Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for his hard work and for his leadership.

It's a rare privilege to cosponsor a bill about a law that I once enforced, but no pleasure at this time because it takes me back to the future, repeating what Congress did on this floor more than 40 years ago, permitting only what the act previously enforced, exactly as it was when I chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, both before and since that time.

The plaintiff in a discrimination suit carries a heavy burden; Congress never meant it to be an impossible burden. This is secret information--the pay of your coworkers. There is no way for you to know that kind of information any more than you know the health condition of your coworkers. Therefore, what we usually do in enforcement is give an incentive for the employer to contain his liability through self- remediation. The moment he finds the problem, he can contain his liability by in fact correcting the problem. Essentially what the Supreme Court has done is to perversely invite him to hold out for 180 days, and then it's all over, no matter how much discrimination.

This is a bill that must be passed because it already was passed more than 40 years ago.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing, I believe for the last time, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, simultaneously with our Senate partners, Senators Joe Lieberman and Orrin Hatch. The bill we introduce today also will add two permanent House seats, the first increase in 96 years. It therefore carries a triple bonus: the first vote for the District of Columbia after 212 years, an additional seat for Utah, and two new permanent seats for the House of Representatives itself. The citizens of the District of Columbia are deeply grateful for the persistent partnership and bipartisan dedication that Senator Lieberman and Senator Hatch continue to bring to this bill, and for the continued support of Utah Governor Jon Huntsman.

Because of the importance to the city of achieving the vote after more than two centuries, the D.C. House Voting Rights Act is my first bill of the 111th Congress. This year we introduce the bill as members of the armed services from the District of Columbia are again engaged in war abroad. In gratitude for the service of our residents serving today, and of those who have served since our country was founded, I dedicate the bill this year to the first soldier from the District to die for his country in the Iraq War, 21-year-old D.C. National Guard Specialist Daryl Dent, and to the District's first unknown soldier to die after picking up arms to fight for liberation on the promise of no taxation without representation. Although two centuries apart, the first to die in these wars had in common fighting for the vote. Our first residents here fought in the War for Independence. Specialist Dent gave his life ensuring the vote for Iraqi citizens, a right he did not live to get for himself.

Today's bill is the first in the Free and Equal series of bills that I will introduce this session to complete the full roster of citizenship rights for residents of the Nation's capital that the first soldiers were promised and for which today's soldiers continue to give their lives and their service for our country. There can be no doubt that the revolutionaries who invented America's most quoted national slogan did not create a new Nation in order to get the vote, only to turn around and deny the vote to the citizens of their capital.

This bill was passed by the House in the 110th Congress, thanks to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has long fought for the rights of D.C. residents and personally insisted that this legislation go forward as a bill of historic importance; Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, my long-time regional friend, who has been an especially outspoken champion of this bill; Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, who gave the bill his priority attention, emblematic of the strong support he has always brought to our rights throughout his long service in Congress; and Chairman Henry Waxman, who as ranking member and then as chair of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, also was a central figure in ensuring passage; and many others among my colleagues in both Chambers and both parties, who have made special efforts for passage of the D.C. House Voting Rights Act. My special thanks to Tom Davis, my good friend and a strong partner on this bill, who retired at the end of last session. It was Tom's idea to pair the District with Utah after Utah narrowly missed getting a seat following the last census. I will always be grateful to Tom for the unfailing bipartisan spirit that characterized all his work as chair of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, especially his consistent respect for home rule and for affording me every opportunity to fashion this bill when he was a member of the Republican majority and I was a minority member. I must also thank the two important coalitions of organizations that have led this fight. the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, whose leader, Wade Henderson, also has been a close advisor throughout the many years of this struggle, and D.C. Vote and its leader, Ilir Zherka, who gave our bill a big quantum leap in strength it never had before through a superior indispensable grassroots organization that was born to lead the successful lobbying strategy here and nationwide and that singlehandedly raised the funds necessary to make D.C.'s struggle a national campaign.

There is every reason to believe that the D.C. bill will finally prevail this year. The bill easily passed in the House in 2007, and now

has an estimated 64 votes in the Senate, considerably more than the 60 needed. The addition of seven Democratic senators, who replaced seven Republican opponents of the bill, together with the eight remaining Republicans who supported the bill, should assure that our bill will have significantly more than the 57 Senate votes it received in 2007. We are equally encouraged that President-elect Barack Obama, who was a co-sponsor of the bill in the Senate, will sign the D.C. House Voting Rights Act when it reaches his desk.

My service in Congress has been defined by the search for ways to get full representation for the city where my family has lived since before the Civil War. That search has been guided by the pursuit of the maximum that was possible, including the two-day debate followed by the first and only vote on statehood more than 10 years ago, the vote I won in the Committee of the Whole during my second term, and the ``No Taxation Without Representation'' Act for votes in both the House and Senate. Our struggle has always been driven by what was required but we also have insisted on all that was possible, as with the District's first floor vote, the Committee of the Whole vote on some but not all matters on the House floor and the Home Rule Act, the path-breaking bill enacted before I came to Congress that gave the city partial self- government.

