Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman not only for yielding to me, I thank the gentleman for his leadership. When people see me come to the floor, they are used to my coming to the floor for a bill on the District, often a bill I've sponsored.

This is what is known as a Special Order or Special Hour, but it wasn't a Special Hour that I requested. I cannot say enough about how much it meant to me to hear colleagues who could be on a plane now give up that time to come to the floor to speak on this matter.

The chairman of the Progressive Caucus could be halfway--is from halfway across the country in Minnesota; not to mention the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, who has even further to go.

Indeed, it ought to be said that today the Congress let out early. So many hightailed it, of course, to their own districts, who would have otherwise been here.

The gentlelady from California has my thanks for another initiative she took, and that is the meeting that was held yesterday with the Speaker of the House.

The Congressional Black Caucus--of course, this is a largely African American city, but it's also a city where the Black Caucus would be out in front for the vote if anybody was denied the vote. But the Black Caucus has carried this since it was founded. The Speaker, in fact, agreed to a meeting with us in her office. It was a very important and very gratifying meeting, all at the leadership of the Congresswoman from California.

I cannot thank her enough. It's very important to me what Mr. Ellison and Ms. Lee have done because it is their own initiative. It's very important to say that, unlike with so many issues, they are broadly representative of our House and of our Senate and of our country in believing that we should have the vote.

The poll that I think is duplicated perhaps in what Mr. Ellison had shows an unusual majority across all lines; most Democrats and Republicans. And think about it. What red-blooded American would oppose the right to be represented in the national legislature?

How many of us would want to be at the mercy of a group of people, however benevolent, where none of them was accountable to us, even by a single vote. That's been where the residents of the District of Columbia have been for 212 years now because the expectation of the Framers that Congress would in fact make sure that the vote continued after the 10-year transition period has not occurred. Congress dropped the ball.

Those who gave the land from Maryland and Virginia actually got in the first Congress legislation that assured them that the residents of Maryland and Virginia, who now, after 10 years, would be part of the Nation's Capitol, would be left with exactly what they had when they left Virginia and Maryland. They voted for Members of Congress. They voted in the same way all the other Americans did. It is a long, sad story as to why that did not happen.

Understand what my colleagues have been talking about--only the House vote. We are not talking about a vote in the Senate of the United States. Only in the people's House. We are seeking from the House exactly what the House gave us last time.

In an extraordinary vote, this House was the first to pass this bill and send it to the Senate. They fell three votes short because, remember, over there, 51 percent is not a majority. You need 60 percent. That's a new definition of majority that the Senate has created.

I want to thank my colleagues first for the leadership of my colleagues who have come forward as representative, I can truly say, of this House. But I want to thank for all of those who voted for this bill last year.

This bill originated with one of my Republican colleagues who thought of the idea of making it as bipartisan as possible in the hopes that that would draw members of his party as well as my party because the District, like every large city virtually in America, has more Democrats than Republicans.

So he teamed us with Utah, which had barely missed getting a vote because Mormon missionaries, who were out of the State on a religious mission, always had been counted, and they were not counted in the 2000 census.

Utah was only too happy to join. I want to thank the Governor of Utah, its own delegation, who have been with us from the beginning.

Two hundred-nineteen Democrats voted for this bill last time. Only six voted ``no.'' That is very extraordinary. And I am asking each and every one of them to repeat the vote they made last time.

I was in a meeting with a Republican Member who shares my view on the Capitol Visitor Center because there's some things we want to fix about how

staff can conduct their own tours. He came to me afterwards and said, By the way, I'm voting for D.C. voting rights this time.

I do expect that there will be more Republicans voting for the bill than last time. Twenty-two Republicans voted for the bill. They were under some pressure not to. I want to thank Tom Davis, who spearheaded this bill. He has since retired but is helping me even as I speak.

I do want to say that the bill carries a triple bonus. How often is it that we use the word bipartisan and it doesn't quite mean that each side gets exactly what the other side gets?

Look at what happens here. Utah felt cheated, and that is a good word that Mr. Cummings used for how residents who pay taxes and go to war here feel, and they have joined with the District of Columbia, which has never had a vote. If that isn't bipartisan. One for you, one for me. No compromises there. One each. If that is not bipartisan, I haven't heard a real definition of the word.

This vote does something for the House. It increases the House for the first time in 100 years. Every time that a new State has come in, you have the same 435 seats. You're going to have 437 seats now.

In addition to Republicans and Democrats each getting one, now they have one more seat that makes it easier for each to compete. You would think that Republicans would particularly welcome that since they are in the fastest growing areas of the United States. This failure of the House to permanently increase the House in 100 years has been broken if we pass this bill.

Before I ask another question of my good friend who has remained with us for a little while, I do want people to know what it is that moves most Americans by these kinds of margins, almost two-thirds of all adults, for example, being for the bill, almost 60 percent Republicans, almost 70 percent Democrats. What is it that moves them?

Americans would have given us this vote before, I am sure, if we could have gotten the word out. We have an indigenous organization called D.C. Vote. We have got a leadership conference on civil rights with its 200 organizations spreading the word for one-half dozen years now. That is the only way that this has become visible enough so that people who didn't even know we didn't have the vote, which is most Americans, now know it and cannot conceive of it.

Who can conceive of somebody in our country paying taxes without getting any payback on that right to vote ``yea'' or ``nay'' on whether those taxes should be paid or not? And I know Americans cannot conceive of the experience I have had of going to Arlington Cemetery to bury residents from the District of Columbia in the Iraq and Afghanistan war, who have now succeeded in getting the vote for the people of those countries who did not have it before, and died without having that vote in their own Nation's capital, the only capital of any nation to deny the vote to its own residents. This is an anomaly. Don't blame it on the framers, and don't blame it on the American people. Now that they know it, they say do it; don't leave us in this way with this message that steps on our message of democracy around the world, a district the average size of congressional districts in the United States and a district that is larger than some States.

This point has been made, but let me drive it home when they say the notion of having everybody who can vote, except you. What Members are referring to is that among the things that the District has to do is to send its budget here before it can spend a dollar of its own tax-raised money; send its laws here, and let them lie over and see if someone wants to overturn them.

So, this House will see the D.C. appropriation come forward this year. That is another way of saying the taxes that the people who live in the District of Columbia alone have raised, they will see that come forward as an appropriation.

Now, my good friend from California is now a member of the Appropriations Committee. I wish you would describe what it means to come forward with this bill, knowing good and well that you are going to have a vote on it, every Member on both sides of the aisle are going to have a vote on it, but that no Member from the District of Columbia will have a vote for it. You are on that committee.

That is why I have been so pleased, that even Members who are far more conservative than I voted for this bill on the Republican side and on the Democratic side. On the Democratic side, we had many Members who come from districts, we are so pleased to have them, because we are the signature of big tent political party ever since FDR, and the unity that we have shown and the many Republicans who voted for me does say to me that people understand

this vote to be just like the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a couple years ago.

