Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today I reintroduce the Major General David F. Wherley, Jr. District of Columbia National Guard Retention and College Access Act for technical reasons. I introduced this bill a month after the heartbreaking collision of two Red Line Metro trains here in the District of Columbia that took the lives of 9 area residents, 7 from the District, including a local hero, Major General David F. Wherley, Jr. I originally had introduced the District of Columbia National Guard Retention and College Access Act in May of this year, but after the Metro tragedy I said at the Wherleys' memorial service that I would rename this bill in honor of General Wherley, who not only served his country all his adult life and never forgot the men and women who served under him at home or at war, but was particularly attentive to the residents of the District of Columbia, especially the city's most troubled youth. Thereafter, Congressman Jose

Serrano, chair of the Appropriations Financial Services subcommittee, was good enough to offer this renaming in his appropriations bill and to appropriate the funds without authorization this year and in prior years.

Under General Wherley's command, the D.C. National Guard deployed several of its units in the Global War on Terrorism. General Wherley himself served courageously in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but at home he spent hours with me figuring out ways to get funds for programs for the District's children. We were always successful because he would show up, not only in my office, but wherever he was needed to go and get funds or to do service.

General Wherley was a full-service leader. He not only commanded the D.C. National Guard; he worked closely with me and with city officials on programs for our city, its disadvantaged youth, and on keeping our Guard competitive as a premier force at home as well as abroad. He became one of us when he and his wife, Anne, decided to purchase a co- op in Southeast, D.C., in the Capitol Hill community where they participated as hometown residents. Anne, who sadly also was killed in the train collision, was his high school sweetheart. At their joint memorial service, I only half-jokingly said that she did everything with him but run the D.C. Guard, because she was his helpmate in every aspect of his full and fruitful life.

As I highlighted when I originally introduced this bill earlier this session, the education incentives in my bill serve not only to encourage high quality recruits, but, when appropriated, have had the important benefit of helping the D.C. National Guard to maintain the force necessary to protect the federal presence because this funding helps equalize an important benefit compared with what is offered by Guard units in surrounding jurisdictions, which also are open to them.

A strong D.C. National Guard, able to attract the best soldiers is especially important, given the dual mission of the D.C. National Guard to protect the federal presence as well as hometown D.C. This unique responsibility distinguishes the D.C. National Guard from any other National Guard and accounts for the generosity of the Appropriations Committee in the past. However, while the appropriators treat funding for the D.C. National Guard as a programmatic request, under past administrations, the Office of Management and Budget has contended that these funds are earmarks, putting them in jeopardy for consistent funding. It therefore is imperative that this important educational incentive be authorized appropriately to ensure its permanent sustainability. That is what this bill does today.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I want to thank my colleague from California for this expansion, and my colleague on the other side for supporting his amendment.

I come to the floor because, in my own work as chairman of a subcommittee that engages in construction of courthouses and of Federal buildings throughout the United States, we have been trying to make the United States lead by example. The cost of all of this, I say to my colleague, will go down tremendously if the Federal Government is in this big time.

Your attention to thermal technology with regard to solar is very important. Just this morning, I went to speak to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers who are deeply engaged in this work in military institutions and the defense industries. Already we read that 30,000 jobs have come out of the stimulus just reported last week. And what is important about the stimulus is that every bit of construction is built around energy conservation; will not put on a roof, will not do an HVAC system, will not upgrade any part of a building unless at the center is energy conservation, because the taxpayers pay for this energy in leasing even. We do bulk leasing, which means we pay for the heat; we pay for the air conditioning. So to the extent that the gentleman is making us expand the horizons, he does the Nation a great service.

The Chinese are way ahead of us in research. They have trumped us even in manufacturing. This rushes us to manufacturing and moves the Nation ahead so that we regain our leadership on technology, a leadership, I regret to say, that we have already lost in solar, but this bill and the gentleman's amendment helps us to quickly catch up.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank the gentleman not only for yielding, but for his work in bringing this matter to the floor, and I associate myself with his remarks and with the remarks of my good friend on the other side of the aisle.