The Congress. which has always been divided by regional and parochial concerns, virtually never does all that is required at one time, even granting a vote to American citizens who are second per capita in Federal income taxes paid to support their Government and served in every war, including the war that created our country. However, the people of the District of Columbia have never ceased demanding the full measure of their rights, while insisting on all that is possible for each generation. The people of the Nation's proud capital will never give up until achieving their full rights as American citizens. Today's bill is another big step to achieve full and equal citizenship.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing, I believe for the last time, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, simultaneously with our Senate partners, Senators Joe Lieberman and Orin Hatch. The bill we introduce today also will add two permanent House seats, the first increase in 96 years. It therefore carries a triple bonus: the first vote for the District of Columbia after 212 years, an additional seat for Utah, and two new permanent seats for the House of Representatives itself. The citizens of the District of Columbia are deeply grateful for the persistent partnership and a bipartisan dedication that Senator Lieberman and Senator Hatch continue to bring to this bill, and for the continued support of Utah Governor Jon Huntsman.

Because of the importance to the city of achieving the vote after more than two centuries, the D.C. Voting Rights Act is my first bill of the 111th Congress. This year we introduce the bill as members of the armed services from the District of Columbia are again engaged in war abroad. In gratitude for the service of our residents serving today, and of those who have served since our country was founded, I dedicate the bill this year to the first soldier from the District to die for his country in the Iraq War, 21-year-old D.C. National Guard Specialist, Daryl Dent, and to the District's first unknown soldier to die after he picked up arms to fight for liberation on the promise of taxation without representation. Although two centuries apart, the first to die in these wars had in common fighting for the vote. Our first residents here fought in the War for Independence. Specialist Dent gave his life ensuring the vote for Iraqi citizens, a right he did not live to get for himself

Today's bill is the first in the Free and Equal series of bills that I will introduce this session to complete the full roster of citizenship rights the residents of the Nation's capital, that the first soldiers were promised and for which today's soldiers continue to give their lives. There can be no doubt that the revolutionaries who invented America's most quoted national slogan did not create a new nation in order to get the vote, only to turn around and deny the vote to the citizens of their capital.

This bill was passed by the House in the 110th Congress, thanks to Speaker Nancy Pelosi who has long fought for the rights of D.C. residents and personally insisted that this legislation go forward as a bill of historic importance, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, my long-time regional friend, who has been an especially outspoken champion of this bill; Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, who gave the bill his priority attention, emblematic of the strong support he always has brought to our rights throughout his long service in Congress; and Chairman Henry Waxman, who as ranking member and then as chair of the Oversight and Government Reform committee, also was a central figure in ensuring passage; and many others among my colleagues in both chambers and both parties, who have made special efforts for passage of the D.C. House

Voting Rights Act. My special thanks to Tom Davis, my good friend and strong partner on this bill, who retired at the end of last session. It was Tom's idea to pair the District with Utah after Utah narrowly missed getting a seat following the last census. I will always be grateful to Tom for the unfailing bipartisan spirit that characterized all his work as chair of the Oversight and Government Reform committee, especially his consistent respect for home rule and for affording me every opportunity to fashion this bill when he was in the Republican majority and I was a minority member. I must also thank the two important coalitions of organizations that have led this fight, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, whose leader, Wade Henderson also has been a close advisor throughout the many years of this struggle, and D.C. Vote, and its leader Ilir Zherka, who gave our bill indispensable strength through a superior grassroots organization that led the successful lobbying strategy here and nationwide and singlehandedly raised the funds necessary to take D.C.'s struggle national.

There is every reason to believe that the D.C. bill will finally prevail this year. The bill easily passed in the House in 2007, and now has an estimated 64 votes in the Senate, considerably more than the 60 needed. The addition of seven Democratic senators, who replaced seven Republican opponents of the bill, together with the eight remaining Republicans who supported the bill, should assure that the bill will have significantly more than the 57 Senate votes it received in 2007. We are equally encouraged that President-elect Barack Obama, who was a co-sponsor of the bill in the Senate, will sign the D.C. House Voting Rights Act when it reaches his desk.

My service in Congress has been defined by the search for a way to get full representation for the city where my family has lived since before the Civil War. That search has been guided by the pursuit of the maximum possible, including the two-day debate followed by a vote on statehood more than 10 years ago, the vote I won in the Committee of the Whole during my second term, and the ``No Taxation Without Representation'' Act for votes both in the House and Senate. The struggle has been driven always by what was required but also by what was possible, as with the Committee of the Whole vote on some but not all matters on the House floor and the Home Rule Act, the path-breaking enacted before I came to Congress that gave the city partial self- government.

The Congress which has always been divided by regional and parochial concerns, never does what is clearly right, even granting a vote to American citizens who are second per capita in federal income taxes paid to support their government and have served in every war, including the war that created our country driven by the slogan of ``No Taxation without Representation.'' However, the people of the District of Columbia have never ceased demanding the full measure of their rights, while insisting on all that is possible for each generation. The people of the nation's proud capital will never give up on our full rights as American citizens.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Eastern High School graduating classes of 1957, 1958, and 1959. These alumni will be remembered in the history of our country as the first African Americans to attend classes that were no longer segregated in the District of Columbia after the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. The courage and determination shown by these pioneers when they were teenagers were harbingers of the success, professional achievement, and exemplary lives that have characterized the classes of 1957, 1958, and 1959.

I ask the House to join me in honoring the 50th anniversary classes of 1957, 1958, and 1959 at Eastern High School in the Nation's capital.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3068) to prohibit the award of contracts to provide guard services under the contract security guard program of the Federal Protective Service to a business concern that is owned, controlled, or operated by an individual who has been convicted of a felony.

