Floor Statements

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, because your quick action on these matters affecting criminal and civil justice in the District of Columbia could not be more important to us. I appreciate the expertise of you

and your staff in moving this bill forward.

Like the prior bill, Mr. Speaker, this is not a home-rule matter, because the courts involved are Federal courts, article 1 courts. Indeed, this matter started with the Senate of the United States which approves the judges of the D.C. Superior Court and confirms them as it confirms judges of other Federal courts. This bill again may be difficult to understand, but it is equally without additional cost to the Federal Government.

This House was vigilant to see to it that the District of Columbia now has a reformed family court as a part of the Superior Court system. And may I thank the prior then-majority leader, Mr. DeLay, who worked so closely with me on this bill and saw to it that the bill was funded, that there were additional judges, and that essentially a court which had not been revised for 30 years is now a state-of-the-art family court.

However, the Congress in its concern that children and families have adequate processing through this court mandated that there be at least 15 of these judges who would be family court committed judges only. The purpose was to keep or to repair the prior circumstance where these matters were distributed to the full 58 judges in the ordinary course of business. By segregating these matters out, these matters involving families and children, we sought to see to it that they were handled quickly and efficiently.

Congress never intended, however, to reduce the number of judges available to important criminal and civil matters, but in fact the cap has had that effect. So we have had an anomalous situation where the President of the United States, seeing a vacancy in the superior court unrelated to the family court, simply goes ahead and does what he is supposed to do; he nominates somebody to in fact fill that vacancy. But because of the cap which says you have got to have at least 15 of the judges to be family court judges, and with no increase in the number of judges, that person is sitting out there or standing out there, as you may, waiting for a vacancy to occur in the superior general part of the court as opposed to the family court.

What this bill does is to recognize what Congress intended in the first place, and that is to do no harm to either section. So, there would be a full cadre of family court judges, but certainly to do no harm to the processing of civil and criminal court judges. Therefore, to retain the kind of balance we had before, we would have to raise the number of judges available to the superior court; and that would mean, instead of 58 as the at-now raise reads, you would have 61.

Importantly, Mr. Speaker, you will note that there is no cost to the Federal Government. And both the chairman and I went to great lengths to make sure that we were not talking about increased appropriations. The court has assured us, and we have done our homework to assure ourselves, that the amount is already available in the appropriations that come to the Superior Court. All that is needed is for us to free up, if I may say so, the President of the United States so his nominees can in fact take their seats when in fact they are nominated.

Madam Speaker, today Congressman Tom Davis (R-VA) and I introduced a bill that will correct a long overdue oversight affecting the non-judicial employees of the D.C. Courts, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, CSOSA, and the D.C. Public Defender Service, PDS.

Under the 1997 National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, the Federal Government took over the operation of the District of Columbia Courts and related services making the non- judicial employees of the D.C. Courts and the employees of CSOSA Federal employees. In 1998, employees of PDS were similarly transferred as part of the District of Columbia Courts and Justice Technical Collections Act. As Federal employees, these court, CSOSA and PDS employees were brought under the Federal Retirement Program, FERS. However, for the employees transferred in 1997 and in 1998, ``creditable service'' for the purposes of determining when they would be eligible to retire and the amount of annuity they would be entitled to under FERS only began from the date of the transfer. That is, the 1997 and 1998 laws made no provision for treating their year of service as court and related services employees prior to these laws as creditable service for retirement.

Accordingly, the bill we introduced today will amend these laws to require that the time served by these employees before 1997 will count towards their overall Federal retirement eligibility as ``creditable service.'' So for example, if an employee is 60 years old today and has worked 20 years (i.e., since 1985) for the D.C. Courts, under our bill he would be eligible for Federal retirement today (whereas without our bill he would have to work another 12 years).

I should also note that to avoid the problem of ``double dipping,'' since the employees are still entitled to their D.C. retirement benefits (based upon their work status up until 1997), our bill does not count the pre-1997 years spent as D.C. government employees towards the amount of Federal retirement annuity an employee is eligible to receive.