Seldom do we get an opportunity to applaud and find an appropriate way to recognize a truly historic figure. That is what we are about to do a week from today when we give our highest honor, the Congressional Gold Medal, to former Senator Edward W. Brooke.

Senator Kennedy would very much have wanted to be present next Wednesday. He quickly gathered his two-thirds of the signatures on his side to give the medal to Senator Brooke, the first African American to be popularly elected to the United States Senate. We are aware that there were African Americans in the Senate during the Civil War, but that was before the South had come back into the Union. So 100 years or so were to go by before another African American was to be elected.

But what an improbable man; a Republican from the then Democratic, still Democratic State of Massachusetts, where only 2 percent of the residents were African American. It is a tribute to the State of Massachusetts, to be sure. It is a tribute to the Republican Party that a man of this quality would step forward.

My interest, of course, comes from his roots. Senator Edward Brooke was born and raised in the District of Columbia. He is who he is because he was born in the segregated District of Columbia, overcame those barriers and went on to see his life for what he could make of it.

Senator Brooke is going to be 90 years old 2 days before the Congress awards this medal. He is in extraordinary shape. I love to hear him talk, because he talks with such eloquence, as if he were still on the Senate floor. But it should be known that Senator Brooke has had breast cancer, and obviously he has some of the infirmities associated with age. Among those, however, is not his signature modesty.

He has worked diligently for the D.C. House Voting Rights Act, which we are close, if we just continue, to finally getting this year. He called some of his friends, his fellow Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, and I thought it would be quite appropriate to give him the medal now in the year that we are seeking to pass the D.C. Voting Rights Act, which he cosponsored time and again when he was in the Senate.

So, his modesty notwithstanding, we started down this road, got our two-thirds in the House as well, and we are about now to welcome this historic figure home again. Remember, we have had only three African American Senators and the first African American President, and he is going to be here, because he recognizes the historic significance of Senator Brooke's life.

You should know, however, that this man came through the fire to where he is. Yes, he was born to parents who worked in the government and educated their children, but he went off to fight in World War II in the 366th Combat Infantry Regiment, which was a segregated regiment. He advanced to be a combat decorated officer. He went to law school at Boston University School of Law and edited their Law Review, and that is how they got the prize that is Edward Brooke there in the first place.

Not only was Edward Brooke the first African American to serve in the Senate, Senator Brooke began by breaking barriers. He was the first African American in the United States to be elected as State attorney general and the first to be elected to statewide office.

Here is a man that made the most of whatever office he had. That was the time of the famous ``Boston Strangler'' case, and Senator Brooke adopted a very broad notion of his role as attorney general and the State's chief law enforcement officer by bringing the county district attorneys together, the fragmented police forces, and coordinating the multiple jurisdictions to successfully conclude that massive investigation.

It was 1966 that he prepared to come to the Senate. We were just passing the civil rights laws which he, himself, helped engineer; and in 1967 he came to the Senate, and the list of laws he is responsible for is indeed long: his leadership on the 1968 Housing Act; his leadership in the battle to uphold the Voting Rights Act; the Brooke amendment, providing that tenants of public housing pay no more than 25 percent of their income for housing; his leadership on the creation of Washington's Metro system, which most of the staff here use, and much more.

Senator Brooke has written his autobiography, published in 2007, ``Bridging the Divide, My Life, Senator Edward W. Brooke.'' It certainly would be a marriage of historical events if we were, as I believe we will, to pass the D.C. Voting Rights Act in this very year that Senator Edward Brooke, who championed the rights of the city and of all Americans, is honored here.

I thank you for yielding. And I thank the ranking member of the subcommittee for working with me to make sure that this bill came to the floor today. I especially thank my good friend, the original sponsor of this bill, the gentlewoman from New York, who has worked tirelessly to make sure this bill got done. And I want to take note of the women who for 10 years have never given up on this idea.

I had to overcome a presumption against transferring Federal property, so I encountered many difficulties in trying to get this bill through. But women never say no, and that is very important to achieving what is long overdue, this bill.