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.R. 3068.

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

I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3068. The bill is the result of two oversight hearings held by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management that examined the role of the Federal Protective Service in providing security to our Nation's public buildings.

There was evidence and serious allegations of wrongdoings, chaos and irregularities in the contracting and employment of private security guards who protect Federal employees and facilities. This legislation intends to preserve the security of the country's most sensitive buildings.

The Senate amendment supports the principles of the House bill and authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to devise regulations that prohibit contracts for the provision of guard services to any business owned or controlled by a convicted felon. In addition, the Senate amendment provides some limited flexibility for the contract officer to identify serious felons and create guidelines for the contracting officer to assess mitigating factors and the risks associated with previous convictions.

I urge all Members to vote for the Senate amendment to H.R. 3068, the Federal Protective Service Guard Contracting Reform Act of 2008.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we very much appreciate that the House has gotten to this bill before we adjourn. This bill arose from oversight, and I think emphasizes the importance of oversight. Essentially it eliminates proxy ownership of vital FPS contracting operations. As a result of oversight and reports from workers and sometimes from unions, we learned that there were unpaid contract guards. As a result of the hearings, upon learning of these reports, we found that there was a contractor who was a felon, had spent 5 years in jail for money laundering and fraud.

What we discovered was sometimes there were unpaid guards working out of, of all places, the Department of Homeland Security, and that at other times the money had been received, as in the case of the proxy ownership, and had not been paid.

Security guards have grown to overwhelm the Federal Protective Service which is the official service that guards these buildings. The decrease in the Federal Protective Service is itself a hazard. But with 15,000 Federal security guards, that means hundreds probably of contractors, because many of them are small businesses. As the number of security guards and therefore contractors has grown, it is important that our vigilance of the contract operations also increases.

I was particularly concerned because these reports came in, from all places, the Nation's capital and the national capital region. This is the region at the top of the list of places where we are always on the alert against terrorism.

We want to particularly compliment the workers who continued to work even though they were unpaid. I want to give some credit to ICE because in the hearings where we followed up to see that this matter was corrected while this bill was pending, we worked closely with ICE which had jurisdiction over the Federal Protective Service and now has an ombudsman for security guard contracts; it centralized contracting operations so that prompt payment and monitoring of the invoices can occur. We gave them a deadline to cure that backlog, and they cured that backlog by August of last year.

What this bill does is to now shut the door with legislation that was clearly required after the discovery of proxy ownership by a felon who had, essentially, the responsibility for guards' guarding vital buildings in the Nation's capital and perhaps elsewhere.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman, and I thank the entire committee and subcommittee for the strong bipartisan support that this bill and the work that uncovered it have had throughout.

I thank the gentleman for his work on this absolutely essential bill. It's inconceivable that Congress would go home without a bill that is just as important as the so-called ``bailout.'' Even if the bailout becomes some kind of quid pro quo, and many are trying hard to make it acceptable, I don't believe it will quell the outrage about the economy, particularly the major part of the economy where people work and where they do business, because that economy is also falling. And the outrage comes because the American people think we don't even notice the steep rise in joblessness, the deficits mounting in their own State and local governments where there is decreasing revenue from property and income taxes.

They think we are oblivious to that. We're all focused on Wall Street, yes, but it's unconscionable to go home without taking action on a bill that would put money directly into the economy where it can be spent now and where it's targeted directly to be spent in this country, unlike the well meaning last stimulus. The Saudis got that stimulus. We will be lucky if the bailout of Wall Street even stabilizes the economy.

But we can't fail to understand that Wall Street's firestorm has now spread throughout the economy. We see it in unemployment. We see it in the halt in job creation and continuing foreclosures and delinquencies and mortgage and rent payments, in penalties for withdrawal from people's retirement. We can't let this collapse go on for 4 months while Congress is gone and then come back and think that everything is going to be all right. Paulson and the Fed came forward to try to catch Wall Street before it collapsed. We have to do the same thing for the economy on which the American people are focused. And we can't

forget history. I reread history. Here is what we learned from the 1930s.

It is very important to note because it's the closest history on which we are now relying. ``What made matters worse was a big drop in U.S. consumer economy, far more than can be explained by the stock market crash.'' Another commentator said: ``The basic lesson from the Great Depression is that government cannot permit massive collapses of banks or spending.'' And, finally, after Roosevelt stabilized the economy, and it still didn't come back, something called the, ``Roosevelt recession,'' came, and then he began to stimulate the economy, and the economy began to go.

October to January is too long to leave the American people to fend for themselves while Congress hopes that rescuing Wall Street will rescue workers and unemployment. If we are going to help Wall Street, we must not leave the American people paying for it without any help for them.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I very much appreciate that the Rules Committee, under the gentleman, has made the Waxman-Norton Home Rule bill in order, and particularly Chairman Waxman for affording a hearing which exposed the dangers of this bill, so much so that the NRA was driven back to the drawing board to change at least some of it. Unfortunately, they've left a very dangerous bill anyway.

Our Home Rule bill says 180 days after the Heller decision, the District must respond, and, of course, within two weeks it had responded. Council was about to go out of town; could have gone out of town and waited until the Council reconvened today, but it allowed registration to occur by passing a stopgap measure. It didn't change much because there was no time for hearings. But Heller himself, Dick Heller, has registered under that bill.