However, it is only fair and just that the court and related services employees who started their jobs with the expectation that would be able to retire without penalty after 20 years of service or more should be allowed to do so. Our bill today does just that, it restores their ``lost time.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Joseph Christopher Gentile on his retirement from the Metropolitan Police Department. With devotion, professionalism, and expertise, from October 9, 1967, until October 21, 2007, Sergeant Gentile, or the ``godfather'' as his friends and colleagues call him, fulfilled the mission of the Metropolitan Police Department to safeguard the District of Columbia and protect its residents and visitors by providing the highest quality of police service with integrity, compassion, and a commitment to innovation that integrates people, technology, and progressive business systems.

Upon completion of recruit training, Sergeant Gentile was assigned to the First District as a patrol officer. In September of 1969, he was assigned to the Community Relations Division, Public Information Branch. In 1977, then-Public Information Officer Gentile, emerged as a national television presence

when a Hanafi Muslim group stormed three DC buildings. This act resulted in the killing of a radio reporter, and a security guard and then-DC Councilman, Marion Barry, were both shot and wounded. This was the first of many local, national, and international incidents that would thrust Public Information Officer Gentile into the limelight. These incidents include, but are not limited to, the 1982 shooting of President Ronald Reagan, the 1994 fatal shootings of a Metropolitan Police Department, MPD, sergeant and two FBI agents inside police headquarters, and hundreds of homicides during the 1990s when the District of Columbia was the Nation's murder capital.

Public Information Officer Gentile was promoted to the rank of sergeant on November 15, 1982, and remained assigned as the Public Information Officer because of his invaluable knowledge and years of experience. Sergeant Gentile proudly served as the MPD spokesman for 34 years, during the tenure of eleven chiefs of police. He also participated in ten Presidential inaugurations and served during the 1968 riots, the 1972 May Day demonstrations, the 1982 Air Florida crash and subsequent fatal Metrorail crash, the 1991 Mount Pleasant Riots, and the 2000 IMF demonstrations.

In December of 2006, then-Chief Charles H. Ramsey awarded Sergeant Gentile with a medal and dedicated the public information office in his name. In October of 2007, Chief Cathy L. Lanier presented Sergeant Gentile with a Distinguished Service Award for 40 years of dedicated and loyal service.

A tireless performer and distinguished law enforcement professional, Sergeant Gentile deserves the admiration of all who come into contact with him. Thank you, Sergeant Gentile, for your exceptional service to the Metropolitan Police Department, the Congress, the District of Columbia, and the American people, and congratulations on achieving this important milestone.

Madam Speaker, during the early years of the 20th century, a small number of intellectuals began to question whether the United States was simply a transplant of English civilization. W.E.B. Dubois, Theodore Herzel, and Randolph Bourne believed that modern America should embrace the cultural differences that newcomers brought with them to America. Democracy, they believed, required tolerance of difference and could sustain those differences in harmony.

Among those intellectuals of the Progressive era, Carter G. Woodson did most to forge an intellectual movement to educate Americans about cultural diversity and democracy. For the sake of African Americans and all Americans, Woodson heralded the contributions of African Americans and the Black tradition. In 1915, he established the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History and by the time of his death in 1950, he had laid the foundation for a rethinking of American identity.

The multiculturalism of our times is built on the intellectual and institutional labors of Woodson and the association he established. He should be known not simply as the Father of Black History, but as a pioneer of multiculturalism as well. In honor of its founder, the Association for the Study of African American Life and History devotes the 2008 Annual Black History Theme to both the labors of Woodson and the origins of multiculturalism.

I ask the House to join me in carrying out the work of Carter G. Woodson and to celebrate his many contributions to Black History.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the Smithsonian Free Admission Act to reinforce 160 years of consistent Smithsonian policy, admitting the public to all permanent exhibits without charge. That policy is embodied in the original intent of the founder's gift to the federal government that the Smithsonian be established to increase the knowledge of the public. The first bill establishing the Smithsonian, introduced by Senator William C. Preston on February 17, 1841, stated explicitly that the Smithsonian would ``preserve and exhibit with no fee all'' works of art and science. This intent and tradition was interrupted by the Board of Regents with the casual comment that this would be the first time admission fees would be charged and was done without notice to anyone when the Regents voted, on January 29. 2007, to institute the first fees in the history of the Smithsonian. The Congress and not the Regents should decide so basic a policy, especially when it departs from longstanding public policy. The admission fee sets a precedent for future permanent exhibits and makes it impossible to deny the other Smithsonian entities the same privilege and may encourage other Smithsonian entities to structure their exhibits to fit the Butterfly Pavilion model.