And note what the mission of the National Women's Museum is: to research, collect and showcase the contributions of women in professional fields as well as honor women's roles in nurturing their families and communicates. Women are absent from the Mall. Women are absent from prominent government sites. Part of it has to do with inequality of women in our society, that they haven't as often done what comes to light, but even when what comes to light comes, they are not recognized. That's why we need a women's museum. We note that this year there are women winning Nobel Prizes in science and economics, which shows you that you are going to have a lot to honor in this museum very quickly.

We went through regular order. The Women's museum has to buy the parcel at market value. They have 5 years to raise the money or it reverts back to the government. That is regular order; that's the way it always is when we transfer a property. But the women are geared up and ready to go, and I thank all concerned for making this bill possible today, especially my partner in this enterprise, the gentlelady from New York, and most of all the women themselves who refused to give up and now have what they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 465) recognizing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Association on the occasion of its 10th anniversary, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous remarks on H. Res. 465.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 465 offered by Mr. Brown of South Carolina. This resolution recognizes the importance of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and acknowledges the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Association on the occasion of its 10th anniversary.

The waterway was authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1937 for the purpose of supporting and encouraging interstate commerce. Today, the waterway allows for the safe and efficient transportation of goods along the Atlantic coast from Norfolk, Virginia, to Key West, Florida.

The waterway is comprised of numerous channels and rivers that were once separate and distinct. For example, the Dismal Swamp Canal was once a 22-mile-long waterway that supported commercial vessels traveling between Virginia and North Carolina. In 1929, however, it was purchased by the Federal Government for half a million dollars and incorporated into a larger transportation network. Today, the Dismal Swamp Canal is an integral part of the waterway and is recognized as the oldest operating artificial waterway in the United States. Additionally, it is also on the National Park Service's Underground Railroad Network to Freedom program.

The waterway holds great significance to those who live in the southeastern United States. It enables waterborne transportation to move smoothly and efficiently and provides numerous recreational opportunities for anglers and boating and enthusiasts.

It is appropriate to recognize the importance of the waterway to the quality of life of our citizens and to the thousands of commercial, recreational, and military vessels that utilize the system each year.

This resolution also acknowledges the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Association on the occasion of its 10th anniversary. This association has worked over the last decade as an advocate for keeping the waterway open and safe for navigation. It is appropriate to recognize its numerous contributions.

Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution and urge my colleagues to support it as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, along with the gentleman from Arkansas and the gentleman from South Carolina who is the author of this resolution, we are pleased to support this resolution.

At this time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Lynch, not only for yielding to me, but especially for his hard work on this bill, and I thank our ranking member for his important work on this bill as well.

I want to associate myself with your remarks, Mr. Chairman, simply to indicate that this land is already in the possession of the District of Columbia, and yet the subcommittee had to be in pains to make sure that the reversionary clause was in keeping with the last bill, which I also sponsored, and with the changes we have asked for.

The District took what was an abandoned man-made island, but in our most valuable Anacostia River, and tried to make something of it when it looked like there were some people who wanted to make a children's theme park. That did not occur, yet we were left with a bill that said this shall be a children's theme park or it reverts. It was up to me to come and change the reversionary clause when the District abandoned the idea.

If I may say so, I am pleased the District has abandoned the idea and wants to use Kingman and Heritage Island to revitalize the Anacostia River and to essentially return this plot of land to use as an environmental natural reserve park which will help to restore the ecosystem and provide usable space, in addition, when people want to enjoy the river and nature in a place that is really in the middle of the District of Columbia, a big urban center.

The District also wants to build an environmental education center. You can see how well the uses fit the land than even a children's theme park. I am particularly enamored with the remembrance grove. We have not forgotten the three children who were on the plane that went down on 9/11 who had won a contest by the National Geographic Association and who were looking forward to that trip.

I am particularly pleased that the city's new plan complements my own work on the Anacostia Watershed Initiative bill which this Congress passed last session. I thank the chairman and the ranking member, and may I thank Mr. Rahall and his ranking member as well for waiving jurisdiction and allowing us to get on with the work of taking Kingman and Heritage Islands back to where they belong.