Remember, in our country when in another part of the country almost nobody of color had the vote. We changed all that. So the only people who don't have that kind of representation here are, of all people, the people who live in plain sight of the Congress.

We feel very deeply about our people who have gone to war. We talk about no taxation without representation. That pales beside giving your life for a country that doesn't think enough of you to give you even a vote in the people's House. This time, I dedicated the bill to an unknown soldier and to the first soldier who died in the Iraq war.

The unknown soldier is a soldier who lived in the District of Columbia, who went to war on the war cry of ``no taxation without representation.'' That was the reason that you could get people to take up arms against the mother country, an act of treason. Imagine if they hadn't succeeded what would have happened to them.

The other soldier I dedicated the bill to is one whose name I know very well, Army Specialist Daryl Dent, 21 years old, a graduate of Roosevelt High School, National Guard. When you sign up for the National Guard, especially at the beginning of this war, a kid who I am sure did not envision that he would be overseas, he went the way Guardsmen and reservists and enlisted men and women have always gone, ready to do their duty for the United States of America. I am just asking that we do our duty to these veterans who leave me feeling the same way that all of you feel, only with a deeper hole in my heart.

I could have dedicated this to a lot of other men and women who have died for the District of Columbia. In World War I, this city lost--this is a city, now--lost more than three States. So there were three States that didn't lose as many men at that time as we did. World War II, more than four States from this one place. Korea, more than eight States. Vietnam War, more than 10 States. We have paid our dues. I don't think that can be doubted.

One of my constituents now is a man who owns a business here and lives here, and he was born in Iraq. He stood with me, and I want to quote from him. I don't think Americans know the facts as he told them. His name is Andy Shallal.

He said, ``People like me of Iraqi ancestry, and even my son who was born in the United States, are entitled to vote in the Iraqi election due in large part to the service of the citizens of the District of Columbia and other Americans who have fought and died in Iraq.'' I just think that says it all.

This country was so intent on making sure that Iraqis, all Iraqis, and even Diaspora, and people who could not even be counted in their Diaspora because they were in fact born here and raised here just like the gentlewoman and I, those people had the right to vote in the Iraqi elections. And that is what we in the District are told we are supposed to swallow. That is why I must give my thanks to Governor John Huntsman of Utah, who continues to support this bill strongly. If I could quote from him.

``The people of Utah have expressed outrage over the loss of one congressional seat since the last census. I share their outrage. I can't imagine,'' Governor Huntsman wrote, ``what it must be like for American citizens to have no representation at all for over 200 years.''

I want to say to the gentlelady what I believe most Americans don't know. The schools of the District of Columbia were integrated as a result of Brown versus Board of Education just as I was about to leave high school. The District of Columbia was one of five Brown versus Board of Education States, right along there with South Carolina and the rest of them. Why? Because the Congress of the United States saw to it that all public accommodations, that public schools, were indeed segregated. They went further. The Congress of the United States left these American citizens for 150 years without any mayor or city council. Instead, the President, with the consent of the Congress, appointed three commissioners. These three unelected people ruled the city for more than 150 years.

There can be no doubt that while race has very little to do with this today, it seems to be all about partisanship. I say to my colleagues, my colleague who chairs the congressional black caucus, it was your party and mine that denied the vote to the people of the District of Columbia, denied any kind of self-government.

We were denied any kind of self-government. It was the capture of our party then by southern Democrats who are today gone and forgotten, because there is a new South, white and black, that looks very different because they could not conceive of a denial on race alone. Of course, what particularly hurts this third-generation Washingtonian is that for most of that time, the city was a majority white jurisdiction. The presence of a significant number of black people was enough to rally the anti-civil rights forces to keep all people from getting representation and from getting any right to govern themselves until the civil rights movement broke through in all.

To show you the shame on us, we were granted, for a brief period, a delegate, we finally got the delegate and home rule, as we call it, at the same time. But Madam Chair, there was a brief period where when in the 19th century we got the delegate and the right and a mayor and a city council. And that was when the Republicans came to power after the Civil War. Again we are talking about a city where they could see the reason for the disempowerment. And this, of course, is why so many African Americans nationally became Lincoln Republicans and why you would expect the Republican party to be right here with me, as Tom Davis and so many Republicans here, have been.

The fact is that during Reconstruction, we had basically the same kind of home rule we have now. It wasn't an African American mayor. But that is not what we were after. We were after self-government for everyone here. Reconstruction ended. And I will say to my good friend and colleague who chairs the Black Caucus that one of the first things that the Democrats did in reclaiming power was not simply to resegregate the South. What the Democrats did was to wipe out what the Republicans had done with the District of Columbia. They wiped out the delegate. And the Democrats wiped out home rule.

We don't have clean hands. The Democrats got religion, finally, on matters of equal rights long after the Republicans had it and kept African Americans, of course, as a constituency, because they never forgot it until the New Deal came. And our party was still full of segregationists. But the bottom line of survival and the New Deal brought them here.

Madam Chair of our caucus, the thing has for me been a great ride for my constituents. But I tell them the truth that there is also something personal in this for me because I'm a third-generation Washingtonian, and my great-grandfather, Richard Holmes, got here shall we say the hard way. He walked off of a Virginia plantation where he was being held as a slave and got as far as the District of Columbia, and the Holmes roots got planted here. And so on the Holmes side, those who continued to live here have never experienced the same rights that others have seen, including rights that they saw people down South get just a few decades ago.

So Madam Chair of our caucus, this has racial roots. But those roots have been dug up. They are not there anymore. All that is left is a partisanship that exists here in the Congress but not in the country. I think we are close to bringing the two together, the people with the Congress.

I especially am pleased that the gentlelady from California has never ceased to carry this personally when she worked as Chief of Staff for Congressman Ron Dellums, who has gone on, as she said, to be the mayor of another great city, Oakland, and now is Chair of our caucus, I would like to say one word about the constitutional question which is raised. Well, I can't swear that any bill we passed is constitutional. All I know is we are not the ones who decide that question. We decide questions of right and wrong, of whether or not a bill should be passed or not. But I am not worried about the constitutional issue, not when former Court of Appeals judge Kenneth Starr appeared before us and testified in very scholarly testimony that the bill is constitutional. I am really not worried about it when Professor Viet Dinh who spent some years as the constitutional point man in the Justice Department, Attorney General for Legal Policy it is called, has been one of the prime constitutional advocates for the bill. I'm relying not only on people who usually agree with me on constitutional issues, but on scholars who will concede that any bill as unprecedented as this would raise constitutional issues. But in good faith, after more than 200 years, who are we to continue to deny these rights when the very Constitution they cite has ordained an independent institution to make that final judgment? We will be held accountable for this judgment. And so they say you are not a State, so how can you possibly have the rights of States? There is very scholarly testimony from former Assistant Attorney General Dinh about how in each and every instance, more than half a dozen, where the notion of treating the District as a State has been raised, each and every time the Congress and the Supreme Court had said the same thing, when it comes to the Commerce Clause, the fact that it says commerce among the States does not mean, said the Congress first, and then, of course, the court, does not mean it doesn't apply to the District of Columbia. There is not a case which extracts us from that line of reasoning, both congressional reasoning and, of course, the reasoning of the court.