Legislation, therefore, has become necessary and urgent as the Butterfly Pavilion is set to open on February 14, 2008. Although the Smithsonian has previously charged fees for films and shows, such as IMAX films, the National Air and Space Museum's Planetarium, and the National Zoo's Christmas Light special, the Butterfly Pavilion marks the first time admission fees are charged for a permanent exhibit.

The Smithsonian Institution had an estimated 24.2 million visitors in 2007. The huge number of visitors who come to the Smithsonian's 17 museums and art galleries shows that there are untapped sources of revenue from appreciative Americans and others if the Smithsonian had a first-rate private fundraising effort similar to that of the great museums in this country and worldwide. Our previously introduced bill, H.R. 4098, The Smithsonian Modernization Act of 2007, addresses the Smithsonian's shallow fundraising capacity by restructuring and expanding the Smithsonian Board of Regents from a board almost half of whom are public officials to a board consisting solely of private sector citizens with greater fundraising capacity and experience.

Today the Smithsonian's traditional free access to exhibits is under attack, chiefly because of the $2 billion dollar infrastructure backlog. However, the fundraising capability of the Smithsonian infrastructure is clear in the recent opening of the National Portrait Gallery, according to Congressional Research Service (CRS) RL 33560, donors contributed funds for the new auditorium and roof over the courtyard.

The Smithsonian Modernization Act, not admission fees, provides the most realistic vehicle to raise funds for the Smithsonian without cost to the government or to the public. The Smithsonian has long prided itself on ``free access'' according to the CRS. Admission fees can bring only a token amount. Admission fees are not the answer for American taxpayers, who have already paid through the 70% that the federal government already contributes to this public institution. Federal taxpayers don't expect to pay again through a admission fee to a federally financed institution.

I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes) for that generous introduction. And I thank my good friend, Mr. Feeney from Florida, for also coming forward and robustly leading this bill forward today. We all owe thanks to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), from whom we've just heard, who is the sponsor of this particular resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to make, perhaps, an unusual point. During Black History Month, we should remember that black history is still being made. The best evidence, of course, is that an African American is close to, perhaps, getting the Democratic nomination for President. This breakthrough is not surprising when you consider that we are still living in a period for black history-making because the shackles of segregation and of nationwide discrimination were removed only about 40 years ago. So you will hear many firsts, many record- breakers continue to come forward for years to come.

We don't really have to go to the history books in the 19th century, and earlier, to find history makers who should be revered this month. We are literally still surrounded by living black history on which history has spoken. Now, mind you I say ``on which history has spoken,'' I mean you don't have the verdict of history until you can stand back from it. And, therefore, I want to make a few remarks about living history from the Congress of the United States.

It is probably the case that most Americans do not recognize that the first African American elected by popular vote to the United States Senate was Senator Edward Brooke, who served from 1967 to 1979. This is real living history, my friends. Now a robust 87, Senator Brooke broke more records than anybody I know. He became a Senator, '67 to '79, at a time when breakthroughs hadn't begun to occur. And he became a Senator from an overwhelmingly white State that was also overwhelmingly Democratic, and he was a Republican, a life-long Republican. Before that, he had become the State's first black attorney general.

I know Senator Brooke for reasons that are close to home. If you grew up in Washington, you will know him because, in studying black history, we studied this living history in our midst. He is a native Washingtonian. He graduated from Dunbar High School, the same high school I attended; served in World War II in the segregated 366th; went to Howard University and Howard law school, lived a segregated life his whole life. Then when he got out of the Army and got out of law school, he went to seek his fortune, not in his hometown, but in Massachusetts, where he practiced law and then had the audacity to run for office in a State where his party was pitifully outnumbered and in a State where he had to risk race when few had done so.

He tells the fascinating story of his life in his own autobiography called ``Bridging the Divide.'' It was published in 2006. And that's exactly what Senator Brooke did. He bridged the divide, brought Democrats and Republicans together, brought blacks and whites together, and became a history maker of the first order and one who served in the Congress of the United States.

I must say that the President has already understood his significance in American history because a few years ago, President Bush awarded Senator Brooke the highest national honor, the Presidential Medal of Honor. And, once more, the Senate has the jump on us. Of course, Edward Brooke was a Member of the Senate, but the Senate has unanimously voted that Senator Brooke should receive the highest congressional honor, the Congressional Gold Medal. These are the highest honors that each branch of government can offer.