I rise with great thanks to our chairman and our ranking member, who worked so well together on this really essential bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have rescued a lot of private sector agencies, a whole slew of them. But here comes the postal service not asking for a bailout. Understand that we don't even subsidize the postal service, even though it is the only Federal agency mentioned in the Constitution. So it's a Federal agency we must have, mandated by the Constitution.

Yet alone among government agencies, if you want to consider an agency that funds itself out of its own revenue a government agency just because it's in the Constitution, alone the Postal Service is required to prefund its retiree health benefits. Not us, mind you. No Federal agency has got to do that. And how does the Postal Service prefund? From postal funds.

I don't think you need to read the papers every day to know what has happened to postal funds. These folks have had to put up $10 billion in prefunding in the past couple of years out of postal funds; yet this is a failing business. It's not a failing business because of its policies or practices. The Postal Service has been overtaken by the fax; overtaken by emails.

They're not like Wall Street, which went into a deliberate mode of greed. I don't care what kind of genius you are, you're going to have a hard time if you're the postal service, which must exist under our Constitution, to figure out how you're going to stay in business.

Yet in the past year alone, look at the kind of hits this institution has taken, not mandated by us: your mail carrier, almost 11,500; rural carriers, 753 gone; mail handlers, 2,938 gone. In the last 10 years, the postal service has lost 175,000 employees. Show me a business that is left standing, having taken those kinds of hits not because it's overspending but for reasons, some of which are beyond its control.

Now the chairman, the ranking member, the whole committee is on their case for even further cuts, but the American people are on our case to make sure that their mail keeps being delivered and that their trusted postal worker is always there.

We shouldn't ask more from the post office in prefunding retiree benefits at a time when I believe you could find nobody in the United States who is prefunding.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the United States Commission on an Open Society with Security Act which expresses an idea I began working on when the first signs of the closing of parts of our open society appeared after the Oklahoma City bombing tragedy, well before 9/11. I introduce this bill on the eighth anniversary of 9/11 because this bill grows more urgent as an increasing variety of security measures proliferate throughout the country without any thought about their effect on common freedoms and ordinary access, and without any guidance from the government or elsewhere. The introduction of this bill also precedes my upcoming September 22nd hearing on federal building security, which has gotten so out of control that a tourist passing by a federal building cannot even get in to use the restroom or enjoy the many restaurant facilities located in areas otherwise bereft of such opportunities. The security in federal buildings has too long resided only in the hands of non-security experts who do not take into account actual threats, and as a result, spend lavish amounts on needless security procedures. For example, the Government Accountability Office completed sting operations this year, carrying bomb making materials into 10 high-security federal buildings and assembling them in the bathrooms. This scandal shines a light on the failure to use risk-based assessments in allocations of resources.

The bill I introduce today would begin a systematic investigation that takes full account of the importance of maintaining our democratic traditions while responding adequately to the real and substantial threats terrorism poses. To accomplish its difficult mission, the Commission created by this bill would be composed not only of military and security experts, but for the first time, they would be at the same table with experts from such fields as business, architecture, technology, law, city planning, art, engineering, philosophy, history, sociology, and psychology. To date, questions of security most often have been left almost exclusively to security and military experts. They are indispensable participants, but these experts cannot alone resolve all the new and unprecedented issues raised by terrorism in an open society. In order to strike the balance required by our democratic traditions, a diverse group of experts needs to be working together at the same table.

For years before our eyes, parts of our open society have gradually been closed down because of terrorism and the fear of terrorism-- whether checkpoints on streets near the Capitol even when there were no alerts, to applications of technology without regard to their effects on privacy. We have also seen heightened controversy, litigation, hearings, legislation and court decisions because of the use of technology that intercepts terrorist communications but also covers communications among Americans.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 136) authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for a celebration of Citizenship Day.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 136.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 136 authorizes use of the Capitol Grounds for a celebration of Citizenship Day. This event will be sponsored by the National Korean American Service and Education Consortium. The bill is sponsored by Congresswoman Watson and has bipartisan support.