I have to say to the gentlelady, the one that I think makes me smile most is article 1 section 2 clause 3 which provides that representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States. The court said, go away from here. When it comes to paying your income taxes, D.C., that means you. Don't take these words so literally that they are meaningless. You are not outside the United States. You are different from the States.

Since the gentleman from Georgia has come in, I hope that he will have a 5-minute period.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the National Mall Revitalization and Designation Act. The National Mall is one of Washington's best known and most treasured sites, but also is the District's most neglected and undervalued. The Mall lacks everything that a majestic natural wonder deserves, from an official identity to necessary amenities. My bill (1) authorizes the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) to officially designate and expand the boundaries of the Mall and (2) requires the Secretary of the Interior to submit a plan to enhance visitor enjoyment and cultural experiences within 180 days of passage of the bill.

I worked closely with NCPC and other agencies in framing the bill. It would give the NCPC the responsibility and the necessary flexibility to designate the Mall area for the first time since its creation and to expand the Mall area when appropriate. The bill requires the NCPC, to accommodate future commemorative works and cultural institutions, working with key federal and local agencies, and with participation from the public and recognized national leaders in culture and development.

Frustrated at continually fighting off proposals for new monuments, museums, and memorials, on the crowded Mall space, I asked the NCPC to devise a Mall preservation plan five years ago. In 2003, Congress amended the Commemorative Works Act to enact the NCPC's designation of a no-build zone where no new memorials can be built. This action was helpful in quelling some but by no means all of the demand from groups and individuals for placement on what they view as the Mall. The bill spells out the needed authority to preserve the no-build zone while expanding the mall to accommodate commemorative works.

The NCPC and the Commission on Fine Arts (FAC) are working on the National Capital Framework Plan and already have shown they can identify sites near the existing Mall which are suitable for new memorials, including East Potomac Park, a part of the Mall area that is seldom viewed as integral to the more familiar space between the Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial; Banneker Overlook, the grounds around RFK Stadium, the Kennedy Center Plaza site and the new South Capitol gateways. Five new prestigious memorials are scheduled for such sites, including the Eisenhower Memorial and the U.S. Air Force Memorial.

I appreciate that NCPC and the FAC work closely with the District of Columbia in designating off-Mall sites for new monuments. The District welcomes the expanded Mall into appropriate neighborhoods, enhancing the work of the District of Columbia government and local organizations such as Cultural Tourism that offer historic tours of District neighborhoods in developing the tourism that is vital to the city's economy. Additional Mall sites for various monuments also complement the creation of entire new neighborhoods now underway near the Mall particularly the District's redevelopment of the Southwest waterfront and my own work on the Southeast Federal Center, now known as The Yards, that is to becoming a mixed use public-private development and waterfront park.

A second and important goal of the bill is to make the Mall a living, breathing, active place where things happen and visitors can be comfortable. The bill seeks to achieve this vibrancy by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to submit a plan, in consultation with the appropriate federal agencies, and leaders in culture and development and the public, to ``enhance visitor enjoyment, amenities, cultural experiences in and the vitality of (the National Mall).'' Bordered by world class cultural institutions, the Mall itself has been reduced to a lawn with only a few--too few--ordinary benches and a couple of fast food restaurants. The Mall lacks the most basic amenities appropriate to such an area including restrooms, shelter and informal places to gather and interesting places to eat. When it rains, there are no places to stay dry on the Mall and when the humidity reaches sky high, there are few places to rest and have a cold drink. Nevertheless, in writing this bill I was compelled to recognize today's reality that funds to make the Mall the 21st century destination it deserves to become are simply not available, and will not become available in the near future until the deficit and other priorities make room. Yet, the Mall needs a total makeover for the 21st century to be worthy of L'Enfant's vision for the city he planned and the MacMillan Plan that is largely responsible for the space between the Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial that is known today as the Mall. However, we must move now to begin to do all we can to rescue this space from its present dull and uninviting condition, damaged by heavy use and often used as no more than a pass-through, despite its magnificent potential. With the necessary imagination, a plan to make the Mall a welcoming place with cultural and other amenities envisioned by the bill is achievable now.

I am pleased that Chip Akridge and the Trust for the National Mall have embarked upon an ambitious fundraising effort to bring the private sector into the revitalization of the National Mall. The Congress started to do its part last year when, at my request, Chairman Grijalva held the first hearing in decades on the National Mall and this bill, and in FY10 Congress included $10 million for the sinking Jefferson Memorial and $135 million above 2008, to continue the 10 year initiative to upgrade our National Parks before the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service in 2016. The National Park Service is also prepared to meet the requirements of this bill as they progress on their own National Mall plan and the National Capitol Planning Commission with its final National Capitol Framework plan on April 2nd, 2009. The private sector, the executive and legislative branch all recognize the need for repair and revitalization of our National Mall and no event signified the need like the largest gathering in the Mall's history with almost two million people at President Obama's inauguration.

The Mall Designation and Revitalization Act is the first step in an effort to begin to give the Mall its due after decades of neglect and indifference. The bill begins at the beginning--defining for the first time what we mean by the Mall, allowing for expansion of its natural contours, and taking the first steps to breathe life into a space that is meant for people to enjoy.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Hatch Act Reform Act of 2009, to eliminate discriminatory treatment of the District of Columbia, which alone among U.S. jurisdictions still falls under the federal Hatch Act, as it did before the Congress made the District an independent jurisdiction that today enacts its own local laws. This bill would retain 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, would require the District to enact its own local version of the Hatch Act barring similar local violations to 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.

This bill will leave 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 solely to the District of Columbia and would require the District to have its own local Hatch Act, like every other jurisdiction, instead of requiring the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and its Special Counsel to devote staff time and other resources on investigation, fact-finding and judgment of unfamiliar local matters.

Indeed, OPM has asked for the federal guidance my bill offers. In recent cases, OPM cited an ANC (Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner) commissioner for violations of the Hatch Act when he ran for higher office, even though ANC commissioners are ``elected officials'' under D.C. law. As a result of the failure to clear up the confusion between local and federal jurisdictions, the application of the Hatch Act to ANC commissioners has been selectively enforced by OPM. For example, OPM recently filed cases charging Hatch Act violations against an ANC commissioner running for the D.C. Council but did not file when several members of the current D.C. City Council ran for the D.C. Council from positions as ANC commissioners. The present law results in possible violations of the federal Hatch Act while leaving OPM with local responsibility that does not implicate its federal jurisdiction.