They are voting, ironically, as I speak, on a permanent bill that I think every Second Amendment advocate would support because it more than meets the Heller decision.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the very painful dilemma that the Democratic leadership and our own caucus has been put in. 5 days after commemorating 9/11, Democrats were met in a dark alley with a ``do or die'' demand from the NRA pointing a proverbial gun at their re-election. This puts many Democrats in a terrible position.

For example, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer have spent their careers protecting the Federal presence. They have spent their careers supporting home rule and voting against bills just like the substitute amendment which has been made in order.

It is this substitute amendment which has dismayed and, I must tell you, even angered many in this House, because what the rule gives with one hand, it takes back with another.

Some people are dismayed because they are gun safety advocates, and we haven't been able to get a new assault weapon bill passed through the House.

Some people are dismayed because it is the energy bill they want to continue to talk about and other national business, and now they're talking about a local council issue.

Some are dismayed because they've always supported home rule. And some are dismayed because this is a bill that threatens, in the worst way, the Federal presence. We're putting not just the District at risk. That's par for the course. We're putting the entire Federal presence, every Federal official, every dignitary, from the President of the United States to Federal employees working in cabinet agencies, every man, woman and child who works, visits or lives in the District of Columbia, is put at risk by a bill that the NRA has insisted come to the floor.

We have before us, if this bill passes, one of the most permissive gun laws in the country. Post-9/11, the United States House of Representatives would be passing a bill, should this rule survive, that arms an entirely new set of people that most jurisdictions would prefer not to have guns at all, children. No age limit, for example. People just released from a mental institution, like John Hinckley, that is people who are voluntarily committed and then released, people convicted of very serious crimes, all could get a gun because of the NRA bill. Why?

The Waxman-Norton bill passed 21-1 because there wasn't any reason to vote against it and because people didn't want to be seen voting against such a bill.

So why the substitute?

The short answer, Mr. Speaker, is because the NRA says so. It's a short answer. It's a long answer. It's the only answer. NRA has proudly announced to every reporter in town that they wrote the bill, that they told the Members what to do, and that's why the bill is coming to the floor. They have used a combination of campaign funds and, frankly, terror in the hearts of some Democrats at least about their own re- election. Who knows if the NRA will succeed, but people are afraid.

The public lie that's being pandered here is that the NRA bill was necessary because the District isn't complying and won't comply. Never mind that if D.C. didn't comply Congress could overturn District law because Congress can overturn any law the Council passes. But D.C. has already begun to comply. They put in a stopgap measure. Heller is, in fact, registered. They did that as they were going out of town.

As we're speaking, the Council is voting on permanent legislation that no gun supporter could oppose. It puts no limit on the number of guns you could have in your homes. It allows unlocked semi- automatic firearms in the home, and it uses other measures to protect District residents and to protect the Federal presence, such as restrictions, for example, on the age when a child can get a gun.

But Members are being asked to cast a dangerous vote on a dangerous rule, followed by a vote on a dangerous bill that not only has no public purpose, but flies in the face of the overriding public purpose of the Congress of the United States since 9/11, and of the current administration, to protect the country beginning with protecting the Nation's Capital.

You didn't hear it from me. You heard it from the Capitol Police if you were at the hearing. You heard it from the Park Police which has jurisdiction throughout the region. You heard it. These are the Federal police that have enforcement authority. And you heard it from the head of the D.C. Police Department, the largest Police Department in the region, the woman who set up the Department's Homeland Security section, which put her in daily touch with the top Federal security network.

I have no idea, Mr. Speaker, what will happen if this matter passes this session. I know what I will do. But even if the danger penetrates here or in the Senate, let me give you fair warning, your districts are going to hear about what you do today. This has been blown up into a national matter because you are threatening the safety of the entire Federal presence and every

dignitary and every Federal employee here.

No Member of Congress who regards herself or himself as responsible Members should want their name attached in the 110th Congress to this bill, not to the attached bill. I ask you to consider that before you go home and try to explain why you endangered the President of the United States and visitors to Washington like themselves.

I thank the gentleman.

I think I should make an important announcement. The District of Columbia has just passed permanent legislation that has no gun lock provision; instead, substitutes a child access bill and allows semi- automatics and allows more than one. And they were always on their way to doing it. And the good faith was shown by the fact that they passed a stop-gap measure as they left town, which allowed immediate registration. This bill federalizes gun laws. It takes D.C. out of the gun business. It leaves a naked law with no regulations.

Scalia gave us a very narrow 5-4 decision. By 5-4, it's because that's the only way he could get it through. And you know that he got it through that way because it leaves it to local jurisdictions to tailor the bill to fit their local needs. D.C. is fitting its local needs and the needs of the Federal presence. This bill, the NRA bill, throws the doors open to guns and throws away all we've done in homeland security.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his principled work on the bill.

Tonight, just 7 years after the attack on the national capital region, not 7 days after our own tearful commemoration of that attack, the NRA has put a gun at the back of Members of this House and forced a debate, a late-night debate, on a bill that throws off of the roof of the Capitol all concern for homeland security that we have spent the last 7 years paying lip service to.

Now, the NRA may know how to write a bill to repeal gun safety laws, we have stopped that four times, but they certainly don't know how to write a gun bill. They forgot the indelible link when it comes to gun safety between the District of Columbia and the Federal sector, which are joined at the hip. They are twins. You can't get up without getting yourself, and so this time you step right in it.