I can think of no better way for the Congress to celebrate Black History Month, not in talking about black history that was made long ago, but looking inside our own ranks and finding a true historic figure, one that Democrats can be proud of, that Republicans are surely proud of, one who epitomizes exactly what everybody says our country needs today to bring us together, and one who served in our own ranks.

Many in the Congress on both sides of the aisle have already signed on to H.R. 1000, which is the bill necessary to award the Congressional Medal. That requires two-thirds of the House to sign on. Many have, once this was brought to their attention, signed on. We're going to send it again, of course, to Members, as we try to do something that I think will be history-making this very month, and that is to have the Congress of the United States, this month, this Black History Month, vote to give the Congressional Gold Medal to one of our own former colleagues, a former Member of the Senate, Senator Edward Brooke, the first African American to serve by popular vote in that body.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I come to the floor for a special purpose this evening, a purpose that I think every Member of this House would want to join in during Black History Month. It is a rare bipartisan opportunity to honor a man whom I think Democrats and Republicans alike are equally proud of. He is a lifelong Republican, and yet, I, a lifelong Democrat, have come to ask Members to sign on to H.R. 1000, a bill to honor the first African American popularly elected to serve in the Senate of the United States. You heard me. He was not a Democrat, he was a Republican, and his name is Edward W. Brooke III, United States Senator from Massachusetts, 1967 to 1979.

I come during Black History Month because I think it would be a wonderful opportunity for the House on both sides of the aisle to do something together that both wanted to do, instead of simply talking about Black History Month in the abstract, doing something for a former Member of the United States Congress who indeed was African American. His service was of such quality that the President of the United States, several years ago, already awarded former Senator Brooke the highest national medal that our government can offer, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. But the highest medal we can offer is the Congressional Gold Medal. The Senate, where Senator Brooke served, has already unanimously passed this resolution. This is a special time, I think, that the House would want to follow suit.

I want to note, Madam Speaker, just how broad range was the support in the Senate. When you have Senator Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell on the same bill to honor this former Senator, I think it says it all. When you have Senators ranging from Senator Edward Kennedy to Senator Ted Stevens, I think that is the very definition of a bipartisan bill, and they were among the cosponsors.

Why did they do this? Why has Senator Brooke already gotten the highest medal that the President of the United States can offer? It is because of his distinguished career in the Senate; it is because he did a breakthrough at the time that breakthroughs were not even done; and it is because of his service in other ways.

He received the Bronze Star, the Distinguished Service Award, and the Grand Cross of the Order of Merit from the Italian Government for his leadership during 195 days in combat in Italy as a captain in World War II in the segregated 366th Combat Infantry Regiment. That, Madam Speaker, is the very definition of a patriot.

I, of course, know about Senator Brooke. This is perhaps somewhat personal to me, because he was born and raised in the District of Columbia. Mind you, his greatest service did not occur in this city as a native Washingtonian, but only in this city after he was elected to the Senate.

He was born and raised in segregated Washington, DC. The city was as segregated as any southern city then, including its public schools, the very public school from which I graduated as well, Dunbar High School. He was educated at Howard University and then went to Howard Law School, and hadn't left the District of Columbia until he went to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States.

Then somehow he realized there were greener pastures than his own hometown, and he went to Massachusetts to set up the practice of law and got the idea in his head that in a State with almost no African Americans, with almost no Democrats, he could get to be, first, the first black Attorney General in the United States, and then the first Senator elected by popular vote to the United States Senate.

We all know that it is very difficult for an African American or a person of any minority to be elected statewide. When this happened in the mid-sixties, I think we stand in awe of what kind of man it must have taken to have effected this change then.

So I ask Members if they will, before this month is over, and there are other Members trying to help me do so, join most of the Members of the House who have already signed on to H.R. 1000 to award the Congressional Gold Medal.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3988) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3107 Altamesa Boulevard in Fort Worth, Texas, as the ``Master Sergeant Kenneth N. Mack Post Office Building''.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

As a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I am pleased to join my colleagues in consideration of H.R. 3988, which names the postal facility in Fort Worth, Texas, after Master Sergeant Kenneth N. Mack.

H.R. 3988, which was introduced by Representative Kay Granger of Texas on October 29, 2007, was reported from the Oversight Committee on December 12, 2007, by voice vote. This measure, which has been cosponsored by 31 Members, has the support of the entire Texas congressional delegation.