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. The District should bear this local responsibility. My bill will eliminate the double indignity of placing a local burden on the federal government and depriving the District of a responsibility, which only local jurisdictions familiar with local laws can be expected to handle responsibly.

The Hatch Act Reform is the fourth in the ``Free and Equal D.C.'' series of bills that I have introduced to eliminate anti-Home Rule or redundant bills that deprive the city of equal treatment and recognition as an independent self-governing jurisdiction. This uncomplicated and straightforward bill is not controversial, has been enacted before by the House and should be passed forthwith.

Madam Speaker, I rise to ask the House to join me in congratulating the first graduating class of the Rivers Correctional Institution Residential Drug Abuse Program for meeting the high standards required for graduation. I am delighted at your success. I targeted the admission of District of Columbia residents to the drug treatment program as the highest priority at our first hearing since DC residents were transferred to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities. The reason drug treatment has been the priority issue is because drug abuse is a core reason many residents go to prison in the first place, and drug abuse is a primary reason why many return to prison.

As today's graduates know, many BOP inmates who need the drug treatment you have received cannot be accommodated under the BOP's existing appropriations. You have been fortunate to be accepted into the program, and you have shown yourselves to be worthy of admission by being the first DC residents to graduate from Rivers' new program. Because you have benefitted while many others could not, our expectations of you are great. In return for being among the few who have been admitted to the program, we ask you to remain drug free and to resolve to never see the inside of a prison again. You can do it now.

We know, of course, that you will come home at a time when people without felony records are being laid off and when we in the Congress are still working to find a solution to today's unprecedented economic crisis. Finding work and staying clean may be harder when you come home than when you left. But as pioneers and achievers, I believe in you, and I believe that you will set the example for others who need the program by fighting with determination to surmount any obstacles you may find.

Your own families and close friends are perhaps the only people who, I believe, will be more pleased than I will be to see you when you return. I hope that each of you will stop by my office here in the Rayburn House Office Building at some point to receive my personal congratulations and to have your picture taken with me, especially since, regrettably, I cannot be present in person to see you graduate. Please know that I am proud of the important achievement which you mark with today's graduation ceremony. It is one of the most important milestones of your life so far. Your graduation from the program is so important to me and to the District of Columbia that I will commemorate today's ceremony and your graduation by placing these congratulatory remarks in the Congressional Record when Congress returns from its week-long recess that began last Friday.

Madam Speaker, I rise to ask the House to join me in congratulating the remarkable students from The SEED Public Charter School and DC Preparatory Academy. Students from these schools participated in We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution Middle School Showcase on January 7, 2009 for the District of Columbia at the Charles Sumner School Museum and Archives and demonstrated a remarkable understanding of the fundamental principles of our nation.

The students participated in a simulated congressional hearing where they responded to questions on the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights from a panel of adult judges. They responded to questions about English philosopher John Locke's view of the purposes of government, the principles embedded in the Declaration of Independence, the compromises made at the Philadelphia Convention, how the Constitution protects our most basic rights, and rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

The We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution is administered by the Center for Civic Education and funded by the U.S. Department of Education under the Education for Democracy Act approved by the U.S. Congress. It is one of the best programs in the nation to promote a deep understanding of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the principles they embody.

I would also like to congratulate teachers LaTonya Davis at DC Preparatory Academy and Ian Milne at The SEED Public Charter School who did an exceptional job preparing these young students. I also wish to commend Justin Rydstrom, the state coordinator for the We the People program in the District of Columbia. Special recognition should be given to the National Capital Lawyer's Auxiliary who provided volunteers to make the event a success.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to submit the names of these young ``constitutional experts'' for special recognition by our colleagues in the House of Representatives and wish them the best of luck as they develop into the future leaders of our nation.

The SEED School: Dymond Andrews, Roshae Ball, Chandler Connelly, Ashley DaCosta, Jevian Gudger, Makayla Head, Joseph Johnson, Loria Pate, Janell Proctor, Michael Moore, Shamari Pratt, Latiece Smith, Daa'Jah Wallace, and Chardae Walter.

DC Prep: Tawfiq Abdul-Karim, Saqwan Adams, Rashawn Alexander, Hakeem Bello, Kyleisha Byrd, Deshaun Cannady, Jennifer Carter, Marc Childs, Carl Costley, William Delaney, Desmond Dixon, Jade Dixon, Shaquille Hall, Tony Hansford, DeVante' Hendren, Lundon Hudgens, Aleia Johnson, Keith Kelly, Martin Marshall, Denzel Mitchell, Kenny Montague, Ken Mutamba, Ryan Perkins, Melissa Reid, Jessica Robinson, Renita Robinson, Jonnae Spann, Ricardo McCrary Steward, Wesley Tebo, Brianna Thomas,

Eddie Vann, Jada Vereene, Taurus White, and Mari Roe Wills.

Madam Speaker, I rise to ask the House to join me in commemorating yet another honor for Edward Kennedy Duke Ellington, born 1899, in the District of Columbia, who has left us musical gifts that are so timeless they have proved perpetually modern. The new honor for Duke Ellington that we celebrate is his likeness at his piano that appears on the new District of Columbia circulating quarter formally introduced today and placed in a map with other coins that represent our union. Duke Ellington is only the second African American to appear on a circulating coin.

For the residents of the District of Columbia, this honor for Duke Ellington is special indeed. His values, his study of music, and his musical genius were shaped from the beginning of his life in the Shaw community and in the D.C. public schools until, as a grown man, he pursued his star-studded musical career and became one of the worlds's most celebrated band leaders and composers. D.C. residents themselves selected Duke Ellington, and many witnessed him help establish the entertainment corridor on U Street as a major venue for African- American entertainers when the District of Columbia was a segregated city that did not permit Black people to attend or to perform elsewhere in the nation's capital. Ellington was my personal favorite for the D.C. quarter not only because he was a native son, but also because for many years, we in the city have been trying to correct the notion that D.C. is only a ``government town,'' making it clear that we have been a hometown since 1801. The District has become a city with some of the best theater, entertainment and sports in the country, and now features an annual week-long Duke Ellington Jazz, Festival, fast becoming one of the best known in the country. The truth is that Ellington is as representative of his home town as George Washington is of official Washington. The Duke sends the message that hometown, homegrown residents are making and have always made important contributions to our country and to the world.

To celebrate the Duke's coin, we kicked off Duke Ellington Week today with a celebration of D.C.'s new quarter at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History, where the African American Museum is temporarily housed and has mounted the Scurlock Exhibition of photographs of Black Washingtonians, including Ellington. The celebration featured a presentation of the quarter by U.S. Mint Director Edmund Moy, and the placement in the coin map.