Fortunately D.C. knows both sides because it has been in the business of protecting both for 208 years. Under the Home Rule Act, if it fails to protect the Federal sector, justifiably, its laws can be overturned. We have made in order, and I am grateful, boy am I grateful to the Chair of the full committee, Mr. Waxman, for putting his energy, the energy of his staff and his principled commitment to States' rights and to the sovereignty of all Americans, to the bill which is the Waxman- Norton bill.

It requires the District to respond adequately within 180 days. That's the

limits of what you are entitled to do. If they don't do it, then you are entitled to step in.

The fact is the District of Columbia has been working on a bill ever since a Supreme Court decision on June 26. They started the very next day. It's the Supreme Court, the final arbiter of all of this, that has required the District to rewrite the law. A narrow bill, 5-4, say you tailor it, each and every one of you, to your convictions. That's what has been done, has been done. So all of this talk about what it used to be before the Supreme Court, is used to be.

Now, what this District has done and signed, I am sure Members haven't even taken any note of. But it wasn't much influenced by the NRA threat, the way Members who support this substitute were.

Sure, it permits some of the things that were always intended, some of the things in the substitute, because it does allow--I read the Supreme Court decision--it allows unlocked semiautomatic guns in the home, as the Supreme Court required. But most of what is reckless in this substitute you won't find in D.C.'s bill.

Of course, the bill came down from the Supreme Court as the Council was about to recess for summer, so they had to pass a stop-gap bill just to allow registration. They did that in good faith, and what did they get for it? What they get for it is the Souder bill all over again, which he, of course, put in.

That's the mirror image of this bill. He put the mirror image of this bill in in March of 2007 before the law was overturned. Now they come back with it after the law has been overturned and after D.C. has already, in fact, passed the law signed by the mayor.

They fastened on to the substitute that keeps them looking like complete idiots, so they fastened on to the substitute knowing full well that it was a stop-gap measure. The bill that is before you, the substitute that you will have to consider, is not the idea of any Member, it was written by the NRA, mandated by the NRA. Most Members would not, I will say, in your behalf, have cosponsored this bill.

They would not have cosponsored this bill. They looked at the NRA label and signed onto this bill. Why? Because the NRA wanted to flex its muscles. They held the House up for now.

What you see, though, is what you get. It's a bare bill, federalizes all D.C. gun laws, won't be able to change it no matter what the need, no regulations, introduces military-style assault weapons into the Nation's capital that children and adults can possess, allows gun running across State lines into Maryland and Virginia, just what Federal gun laws have kept us from doing for decades, allows assault weapons to be owned by juveniles and by people just released from mental institutions.

That's what you get if you don't vote for Waxman-Norton, if you do, in fact, vote for the substitute, the reckless substitute that no Member should want to have anything to do with or have his name attached to in any way.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I particularly thank the gentleman and the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Waxman, for your time and effort that you put into Waxman-Norton, and yes, into defeating the substitute before us now.

This substitute stoops very, very low to conquer. The Congress is known for its low blows against the District of Columbia, but this is the first time that in shooting the District of Columbia in the back-- which has become routine--that in over 200 years, never before, but tonight you are shooting protections for the entire Federal presence that this House is sworn to protect, beginning with the President of the United States and going to every Federal employee working in a Cabinet agency. And the House has the gall to ask for a vote to nullify the gun laws in my district, depriving my district of the right to protect itself and visitors like yourselves, while denying me a vote on this floor on passage? Have you no shame? Is no principle invalid?

The sponsors of the substitute have consistently singled out two sections of the old D.C. law because otherwise this would look crazier than it already does. The section, for example, they temporarily left in place while they worked on new legislation, as the Supreme Court asked them to, new legislation which has now been signed into law, left in place the trigger lock section. But whoever would have left that in place--after all, it was one of the few issues singled out in the Supreme Court decision, and you know it. And they knew it. But they had to do the necessary investigation. They had to know what other jurisdictions did. And they knew that handguns had to be defined as semi-automatics because those are the most commonly used handguns today. But they had to have time to do it. Now they've done it.

Those changes were inevitable, you knew they were inevitable. They've occurred. And here you are, a day late and a dollar short, looking very foolish. Only because of the Waxman hearings were we able to expose the high risk and danger to the Federal Government, to the Federal presence that this bill brings, the high risk in government to Members of Congress every day when they come here. Yes, you think you are endangered? Well, boy, would you have really been at risk if this bill were to get through both Houses.

With the help of three police chiefs with jurisdiction in this region, all three came to show that the bill that you brokered would have allowed carrying semi-automatic handguns in this city--by children, sir, and by adults, thank you very much--well, that was even too much for the NRA, so they changed it.

When the chiefs testified that in an inauguration parade we can't protect the Federal presence, one had to wonder what kind of brokering of bills you folks do. Don't you read what you broker? Don't you read what the NRA tells you to pass?

The danger of the bill that we now have is almost as great. Oh, no, you can't carry a gun in public anymore, as a child could and as an adult could, but you can possess a semi-automatic AK-47, sir. You can possess a Bushmaster XM-15, which 6 years ago the sniper, the D.C. sniper used in the States of Virginia, Maryland and D.C. Semi- automatics, that's in your bill; that's still in your bill.

Just back from unveiling the memorial benches at the 9/11 ceremony, just back from a ceremony after the National Capital region was targeted--and still is--7 years ago, you had just dried your tears and now you come and ask us to vote for a substitute.