The Capitol Hill event will be part of a national program for Korean Americans who will gather in Washington on that day. The date for the event is planned for September 17, 2009. September 17 marks the anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and is commemorated as Constitution Day and Citizenship Day. Citizenship Day was authorized by P.L. 108-447. As is required of all events on the Capitol Grounds, this event will be free and open to the public.

I support this resolution and reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman. I ask the gentleman if he has any further speakers.

I yield back the remainder of my time and ask that the bill be approved by the House.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2498) to designate the Federal building located at 844 North Rush Street in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``William O. Lipinski Federal Building''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2498.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2498 and am pleased today to speak in support of a bill that names a Federal building located in Illinois as the ``William O. Lipinski Federal Building.''

Representative William Lipinski was a leader on the Public Works and Transportation Committee and later on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee throughout the time of his service in the Congress when he represented the Third and Fifth Congressional District of Illinois. He served as a senior Democrat on the Railroads Subcommittee, the Aviation Subcommittee, and the Highways and Transit Subcommittee.

He had a lifelong passion to address transportation and connectivity issues in his district, whether it was providing a local airport with access for financing infrastructure improvements or providing public transit options to areas in his congressional district that lacked access. Representative Lipinski also played a large role in national transportation policy by taking leadership roles in the past two transportation authorization bills that provided funding for local priorities in highways, highway safety, mass transit and surface transportation programs.

Representative Lipinski was born in Chicago on December 22, 1937. He attended Loras College in Dubuque, Iowa, and served in the United States Army Reserves from 1961 to 1967. After serving in the Armed Forces, Representative Lipinski served in several different public service capacities in Chicago, Illinois. He was an alderman in Chicago, a city councilman, and later held several different positions within the Democratic Party in Chicago. Congressman Lipinski was eventually elected to Congress in 1982 and served in the 10 succeeding Congresses.

Representative Lipinski retired in 2005 and is succeeded by his son, Representative Daniel Lipinski.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2498, which names this building located at 844 North Rush Street in Chicago as the ``William O. Lipinski Federal Building.''

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

I have no other speakers.

Does the gentleman have any other speakers?

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2121) to provide for the transfer of certain Federal property to the Galveston Historical Foundation, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2121.

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

H.R. 2121, as amended, authorizes the Administrator of General Services to convey a parcel of real property located at 502 20th Street in Galveston, Texas, to the Galveston Historical Foundation subject to certain requirements, but not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the bill.

The bill was introduced by Congressman Paul. The building is the U.S. Custom House and is currently occupied by the historical foundation, which has a long-term lease on the facility. In 1998, the historical foundation signed a cooperative agreement with the General Services Administration to permit the foundation to lease and rehabilitate the building. Despite a dedicated and unanimous commitment to preservation, the building is not well suited for Federal tenants and the needs that we have for modern office space.

This bill allows the Galveston Historical Society to purchase the building outright at fair market value as determined by the administrator. The proceeds will be deposited into the Federal building fund. The General Services Administration supports the bill, and I strongly urge its passage as Chair of the Subcommittee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2053) to designate the United States courthouse located at 525 Magoffin Avenue in El Paso, Texas, as the ``Albert Armendariz, Sr., United States Courthouse''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2053.

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

H.R. 2053 honors an outstanding American jurist. Judge Albert Armendariz, Sr. had a long and distinguished career of public service and was a true patriot of the United States of America.

Judge Armendariz was a native Texan. After he served his country in World War II, he left the U.S. Army and used the GI bill to continue his education. He graduated from the University of Texas at El Paso, then the University of Southern California Law School where he was the only Mexican American in attendance. After graduating from USC law school in 1950, Judge Armendariz returned to El Paso, Texas.

Early in his career, Judge Armendariz tackled discrimination head on while serving on the El Paso Civil Service Commission and pushing the agency to end discrimination against Latino applicants for civil service positions. Judge Armendariz also served as an immigration judge within the U.S. Department of Justice. He was the first Latino judge to serve as a justice on the Eighth Judicial District Court of Appeals for the State of Texas.

