only because it serves mainly as the local city prosecutor. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia needs to be freed up to handle national security and other vital federal cases, particularly in the post-9/11 nation's capital.

There is no law enforcement issue of greater importance to our residents, or on which we have less say, than the prosecution of local crimes here. A U.S. Attorney has no business in the local criminal affairs of a local jurisdiction. This bill simply would make the District's prosecutor accountable to the people by electing him or her, as elsewhere in the nation.

In addition to issues of democracy and self-government, such as congressional voting rights and legislative and budget autonomy, that District residents are entitled to as American citizens, residents are determined to achieve each and every other element of home rule. Amending the District's Home Rule Act to create a local district attorney position would be an important development toward our goal of achieving true self-government. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to introduce the National Transportation Safety Board Interim Safety Recommendations Act of 2009, joined by regional Members, including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-MD, Frank Wolf, R-VA, Jim Moran, D-VA, Chris Van Hollen, D-MD, Donna Edwards, D-MD, and Gerald Connolly, D-VA, as original co- sponsors. Our bill will clarify that the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, may, and should, offer interim safety recommendations to state and local transportation authorities.

On June 22, 2009, two Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, WMATA, trains collided near the Fort Totten station here in the Nation's capital. This collision was devastating for this region and for the Nation's transit systems, as nine regional residents died, seven from the Nation's capital. On Metro everyday, in the national capital region, Members of Congress and their staff and millions of other Federal employees of every rank form the majority of Metro's week day riders. Millions of tourists, people who work in every sector and school children are regular riders. The collision has had nation-wide consequences. On September 22, even before its Metro study was complete, the NTSB issued nine nation-wide safety recommendations to address concerns about the safety of train control systems that use audio frequency track circuits, like those that may have contributed to the June 22 train collision here. We believe that, in turn, low-cost, recommendations were in order that might save lives.

The NTSB has been particularly vigilant in quickly reporting defects and operational problems, to encourage remediation even before its final reports. Long before the June 22 collision, in 1996, NTSB had recommended to WMATA that it replace or retrofit its older 1970's 1000 series train cars after a train overran a station platform, striking a standing, unoccupied train, and killing the driver of the striking train. The NTSB renewed this recommendation to replace or refurbish the older cars following the roll back accident of a train car in the Woodley Park Metro station in 2004, as it should have. The NTSB is not prohibited by statute from making interim recommendations for corrective actions, but low cost recommendations of the kind made thereafter were not made after any of the Metro accidents. This bill clarifies that the NTSB does have such authority.

While the reason for the June 22 crash has not yet been determined, it was evident that the striking car, which was an older 1000 series train car, was significantly more damaged than the struck car, which was a newer 6000 series car. In fact, all of the fatalities were from the 1000 series car. Following the collision, the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689 suggested that WMATA put the 1000 series cars between the newer, more crashworthy 6000 series cars.

Unfortunately, without the regulatory authority established by this bill we have introduced, there have been no tests of crash worthiness either of the newer 6000 series cars or of the older 1000 series. However, the evidence from the crash suggests that 40 year old cars may be more dangerous as lead and rear cars. The NTSB did not disagree with this interim step at a Congressional hearing in July, but it never recommended this, or any other action, except action that is so costly that it will not occur.

It is a well known and frustrating fact that, for years, Metro has tried to convince Congress and the local jurisdictions to fund replacements for the old 1000 series cars and only this year, after the tragic collision, has Congress appropriated the first $150 million of the $1.5 billion authorized first time in 2007. The 1000 series cars were only 300 of Metro's 1,100-car fleet, but replacing those cars will cost $600 million and take at least five years of combined federal and local area payments. Moreover, the cost of gas at the pump has so driven up Metro ridership, that it cannot simply cut its fleet by 300 cars. Congress and members of our regional delegation had been working long before the collision to get from Congress the $1.5 billion that has now been authorized for WMATA's urgent capital and preventive maintenance needs, including new cars. While we have finally been successful in getting the first $150 million, it will take years to fund these replacements, not to mention other problems such as the circuit signals that NTSB has already found may be implicated. Recommendations short of multimillion dollar upgrades and replacements can save lives. This bill requires the NTSB to specifically consider recommending interim recommendations where appropriate, especially when a transit agency has not secured funds to meet the costly permanent recommendations.

Madam Speaker, I ask that the House pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the TEA Party minority didn't succeed this summer as they thought they had, so they have come to the floor this afternoon. And they are not going to succeed any more on the floor than they succeeded with the noise of the summer. And how do we know it? The public option has come roaring back.

The people got through the noise, and they understand now to a fare- thee-well. In fact, my greatest fear is that now more people want the public option than will qualify for the public option in the bill, once they came to understand the relationship between what they're paying for insurance, that health insurance has been going up at a rate three times their wages, and that is why the wages of the residents of our country have been flat for decades. Once they understood that, they put two and two together.

The American people are smart. They are smarter than the TEA Party crowd that has taken to the floor this afternoon.