You now ask us to vote on a substitute mandating in the Nation's capital one of the most permissive gun laws in the country, no registration of gun laws, no way for the police to know who has a gun or to trace guns used in committing a crime.

Mandates. Gun show loophole. Licensed dealers must do a criminal background check, but private individuals don't have to. And we exempt gun shows. You can have gun shows in the Nation's capital, perfectly legal. D.C. can't close any of these loopholes because you Federalize gun laws, you leave us with a bare bill.

The police can't issue any regulations. You allow the stockpiling of assault weapons. You allow gun running between Maryland, Virginia and the

District. You allow people, voluntarily committed to a mental institution, to get out and the next day they can own a gun even while John Hinkley is still institutionalized at St. Elizabeth's Hospital for an attempt on the life of President Reagan.

You allow children to own AK-47s. You allow this in the Nation's capital. No age limit whatsoever on owning a gun.

This isn't Mississippi, sir. You have just been elected to Congress; you better understand where you are. This is a big city. You have squandered critical time with the House while the economy is falling down behind you, Wall Street is collapsing. Why? Because the NRA told you to do so.

I've been to the Senate, too. There's another House. And you know what I know.

You know that this substitute is going to be strangled with a thousand holes, and still you march in salute to the NRA.

I say to the cosponsors, watch what you vote for. If you analyze this bill, this substitute, step by step, you can think of half a dozen bills of major importance. Well, they can stick up the Democrats and make us sue for peace. Watch the precedent you set. Watch what you vote for tomorrow. Defeat the substitute. Vote for Waxman-Norton.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Legislative Branch Personnel Appeals Procedural Consolidation Act of 2008 to bring the GAO in line with other legislative branch agencies and to address an important issue of equal rights at Government Accountability Office, GAO, after extensive consultation with all concerned. Over the past year my office has worked closely with the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to resolve serious employee wage and discrimination disputes at the GAO. African Americans, and older employees who have been disproportionately affected by these disputes and have complained that discrimination cases at GAO must be heard internally, the only grievance system where Federal employee charges of discrimination are processed and determined within a Federal agency without any independent review. This bill resolves this unique conflict of interest and due process issue that allows GAO to render the final administrative decisions on discrimination, labor and other issues against the GAO with the agency head appointing all the decisionmakers in the process and no review by any disinterested or third-party agency official.

The wage disputes and complaints about the grievance system began when the GAO implemented dramatic and controversial pay-for-performance revisions to classify and pay its employees. The Comptroller General assured GAO employees that the annual COLAs that Congress votes for all federal employees would not be affected. However, many employees, including a disproportionate number of African Americans, did not receive their COLAs for FY06 and FY07, though all had ratings of ``meets expectations'' or above.

Consequently, GAO employees filed formal race and age discrimination complaints against the Comptroller General with the Personnel Appeals Board, PAB, which hears all such complaints. The PAB members are appointed by the Comptroller General to decide not only discrimination cases based on race, sex, age and religion, but also cases involving violations of labor, and of civil service or merit system rights. All other Federal and legislative branch employees carry employee complaints to independent agencies.

It was the excellent work of Chairman Danny K. Davis and the Federal Workforce subcommittee, whose hearings uncovered the discriminatory effects of the pay system and negotiated back-COLA payments for all GAO employees. An independent assessment by the Ivy Group, hired by GAO after the watchdog organization, Blacks In Government, recommended a study of discrimination at the GAO, showed that there are many race- based disparities in ratings, promotions and other employment practices between African American and Caucasian analysts at the GAO. For example, having a PhD has a statistically significant positive effect for Caucasian analysts, but has no effect for African American analysts, and Caucasian analysts receive a ratings benefit from being assigned to lead roles on projects, contrasted with African American analysts, who show no statistically significant effect of being assigned to such roles.

This bill provides for independent review of complaints by transferring jurisdiction to the OOC, which handles such matters for all other legislative branch employees. The OOC represents the most recent bipartisan thinking and action of Congress concerning equal treatment for employees of the legislative branch. Because of the small case loads generated by legislative branch agencies, the OOC is able to handle the broadest enforcement mandate of any executive or legislative agency and currently enforces 12 different employee protection laws and is the only employee protection agency required by statute to continuously review new laws and incorporate them into its own jurisdiction.

The bill does not assign responsibilities to an agency beyond its expertise and does not put additional responsibility on the congressional leadership to make appointments. The OOC has indicated the feasibility of its participation and offered evidence that the statute that established the OOC contemplates granting additional authority to the OOC of the kind we seek.

I hope all my colleagues join me in assuring equal rights to GAO employees.

I thank the chairman for the priority consideration given this bill throughout, and Rosa DeLauro for her indefatigable perseverance on this bill.

This bill has not been updated for 45 years, and yet we have seen the transformation of the American workforce. It needs a 21st century makeover. I wasn't there at the birth, but I was there when I chaired the EEOC and worked with President Carter to bring the Equal Pay Act to the EEOC. The whole point of doing that was to bring this, the first of the great civil rights statutes, into line with title VII, which was passed thereafter. We have never done that. This is the first time we have done that, Mr. Chairman. That makes this an historic bill.