In addition to his service in the government, Judge Armendariz also found time to serve in leadership positions in several influential civic organizations and helped form the influential Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund in 1968.

Judge Armendariz had a never-ending passion for service to his community and practiced law until his death at the age of 88 on October 4, 2004. Given his extraordinary service, it is fitting and proper to honor Judge Armendariz by designating the United States Courthouse located at 525 Magoffin Avenue in El Paso, Texas, in his honor.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3193) to designate the United States courthouse under construction at 101 South United States Route 1 in Fort Pierce, Florida, as the ``Alto Lee Adams, Sr., United States Courthouse''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3193.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3193 and am pleased today to speak in support of a bill that names the courthouse located in Fort Pierce, Florida, as the Alto Lee Adams, Sr. United States Courthouse.

Judge Alto Lee Adams was born in 1899 in Florida and served as a member of the U.S. Navy in World War I. Judge Adams later graduated from the University of Florida Law School in 1921 and began practice in Fort Pierce in 1924. After practicing law in Fort Pierce County for 14 years, Judge Adams was appointed to the Florida State Circuit Court in 1938. After serving as a circuit court judge, Judge Adams served two stints as a member of the Florida Supreme Court. He was an active member of his community, serving as president of the Florida State Elks Association and vice-chair of the State Welfare Board.

Because of Judge Adams' exemplary career in public service as both a member of the military and as a Florida Supreme Court justice, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3193, which names the Federal courthouse under construction at 101 South United States Route 1 in Fort Pierce, Florida, as the Alto Lee Adams, Sr. United States Courthouse.

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

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

First off, Mr. Speaker, may I thank the gentlewoman from California for her work on this bill and for managing this bill as well and explaining it to the House.

I'm very grateful to the ranking member of the full committee for his work on this bill and his cooperation in helping us to move this bill forward.

Mr. Speaker, this is nothing more or nothing less than a holdover from the old pre-Home Rule days in the District of Columbia. The Congress passed the Home Rule Act and intended that local laws would be a matter for the District of Columbia, and somehow, this got left out of the mix. And the OPM, the Office of Personnel Management, and its council's office has been vexed--that's the only word for it--vexed by these complaints that these sometimes come and sometimes don't.

For example, advisory neighborhood commissioners, peculiar to the District of Columbia, are ``elected officials.'' They're unpaid. If you look at the council of the District of Columbia, almost all of them were advisory neighborhood commissioners. But somehow, people bring complaints against them when they run for office because they're not regarded in Federal law as elected officials. They're elected officials; unpaid, but they're elected officials. They run for office. Those are not matters that you would expect a Federal regulatory agency to pay any attention to. And I don't want the OPM, in fact, spending the time of its special council on the arcane laws of the District of Columbia.

What this law says is you, D.C., will have to have your own Hatch Act. The Hatch Act was one of the great reforms in government. Perhaps there's no reform ever in government that's been more important than the Hatch Act. This bill can't go into effect until the District of Columbia has its own Hatch Act for its own local law, the way California and all the States of the Union have their own version of the Hatch Act. As I heard the ranking member say, When you're getting Federal money and you're involved in Federal matters--and often matters in the State are Federal matters--the Hatch Act applies as always.

When you're dealing in D.C. with D.C. management, you need your own Hatch Act, and you need OPM to deal with the often more serious matters that affect the Federal Government when millions of dollars may be involved in Hatch Act violations.

I want to thank my good friends from California, both of them, for their work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the District of Columbia Hatch Act Reform Act of 2009 eliminates anomalous treatment of the District of Columbia which, alone among U.S. jurisdictions, still falls under the Federal Hatch Act as an uncorrected leftover provision from before the Congress made the District an independent jurisdiction that today enacts its own local laws. Fortunately, the House recognized that the present Federal Hatch Act jurisdiction over the District was inappropriate and obsolete and removed this Federal responsibility several years ago, but the Senate failed to act. H.R. 1345 will eliminate the double indignity of placing a local burden on the Federal Government while depriving the District of a responsibility that only local jurisdictions familiar with local laws can be expected to handle appropriately. H.R. 1345 retains Federal Hatch Act authority concerning prohibited partisan and political activity that applies to every State and locality upon receipt of Federal funds or functions, and importantly, requires the District to enact its own local version of the Hatch Act barring similar local violations before H.R. 1345 can become effective. Local Hatch Act violations in the District are rare, but the District needs its own Hatch Act to fully account and be responsible for local violations, with which only a local, objective body would be familiar.