Ellington week activities will continue Wednesday, Feb. 25, at THEARC, with a ``Celebration of Black History Month, the Arts, and the Duke Ellington Commemorative Quarter,'' featuring Edward and April Ellington, Duke Ellington's son and daughter, the Ellington School of the Arts School jazz band, and the Washington Ballet, and later on Wednesday, a concert, ``Sophisticated Lady: An Evening with Denyce Graves,'' at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts to raise funds

for the Duke Ellington School of the Arts, the famous soprano's alma mater.

During a lifetime of recognition of his unique musical genius, Ellington received 13 Grammys over 40 years, the Pied Piper award from the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers in 1968, and honorary doctoral degrees from 16 institutions. He received the nation's highest honors, including the President's Gold Medal in 1966, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1969, the highest honor a civilian can receive in the United States. After his death on May 24, 1974, Western High School in Washington, D.C. was renamed the Duke Ellington High School for the Performing Arts. The school is one of the most renowned in the nation for its excellence in all the arts.

Jazz, America's singular indigenous art form, owes its greatness to a handful of men and women, none more so than Duke Ellington, the Renaissance man of music--composer, musician, band leader, the full package. Today, we add a crowning honor with the city's own circulating quarter bearing the Duke's image. Now our native son, a musical genius already honored the world over for his artistic achievements, will have a lasting image on his nation's currency to remind the world that his hometown, the District of Columbia, nurtured the musical genius of Edward Kennedy Duke Ellington.

Madam Speaker, on February 3, 2009, I intended to introduce my budget autonomy bill. I submitted the following introductory statement for the Record on that day. It appears that the wrong bill was attached inadvertently. Today, I correct that mistake by introducing the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of 2009.

As we approach a vote on the D.C. House Voting Rights Act of 2009, it is not too early in the session to begin the next steps necessary to make the residents of the District of Columbia genuinely free and equal citizens. Other than to voting rights, the highest priority for District of Columbia residents in the 111th Congress is their right to control the funds they themselves raise to support their city. Budget control is essential to the right to self-government. Therefore, today, I am introducing the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of 2009 to give the District the right to enact its local budget without annual congressional oversight.

As a practical matter, permitting the city's budget to become law without coming to Congress would have multiple and immediate benefits for both the city and Congress. For the city, a timely budget means: eliminating the uncertainty of the congressional process that has a negative effect of the city's bond rating, which adds unnecessary interest costs for local taxpayers to pick up; significantly increasing the District's ability to make accurate revenue forecasts; and reducing the countless operational problems, large and small, that result because the city's budget cannot be implemented when enacted by the city. Of the many problems that would be eliminated, none is more important than aligning the school year with the typical state government July 1st fiscal year, instead of the congressional fiscal year, which starts in October, after the school year has begun.

Leaving the local enactment to the District would bring benefits to Congress as well. The D.C. budget often has had to come to the floor repeatedly before it passes because of controversial attachments, often of interest only to a few members who use the D.C. appropriations to promote their pet ideological issues. Members then complain about the time and effort spent on the smallest appropriations that affect no other members. No budget autonomy bill can eliminate the possibility of riders because there are countless ways to attach riders, but our bill reduces the likelihood that unrelated riders will hold the city's local budget hostage and sometimes the appropriations process itself.

I am gratified that Congress itself has moved toward the position embodied in this bill. Congressional experience with the District's budget has matured, and neither party has made changes in recent years. At the same time, increasing recognition of the hardship and delays that the annual appropriations process causes has led Congress to begin freeing the city from the congressional appropriations network. In 2006, Congress approved the Mid-year Budget Autonomy bill, offering the first freedom from the federal appropriations process, the most important structural change for the city since passage of the Home Rule Act 36 years ago. As a result, the District can now spend its local funds all year without congressional approval instead of having to return mid-year to become a part of the federal supplemental appropriation in order to spend funds collected since the annual appropriations bill. Moreover, during the past few years, appropriators have responded to our concern about the hardships resulting from delays in enacting the D.C. appropriation. I appreciate our agreement that has allowed the local D.C. budget to be in the first continuing resolution, permitting the city, uniquely, to spend its local funds at the next year's level, even though the budgets for federal agencies are often delayed for months. This approach has ended the lengthy delay of the budget of a big city until an omnibus appropriations bill is filed, often months after October 1st.

There is no risk to the Congress passing the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act. By definition, Congress will retain jurisdiction over the District of Columbia under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution because the District is not a state. Since, therefore, Congress could in any case make changes in the District's budget and laws at will, it is unnecessary to require a lengthy repetition of the District's budget process here. The redundancy of the congressional appropriations process is its most striking feature, considering that few if any changes in the budget itself are made.

The original Senate version of the Home Rule Act provided for budget autonomy, and 210 years of redundant processing of a local budget and delays occasioned by the extra layer of oversight offer conclusive evidence that the time is overdue to permit the city to enact its local budget, the single most important step the Congress could take to help the District manage the city.

Members of Congress were sent here to do the business of the Nation. They have no reason to be interested in or to become knowledgeable about the many complicated provisions of the local budget of a single city. In good times and in bad, the House and Senate pass the District's budget as is. Our bill takes the Congress in the direction it is moving already based on its own experience. Congressional interference into one of the vital rights to self-government should end this year with enactment of the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act.

Madam Speaker, last week, I introduced the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act. Today, I am introducing its fraternal twin, the District of Columbia Legislative Autonomy Act of 2009, to end discriminatory and unnecessary congressional review of District of Columbia legislation. I introduce these bills in sequence because Congress makes a mockery of self-government when it denies the citizens of the nation's capital the right to enact a local budget, as well as civil and criminal laws, free from interference.

In 2007, this bill was passed by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Budget Autonomy bill was cleared by the subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service and District of Columbia that year as well. However, I decided to delay taking these bills to the floor because of threatened debilitating amendments and possible difficulties getting President Bush to sign these bills.

The legislative autonomy bill would eliminate the 30 day and 60 day congressional review period for civil and criminal bills, respectively. Because the period of Congressional review involves only days when Congress is in session, not ordinary calendar days, bills signed by the mayor laws typically do not become law for months. A required hold on all D.C. bills forces the D.C. City Council to pass most legislation using a cumbersome and complicated process in which bills are passed concurrently on an emergency, temporary, and permanent basis to ensure that the operations of this large and rapidly changing city continue uninterrupted. Because of the complications and timeframes involved, some bills do not become law at all. The Legislative Autonomy Act would eliminate the need for the D.C. City Council to engage in this Byzantine process.

The current law is an obsolete, demeaning, and cumbersome mechanism, which Congress no longer uses, and seldom used in the past. Yet, the D.C. City Council continues to be bound by Section 602 of the Home Rule Act, and therefore continues to abide by its awkward and debilitating rules. Our bill would do no more than align D.C. City Council and congressional practices. Instead of the cumbersome formal filing of disapproval resolutions that require processing in the House and the Senate, the Congress has preferred to use appropriations attachments. It is particularly unfair to require the D.C. City Council to engage in the tortuous process prescribed by the Home Rule Act that Congress itself has discarded. My bill would eliminate the formal review system that long ago died of old age and disuse. Congress has walked away from the layover review and should allow the city to do the same.