Seventy-five percent of women in the work force today have small children. Women are backsliding now. They are stuck on 76 cents for every male dollar. With the economy in the worst condition in a generation, women need every tool, and it is not too much to ask that they have the tool of equal rights.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6340) to designate the Federal building and United States Courthouse located at 300 Quarropas Street in White Plains, New York, as the ``Charles L. Brieant, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse,'' 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 exclude extraneous material on H.R. 6340.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from New York, who is the author of the bill.

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

I thank the gentleman for his statement in support of the Judge Brieant bill. The gentlelady and my colleague covered the matter extensively. I have only to add that this was a very distinguished judge who enjoyed the respect of both sides of the aisle.

I commend the gentlelady for her bill; this is very well deserved. We're very pleased in our subcommittee to be able to bring it forward.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6340 and commend Congresswoman Lowey for her staunch support for this bill, which has broad bi-partisan support.

Federal Judge Charles Brieant, Jr. born in 1923 in Ossining, New York and who recently died on July 20, 2008.

He graduated from Columbia University and Columbia Law School. From 1943 until 1946 he served in the United States Army Air Force. He began his career practicing in White Plains, New York, while serving as Water Commissioner for the town of Ossining, New York.

Judge Brieant was elected Ossining Town Justice in 1952 before serving as Village Attorney for Briarcliff Manor, New York. From 1960 through 1963 he served as Town Supervisor for Ossining.

In 1970, he was elected to Westchester County legislature and one year later was nominated to serve on the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President Richard Nixon. He served as Chief Judge for the Southern District from 1986 to 1993. Judge Brieant took senior status on May 31, 2007. During his distinguished career Judge Brieant received many awards and honors including the Servant of Justice Award from the Guild of St. Ives in 1998 and the Edward Weinfeld Award for Distinguished Contributions to the Administration of Justice in 2006.

It is most fitting and proper that we honor the outstanding public career of this imminent jurist.

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

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 500, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Kirk

I owe the chairman and the ranking member many thanks for today's bill. I appreciate that you have worked together on it, and I appreciate that you have brought forward the only available remedy for driving down $4-a-gallon gas.

Sometimes, Madam Speaker, the remedy is so obvious that we can't see it. But who has made us see it are the American people because they have found that remedy, and they are leading the way. That's why this bill is on the floor today, notwithstanding the leadership of a chairman, who for a long time has wanted to pass this bill.

I have great respect for our ranking member. But the fact is that wherever you stand on offshore or in Alaska, this is the only way to have an effect tomorrow. And that is what the American people are saying: Don't tell me about digging. Don't tell me about drilling. Tell me that I can get to work tomorrow. There is only one ``tomorrow'' remedy, and that is this public transportation remedy.

Moreover, we know what to do. What makes me want to cry is the Federal Government has done it to a fare-thee-well with incentives right here in the national Capital area where more than half of the Federal presence is located for decades because we've been giving financial incentives to Federal employees to hop on the metro and to hop on buses to get to work instead of taking to the roads. And boy, they've done it.

That's why I thank this House for last year authorizing a bill that will help us take care of the capital costs because Federal employees have hopped the metro and bus so that they've broken down our own metro.

But Madam Chair, small communities and a lot of others don't have their metro, their subway. Guess what they are doing? They are hopping on buses. They are crowding on buses. They understand there is only one way to defeat gas prices tomorrow, and that is public transportation.

I am very pleased that this bill leads by example because what we have done for a long time in the national Capital region in offering incentives to Federal employees will now be available to Federal employees countrywide. Everywhere in the United States Federal employees will get this incentive. When you consider that we're talking about more than a million employees, we're going to have an effect there.

If you need any further proof, look at what the American people have done in leading us to this point. This is 2008. In less than a year, they have already dropped 100 million miles that they were driving before that. Where have those miles gone? The same people have taken more than 85 million more trips on public transportation. There's the proof. The proof is that people have voted in the best way to do it, crowd the trains, make it happen. Now we're going to make it possible so that they don't have to crowd, so that we're partnering with local jurisdictions, in fact, to help them to do it.

We say to the American people today, we hear you, we're following you with this bill.

I thank the chairman for yielding and I thank him and I thank the ranking member as well for a bill that is, I think, very important to the country.

This is a matter of State regulation and will remain and should remain a matter of State regulation. But the fact is that there are many jurisdictions like my own which, because of the nature of the mental or the emotional or the behavioral problem of a particular child and the attempt to match that with the child's needs, may be required to send the child out of State. That is more likely to be the case if you are in a city, a medium-sized city like the District of Columbia which of course, does not have State facilities, but it is true of every State. We have learned of instances where I think even with the best efforts of the city, and the city has been to blame some of the time, there would have been very little that the city could have done unless there was a monitor on the spot. And understand, it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to send these children out of State. This is very expensive to do, but you do it for a young child, in the hope that you can help this child and bring this child back.

We had a situation recently, Madam Chair, where the city was sued, this city, the District of Columbia was sued for a hefty amount because the city had sent a child to a clinic in Pennsylvania and the child was raped by a very trusted counselor.

Now, perhaps the city should have been sued, so I am certainly not here to say whose fault it was, and I know nothing of the regulations of the State of Pennsylvania. I do know this: That if there are not minimum standards across these United States, no city or jurisdiction which sends children to another jurisdiction can be confident that every day, everything is going to happen as expected.