H.R. 1345 leaves in place the Federal Hatch Act restrictions that apply to other jurisdictions on the use of official authority, specifically as it relates to elections; the solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of political campaign contributions; the prohibitions on running for public office in partisan elections; and the use of on-duty time and resources to engage in partisan campaign activity when Federal funds or responsibilities are involved. My bill would remove only the Federal Hatch Act jurisdiction that applies to the District of Columbia and would require the District to enact its own local Hatch Act, similar to those in other jurisdictions, instead of requiring the Federal Office of Personnel Management, OPM, and its Special Counsel to devote staff time and other resources to investigation, fact-finding and judgment of unfamiliar local matters.

In fact, OPM has asked for the Federal guidance my bill offers. In recent cases, OPM was confused by protests after citing an ANC (Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner) for violations of the Hatch Act when he ran for higher office, even though ANCs are ``elected officials'' under D.C. law and therefore should be permitted to run for higher office. As a result of the failure to clear up the confusion, the application of the Hatch Act to ANCs has been selectively enforced by OPM. For example, although OPM has filed cases charging Hatch Act violations against an ANC running for the D.C. Council, it more often has not filed when several members of the current D.C. City Council ran for the D.C. Council from positions as ANCs. These examples show the difficulty created because Congress has failed to conform D.C.'s local jurisdiction created by the Home Rule Act of 1974 with the OPM's Federal jurisdiction over Federal Hatch Act matters today.

This is an uncomplicated and straightforward bill. It is not controversial, and it has been enacted by the House before. I ask that the House approve H.R. 1345.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to introduce The Fair Housing Commemoration Act of 2009 to commemorate The Fair Housing Act (FHA), enacted in April 1968, the last of the three great civil rights acts of the 1960's, with a monument in the Nation's Capitol. The Fair Housing Commemorative Foundation is raising funds and is working with the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC) to adhere to the requirements and process established by the Commemorative Works Act of 1986. This may be the first time that a sector of our economy has decided to raise a monument commemorating a statute that regulates some of its practices. The Foundation's precedent is commendable.

Fair housing and the movement to bring equal opportunity in the real estate markets are intertwined with our nation's history. The federal government has both been a part of the problem and an integral part of its solution. Every branch of the federal government has played a key role in our national progress towards fair housing. It is fitting that we commemorate not only the passage of the Fair Housing Act, but also the history of our nation's path towards equal opportunity in housing.

The Nation's beginning

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution establishes a right to own private property that the government cannot take without just compensation. Early immigrants sought a place where they could own and transfer real estate without the arbitrary interference of the government. That right was not universal. Slavery denied basic rights to a whole class of Americans based on race, and reduced some of our people to the subhuman status of property. Among the effects of slavery was the denial of the right to own and use real property.

Post Civil War

The Civil War and the constitutional amendments ending slavery were accompanied by laws that gave all citizens the same rights as white citizens to own and use real property. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was our nation's first ``fair housing'' law. Subsequent years saw that law ignored and severely limited by court decisions, culminating with the philosophy of ``separate but equal'' in the Plessey v Ferguson case. In addition, Congress and some states passed laws that restricted access to private property ownership and use by Latinos and Asian Americans.

In the early 20th century, social scientists and leaders within the real estate community

established guides for neighborhood desirability based on racial composition. Homogeneous communities for white, northern European background residents were seen as best investment for homeowners and others. Some early zoning laws sought to limit, by race, people who could live in certain communities, as did some practices of the real estate sector. Although the Supreme Court, in its 1917 decision in Buchanan v. Worley, struck down these racial restrictions, these racial biases were incorporated into FHA rules and formed the basis for many private agreements to segregate and form racially restrictive covenants.