Today's bill, of course, does not prevent review of District laws by Congress. Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the House and the Senate could scrutinize every piece of legislation passed by the D.C. City Council, if desired, and could change or strike such legislation under its plenary constitutional authority over the District. However, since the Home Rule Act became effective in 1974, of the more than 2,000 legislative acts that have been passed by the D.C. City Council and signed into law by the Mayor, only three resolutions to disapprove of a D.C. bill have been enacted, and two of these involved a distinct federal interest. Placing a hold on our 2,000 D.C. bills has not only proved unnecessary, but has meant untold wasted costs in terms of money, staff and time to the District and the Congress. Although 36 years of Home Rule Act history shows that congressional review is unnecessary, this bill merely eliminates the automatic hold placed on local legislation and the need for the D.C. City Council to use a phantom process passed for the convenience of Congress, but one that Congress has eliminated in all but law.

Congress continually urges the District government to pursue efficiency and savings. It is time for Congress to do its part to promote greater efficiency, both here and in the District, by streamlining its own redundant and discarded review processes. Eliminating the hold on D.C. legislation would not only save scarce D.C. taxpayer revenue, but would benefit the city's bond rating, which is affected by the shadow of congressional review that delays the finality of District legislation. At the same time, Congress would not give up any of its plenary power because the Congress may intervene into any District matter at any time under the Constitution.

The limited legislative autonomy granted in this bill would allow the District to realize the greater measure of meaningful self-government and Home Rule it deserves and has more than earned in the 36 years since the Home Rule Act became effective. I urge my colleagues to pass this important measure.

Mr. Speaker, in my earlier remarks on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, I highlighted the first-rate work of AFSCME Council 26, affiliated with the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO, in a sex discrimination lawsuit brought by female custodians against the Architect of the Capitol, which is another way of saying the Congress of the United States of America. The women custodians were being paid one dollar less than their male co-workers. I referred to the female custodians' lawsuit in my remarks because without AFSCME's representation, this discrimination right here in Congress might never have been uncovered, just as Lilly Ledbetter did not discover the equal pay violations until after she retired.

The women's Equal Pay Act lawsuit was historic as well because it was the first class-action under the Congressional Accountability Act that holds Congress to the same employment laws as our constituents. The class was expertly represented by lawyers Barbara Kraft and Sarah Starrett. By getting the women class certified, AFSCME and its lawyers were able to exert maximum leverage and, therefore, negotiate a just settlement with the Architect of the Capitol. The case underscores the importance of undoing the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision and restoring the long-standing interpretation of the Equal Pay Act. The Congress, the body representing the people, had been systematically and shamefully discriminating against its own workers.

I had been a strong supporter of these women since they first filed their lawsuit. As a former chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, who had responsibility for enforcing the Equal Pay Act, I felt at the time that it was my obligation to bring the female custodians' case to the attention of other Members, and I spoke on the floor about the case in March 2000. I joined AFSCME and the women at a press conference on Equal Pay Day on May 10, 2000, to push for equal pay for these women as well as all other women in the workforce. After the women settled with the government, I was delighted when I was invited to help hand-deliver their settlement checks.

The Ledbetter decision undermined the ability of unions like AFSCME to uncover and protect workers from discrimination, and I was proud to cite the work of AFSCME, Barbara Kraft, Sarah Starrett and the women custodians of the U.S. Congress as the best evidence of the need for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to applaud a particular section of the stimulus package that will have a profound impact on the citizens of the District of Columbia. The hundreds of millions of dollars in AIDS/HIV testing and prevention contained in the legislation before us will assist an amazing organization in the District called the Whitman Walker Clinic. When it is time to award these funds, I strongly urge the Secretary of HHS and the Director of the CDC to look favorably upon the Clinic's application.

The District of Columbia is facing an HIV/AIDS epidemic of untold proportions. It is estimated that 1 in 20 citizens of the District now have HIV or AIDS. This is one of the highest incidences in the Country if not the highest compared to other major metropolitan areas.

The Whitman-Walker Clinic (WWC), a comprehensive primary care clinic with centers of excellence in HIV/AIDS care and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) health care, has been providing healthcare and supportive services to residents of the District of Columbia for 30 years. WWC is one of the largest nongovernmental HIV/AIDS medical and service organizations in the metropolitan

Washington area. The Clinic provides a full spectrum of medical and support services to patients residing in the District of Columbia metropolitan area through its two District of Columbia sites: Elizabeth Taylor Medical Center (ETMC) and Max Robinson Center (MRC).

The overall aim of WWC HIV/AIDS services is to improve health outcomes of persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) by providing clients with comprehensive and coordinated primary medical care; dental care; HIV/AIDS specialty care; medical adherence case management; mental health and addictions counseling and treatment; HIV education, prevention, and testing; support groups; nutrition counseling; legal services; and day treatment programs. The Clinic offers a comprehensive continuum of HIV/AIDS-related medical, behavioral health, and social services through our ``one-stop-shop'' approach to service delivery where all client services are available and integrated at a single location at each of our sites. The WWC ``one-stop shop'' approach combined with a newly implemented Electronic Health Record (EHR) enhances and ensures coordinated treatment, continuity of care, confidentiality, and elimination of duplication of effort and/or services. The co-location also allows better and more efficient access to services for clients.

Among the many recent accomplishments of the Clinic are the four key new services which advance care for HIV patients: (1) the addition of an electronic health record (EHR) system; (2) the establishment of the Medical Adherence Case Management Department; (3) implementing the Public Benefits Department; (4) and implementing a new visit type: the ``Rapid HIV'' visit.

(1). The Electronic Health Record: WWC implemented an electronic health record system, ``eClinicalWorks,'' in order to achieve significant clinical and operational efficiencies that are needed to support a high quality client/physician encounter. WWC EHR allows for a complete multidisciplinary approach to health care. All clients of WWC are established in our electronic health record (EHR) system in order to track progress in an organized and efficient manner. This allows physicians, mental health practitioners, nurse case managers, and other providers to coordinate the care of that client, exchange information, and communicate with each other in an efficient and trackable manner. When we receive information from an outside health service, that information is scanned into the patient's Clinic-based EHR. Similarly, when we send out information to an external provider, a note is made in the EHR as to the nature of the communication.