There is a monitor of child welfare matters in the District of Columbia, and she recently reported that, for example, that some District children that were being treated in Florida like ``garbage.'' And the only way the District of Columbia knew was they read it in the newspapers. Now, what were they supposed to do, have somebody down there looking every day at what they were doing? Perhaps it was their fault. But we do not know if there were standards, such as the chairman and the committee have proposed here.

We just had to take some children out of something called ``therapeutic restraint,'' Madam Chair, after we found that the children's arms had been broken as a part of this therapeutic restraint. Excuse me, spare me this therapy.

In this city, at least, we send hundreds upon hundreds of children to such schools around the country. It costs the District of Columbia $210 million a year. If you are in a larger State, this child may go within the State. Even so, there are large numbers who don't go within the State.

I want to thank the chairman for simply creating standards, and by the way, standards that will apply to the public sector and not only the private sector. There is no private right of action given by this bill. I particularly like the random inspections, because you never know if they are going to look at you.

Madam Chairman, I like the commonsense, low-cost approach here because we obviously are not trying to duplicate what they do in the States. The random inspections will say to you, you never know if they are going to come to get you, and there are States that don't do such inspections. The fact that we are not talking about suing you, these people know how to get lawyers to sue under the appropriate circumstances.

In any case, we don't want to do something after the fact. We want to

be assured if we have to send our children to another jurisdiction, that all will be well to the greatest extent possible. This bill, which covers the entire country, will, I think, restore the confidence of many parents that in fact at least the Congress has done all it can.

I thank the chair and the ranking member and the committee again for this important bill.

This entire House has you, Mr. Chairman, to thank for a lifetime of work in civil rights and human rights for all people, I thank you here on the floor.

I thank my good colleague who serves on the Judiciary Committee. And I especially thank my colleague, John Lewis, who was chair of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee when I first joined. And I think I can say for John and me that either of us expected to be on the floor of this House at that time.

I thank you, John. I'm not surprised that you would come forward with this resolution. For me, it would be too poignant an occasion but for the progress that I think we can say assures that these brutal murders, the murders that we came to call the ``Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman murders,'' certainly have not been in vain.

In 1963, Bob Moses, a legendary figure of the Mississippi movement, recruited me while I was in law school to go to Mississippi. SNCC had opened up virtually everyplace else, but not Mississippi because, frankly, it was terrorist country. And to show you the extent to which Mississippi was a different place, it took the NAACP and Medgar Evers to lead the sit-ins there, and they got beat unmercifully. And that was in Jackson.

I came to the Mississippi Delta that year for an express purpose, to prepare for the 1964 Freedom Summer, by conducting the prototype ``freedom school'' to be used in 1964, when we knew we would be able to gather thousands of students to come down. It was the high point of student activism. John and others went throughout the United States and students came in huge numbers. We had the highest hopes.

I was particularly working on the 1964 Democratic Convention with my mentor, Fannie Lou Hamer, and Larry Guyout, who now lives here, the cochairs of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, and, working indeed, on the brief that would be used to say that this delegation, rather than the official delegation which excluded African Americans, should be recognized by the 1964 Democratic National Convention.

And why was there a Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party? Because, indeed, in the summer of 1964, so many had come down to risk their lives for whom that had to have been their choice. Those high hopes were not extinguished when our delegation did not get seated. Those high hopes were not even extinguished when these brutal murders occurred. It took authorities weeks to find the three young men. Those high hopes remained high and, if anything, thrust the civil rights movement forward in a way it had not been before.

How much time do we have, please, Madam Speaker? I don't want to go over.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I won't take much longer, but this is a very special moment.

In 1963 when I went to Mississippi, I first worked for the March on Washington under Bayard Rustin, then went to the Mississippi Delta. That was, I must say, the most eventful summer of my life, more eventful even than 1964.

The great chief of the Mississippi NAACP Medgar Evers put me on a bus. Medgar Evers tried to convince me to stay in Jackson, but I said, no, that I had promised I was coming to the Delta. So he put me on a bus to go to the Delta. He then turned around, went back home, and he was shot and killed in his driveway that same evening. That was a year I shall never forget.

But the fact is that the 1964 summer, in fact, happened. The students did not go home after the murders. We continued to organize. The Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, with Fannie Lou Hamer leading the way at the convention, was the high point of that convention. And the country has never forgotten it. It democratized the Democratic Party. It democratized even the Republican Party. And I must say that both parties then recognized that they had to have representative delegations.

Steve Schwerner Michael's brother was one of my classmates in college. When I have met with the families, what has been extraordinary about them is to see that they understand the contributions they personally made to the freedom struggle. They have no regrets. They understand that the loss of Cheney and the two youngsters from the north was the last thing we expected and that that loss helped to waken the country.

Do not forget what happened in 1964. The passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and that act contained Title VII. Something else I could never have imagined--I would one day come to enforce a major civil right's law, the 1964 Civil Right's Act as a Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This was the first civil rights legislation since the radical Republicans gave us our first civil rights legislation after the Civil War, and look what happened afterwards: the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Act.

Oh, no, these three young men died for a great and noble purpose. And in case the national panorama doesn't drive that point home, surely the fact that Mississippi today has the largest number of black public officials will

help you to see that they did not die in vain, and surely the fact that their relatives now see the first African American to secure the nomination of a major party for President of the United States will drive home the reality that these three young men, at the dawn of their lives, not only did not die in vain but for generations to come and, yes, for this generation, have left a legacy of their own.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.