(2). Medical Adherence Case Management Department: The Medical Adherence unit consists of Medical Adherence Case Managers and Medical Adherence Care Coordinators. The Medical Adherence Case Managers, all of whom are RNs, provide the following: barriers to care assessment, care planning, disease process education, medication/treatment management support, 24-hour support via pager and pillbox initiation. The Medical Adherence Care Coordinators provide support by addressing clients who no-show as well as: prescription refill reports and followup, home visits, accompaniment to medical appointments, social services as they relate to barriers to care (like emergency financial assistance clinics, housing clinics, access to food and transportation) and other elements as they relate to life skills for managing a healthy lifestyle. This unit provides an immediate point of care for our new clients, establishing the relationship from the minute they walk in the door, or receive an HIV positive test result. WWC recognizes that for many of our clients, access to food and transportation can be a huge barrier to maintaining their medical care. Each staff person in Medical Adherence will be trained in accessing resources available to assist clients in these areas. The Medical Adherence Department also employs two full-time referral coordinators who assist patients in securing specialty and subspecialty appointments. For HIV-positive patients, the Medical Adherence staff members, in conjunction with our physician providers, pay close attention to identifying those patients at risk of failing their treatment regimens.

(3). Public Benefits Department: As of October 1, 2008, all WWC clients receive eligibility screening for public and private insurance through our recently established Public Benefits department. This screening and support service ensures that clients are able to identify and apply for public insurance programs for which they qualify. By thoroughly assisting clients in securing insurance, it also ensures that Ryan White funds remain the payor of last resort. Public Benefits Coordinators meet with all new HIV clients soon after they test positive at the Clinic or seek care at the Clinic as a new patient with previously diagnosed HIV. Potential patients will be asked to bring in proof of residency and income. Public Benefits Coordinators then assist potential patients in determining for what insurance programs they are eligible and provide assistance in applying for benefits. Public Benefits Coordinators, most of whom are bilingual (English/Spanish), work closely with medical providers and the Medical Adherence Case Management department to help clients overcome barriers such as a medication they cannot afford, lack of insurance, denial of a service by their public insurance, all to ensure easy access to the services that they need. They guide clients through every step of the process necessary to eliminating barriers to care related to payor source. Most of the D.C. patients seen by WWC are ultimately deemed eligible for payor programs such as Medicaid and DC Alliance.

(4). The ``Rapid HIV Visit'': The development of a ``Rapid HIV'' appointment type has allowed the Clinic to retain new HIV clients in care. Through this system, all new HIV clients are seen by the Medical Adherence Nurse Case Management team as well as by their primary medical provider on the same day they test positive in one of our facilities or seek care at WWC for their previously diagnosed HIV. Medical Adherence Nurse Case Managers triage all new HIV clients and initiate their care at WWC. WWC reserves several ``Rapid HIV'' visits with providers for new HIV clients each day. Therefore, new HIV patients are almost always able to meet with a provider the same day they test positive or present to the Clinic as a new HIV patient. Medical Adherence Case Managers provide post-testing counseling and ``HIV 101'' education to help patients understand their new diagnosis and navigate their treatment options. For new patients, providers take a full history, screen for mental health and/or substance abuse issues, order HIV and other labs, and assess immunization and tuberculosis status. Patients will also be given the opportunity to meet with the Public Benefits Coordinators on that same day as well.

The Clinic offers expanded hours to accommodate clients who need services outside of the traditional work day. ETMC hours are Monday through Thursday from 8 am to 8 pm and Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. MRC hours are Monday and Tuesday from 8 am to 8 pm and Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. In addition to extended site hours, the Clinic provides an afterhours on-call nursing line pager with physician back-up for medical clients who may be experiencing a non-emergency problem or need medical advice.

WWC clinics are well situated, geographically, to provide services to underserved communities, including Blacks, recent immigrants, Latino/ as, and men who have sex with men (MSM). Services at both sites are fully handicapped accessible and conveniently located on the Metro and bus lines. ETMC is located in Ward 2 near the U-street corridor, serves an area of the city concentrated with Latinos, African Americans, MSM, and where a significant number of people live below the poverty line. MRC is located in Ward 8, serves residents of Wards 6, 7, and 8, and residents east of the Anacostia River. Located in one of the city's poorest neighborhoods, MRC is well positioned to outreach and serve residents in Southeast, D.C., which is the area currently hardest hit by the AIDS epidemic. WWC's MRC location facilitates access to difficult to reach populations, such as IDUs, women with children, and sex workers.

The funding that is made available in this legislation will help give the necessary tools to the staff and volunteers of the Whitman-Walker Clinic. I am told that the Clinic has major renovation and infrastructure needs as well. Funding awarded by the Secretary of HHS and the Director of the CDC will go a long way to help identify and treat HIV/AIDs in the Nation's capital. Again, I am thankful that this money is contained in this package and I respectfully urge a favorable ruling on the Whitman-Walker's application for funding.

Madam Speaker, As we approach a vote on the D.C. House Voting Rights Act of 2009, it is not too early in the session to begin the next steps necessary to make the residents of the District of Columbia genuinely free and equal citizens. Other than to voting rights, the highest priority for District of Columbia residents in the 111th Congress is their right to control the funds they themselves raise to support their city. Budget control is essential to the right to self-government. Therefore, today, I am introducing the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of 2009 to give the District the right to enact its local budget without annual congressional oversight.

As a practical matter, permitting the city's budget to become law without coming to Congress would have multiple and immediate benefits for both the city and Congress. For the city, a timely budget means: eliminating the uncertainty of the congressional process that has a negative effect of the city's bond rating, which adds unnecessary interest costs for local taxpayers to pick up; significantly increasing the District's ability to make accurate revenue forecasts; and reducing the countless operational problems, large and small, that result because the city's budget cannot be implemented when enacted by the city. Of the many problems that would be eliminated, none is more important than aligning the school year with the typical state government July 1st fiscal year, instead of the congressional fiscal year, which starts in October, after the school year has begun.

Leaving the local enactment to the District would bring benefits to Congress as well. The D.C. budget often has had to come to the floor repeatedly before it passes because of controversial attachments, often of interest only to a few members who sue the D.C. appropriations to promote their pet ideological issues. Members then complain about the time and effort spent on the smallest appropriations that affect no other members. No budget autonomy bill can eliminate the possibility of riders because there are countless ways to attach riders, but our bill reduces the likelihood that unrelated riders will hold the city's local budget hostage and sometimes the appropriations process itself.

I am gratified that Congress itself has moved toward the position embodied in this bill. Congressional experience with the District's budget has matured, and neither party has made changes in recent years. At the same time, increasing recognition of the hardship and delays that the annual appropriations process causes has led Congress to begin freeing the city from the congressional appropriations network. In 2006, Congress approved the Mid-year Budget Autonomy bill, offering the first freedom from the federal appropriations process, the most important structural change for the city since passage of the Home Rule Act 36 years ago. As a result, the District can now spend its local funds all year without congressional approval instead of having to return mid-year to become a part of the federal supplemental appropriation in order to spend funds collected since the annual appropriations bill. Moreover, during the past few years, appropriators have responded to our concern about the hardships resulting from delays in enacting the D.C. appropriation. I appreciate our agreement that has allowed the local D.C. budget to be in the first continuing resolution, permitting the city, uniquely, to spend its local funds at the next year's level, even though the budgets for federal agencies are often delayed for months. This approach has ended the lengthy delay of the budget of a big city until an omnibus appropriations bill is filed, often months after October 1st.

There is no risk to the Congress passing the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act. By

definition, Congress will retain jurisdiction over the District of Columbia under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution because the District is not a state. Since, therefore, Congress could in any case make changes in the District's budget and laws at will, it is unnecessary to require a lengthy repetition of the District's budget process here. The redundancy of the congressional appropriations process is its most striking feature, considering that few if any changes in the budget itself are made.

The original Senate version of the Home Rule Act provided for budget autonomy, and 210 years of redundant processing of a local budget and delays occasioned by the extra layer of oversight offer conclusive evidence that the time is overdue to permit the city to enact its local budget, the single most important step the Congress could take to help the District improve managing the city.

Members of Congress were sent here to do the business of the nation. They have no reason to be interested in or to become knowledgeable about the many complicated provisions of the local budget of a single city. In good times and in bad, the House and Senate pass the District's budget as is. Our bill takes the Congress in the direction it is moving already based on its own experience. Congressional interference into one of the vital rights to self-government should end this year with enactment of the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act.

Kudos to Mr. Miller, who would not give up on this bill, for his early hearings and this early consideration now, and to the Speaker and to our leadership for this early floor time just when women need us most when the economy is indeed punishing them enough.

I hold here a settlement agreement that is perhaps the best evidence of why we need this bill. The first case brought under the so-called Congressional Accountability Act, that was the act of about 10 or 15 years ago that said that the Congress had to abide by the same rules and rights as workers have in the private sector. This suit was brought by 300 current and former female custodians. All of them were African American women. They accused the House of Representatives and the Senate of paying them $1 less than men who had comparable jobs. After a long period of depositions and discovery, where a class was approved, the Congress paid $2.5 million to these women.

Like Lilly Ledbetter, most of them had worked for many years as female custodians in the House and the Senate. Like Lilly Ledbetter, they had no idea they were being paid less than the men who did the same jobs, collecting our trash, if you will, in our offices. The way they found out and the only way they found out is that they were represented by a great union, the American Federation of Government Employees, who represented them in court and got the settlement. I remember going over to the Ford building and helping to hand out the checks. Many of the women, like Lilly Ledbetter, were near retirement. And this settlement agreement shows that those women, unlike Lilly Ledbetter, indeed received funds from the United States Congress under the Equal Pay Act. That is how the act was enforced when I chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. That is how it was enforced before I chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. And that is how we return it today.

I would like to include this settlement agreement in the Record.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his very important and brilliant work on this bill. I thought I heard my friend talk about putting money in people's pockets. Have you forgotten that is exactly what we did with the last stimulus bill? And, guess what? It went to pay the Saudis, who are now enjoying that. People paid off their high gas bills, they paid down their credit cards. Understand that people are afraid to spend money.

What does this bill do? This is not about ``the economy,'' it's not about ``the bailout.'' This bill is about jobs. What it says is if you give a person not money in his pocket, but a job, you have a better chance of reviving your economy.

The GAO says, indeed, if done properly, a public infrastructure program will pay for itself, and more, over time, by increasing productivity. That is the reason we focus on infrastructure and it's interesting to know that many on the other side are pointing in that direction as well.

I am not against some of the tax cuts, if properly done. But the reason we focus on infrastructure is that it alone has a track record of waking up other parts of the economy. That's what we want to do. This is about jobs. This is not about some generic economy. It is the multiplier effect that we are after. We are after jobs that then create support jobs on down the line. And there is no other expenditure that has been shown to do that as well as infrastructure.

We've got a job to do to make sure, as the chairman says, that this gets done, and gets done quickly. But there can be no debate. Even as we heard testimony, investments in infrastructure have a broader effect and a bigger benefit on the economy than, for example, tax cuts, or any form of tax relief.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kindness in yielding.

However Members voted before, there has been a light year of change since. The world has been turned on its axis by a worldwide recession, leaving virtually no one untouched. Most Americans supported this bill even in a good economy. Imagine today, mortgage delinquencies, job losses, wholesale economic misery. We simply can't say ``no'' today.

America will help any child if he becomes sick enough. The only question is when. Prevent illness and catch it early, or wait until a child needs high cost hospital care.

This bill covers only financially eligible children. Please vote for this rule.

Madam Speaker, I rise for the uniquely important occasion of honoring a man I am pleased to call a personal friend, but more important, a distinguished former member of the House of Representatives, and my predecessor, Walter E. Fauntroy, on the occasion of his 50th anniversary and simultaneous retirement as pastor from the New Bethel Baptist Church, one of the great churches in our Nation's capital. Many of you remember Rev. Fauntroy as your distinguished colleague. You already know that Walter has lived the lives of several men--a distinguished minister, a Member of this Congress, a civil rights leader, a scholar, a devoted husband and a father. Consequently, when America hears the name Walter Fauntroy, we think of more than one man, because he has done the work of several energetic men, often at the same time. It is difficult to find an American who has played so many important leadership roles and who has been so deeply a part of actually weaving a new fabric of equality and justice for our country.

Rev. Fauntroy was sworn in as a Member of the House of Representatives, the District of Columbia's first delegate in the 20th century, on March 23, 1971. For 10 terms, he helped shape national policy, serving on important committees and subcommittees, including the House, Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs Committee, the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy, which he chaired for 6 years, and the Subcommittee on International Development, Finance, Trade, and Monetary Policy, which he chaired, for 4 years. As a Member, Congressman Fauntroy also chaired the Bipartisan/Bicameral Task Force on Haiti for 15 years. Before I was elected, I was pleased to join Congressman Fauntroy and two others at a sit-in at the South African Embassy to launch the ``Free South Africa'' movement, which ultimately led to the end of apartheid. Congressman Fauntroy is very fondly remembered here as a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus and was its chair from 1981 to 1983.

Before the District of Columbia achieved home rule, President Lydon B. Johnson appointed Rev. Fauntroy to the DC city council, where he served from 1967 to 1969. For his leadership in the home rule struggle, the people of the District of Columbia showed their confidence in Rev. Fauntroy by electing him to the House of Representatives. In Congress, Fauntroy was a father of home rule for the District of Columbia, which allowed the District to elect its own Mayor and city council.

Even before his election, Fauntroy was a national figure in the civil rights movement and a key advisor to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Rev. King named him director of his Washington bureau of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and national coordinator of the Poor People's Campaign. He later was chair of the board of directors of the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Social Change in Atlanta, Georgia.

I am pleased to join the congregation of New Bethel Baptist Church and I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Rev. Walter Fauntroy for his unusually successful and dedicated life of service to the people of the United States of America, the residents of the District of Columbia, and the congregation of the New Bethel Baptist Church.