Master Sergeant Mack was both a U.S. Marine and a postal employee for over 20 years before being killed in Iraq on February 5 during combat operations.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague and to urge the swift passage of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to take note of the fact that this was probably a member of the Reserve or National Guard, because for over 20 years he had been a member of the Postal Service, which also comes under the jurisdiction of this committee.

I think it bears underlining how much of the armed services of the United States today is made up of the post office, civil servants, first responders, often needed at home, but always willing to go where their country needs them. I find this a particularly deserving measure and urge passage of the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3720) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 424 Clay Avenue in Waco, Texas, as the ``Army PFC Juan Alonso Covarrubias Post Office Building''.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in consideration of H.R. 3720, which names the postal facility in Waco, Texas, after Army PFC Juan Alonso Covarrubias.

H.R. 3720, which was introduced by Representative Chet Edwards on October 7, 2007, was reported from the Oversight Committee on December 12, 2007, by voice vote. This measure has been cosponsored by 31 Members and has the support of the entire Texas delegation.

The bill is named after a servicemember who served and died as an airborne paratrooper in the Vietnam war in 1969. As a member of the Army Selective Service, he served in Thua Thien, South Vietnam. Through his efforts and sacrifice, he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, and Bronze Star Medal. His name appears on the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, DC. I urge swift passage of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may require to the Member from Texas (Mr. Edwards) who sponsored this resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 198) expressing the sense of Congress that the United States has a moral responsibility to meet the needs of those persons, groups and communities that are impoverished, disadvantaged or otherwise in poverty, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in consideration of H. Con. Res. 198, as amended, which expresses the sense of Congress that the United States has a moral responsibility to meet the needs of those persons, groups and communities that are impoverished, disadvantaged or otherwise in poverty.

H. Con. Res. 198 was introduced by Representative Barbara Lee on August 1, 2007, and was amended and reported from the Oversight Committee on December 12 by a voice vote. The measure has the support and sponsorship of 80 Members of Congress and reminds each of us of the important role we play in the battle against poverty.

Madam Speaker, I want to continue with certain of my remarks in the Record, but I would like to make other remarks at this time.

We have just come from the celebration of the birth of Martin Luther King, Jr. His signature issues, of course, were war and peace and poverty, falling only behind civil rights. It's clear that he achieved what he desired, certainly much of what we desired, because during the 1960s there were three seminal civil rights bills passed, long-time goals of African Americans, other people of color, and many in this Chamber.

But two of King's goals remain completely without remedy. One, of course, is war and peace, and you can imagine where he would have been on the war in Iraq. But perhaps, most telling, is that we celebrated Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday at a time when the gap between rich and poor is considerably wider than when King died.

Therefore, I am not sure whether the gentlewoman from California had in mind that we would bring this bill up right after Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, but there it is, and that makes it all the more timely.

As it turns out, though, Madam Speaker, the state of the economy has rendered this issue high on the national agenda for the first time in many years. For the first time, the entire Congress will be looking or should be looking at those who have the least in our society and why. I am afraid it's not because of their high priority. They are the lowest voting group. They sometimes are invisible. But the fact is that economists across the board have said that we need to enact a stimulus package yesterday, and that in order for it to have any effect, and, in fact, not be effective when it might do more harm than good, we need to get the stimulus package in the pockets of people who can spend the money immediately.

Therefore, many of us think that the people we know who will spend the money tomorrow are the people who have no money to spend. The people who run out of food stamps in the middle of the month. The people who have run out of unemployment security. The people who need the most but who have the lowest profile often in the Congress now have assumed importance because of the state of the economy.

Madam Speaker, what is most distressing was to see that the poverty rate increased even for people 65 and over by almost 400,000 people. The one group of people that, in fact, gets some attention in the Congress, of course, are the elderly. They are the highest percentage of voting people; yet, their poverty rate is going up. That is very distressing since they are on fixed incomes and are least able to do something about it. They don't get unemployment insurance, many of them don't.

I am particularly concerned about the people who don't show up on the tax rolls. Many, if not most of them, pay payroll taxes. The only way to focus on them is to focus on them who needs, who will spend the money first should get the money first.

My concern about the baby boomers, those over 65, is not only that they should be in this group. I know they will spend the money instantly. But my concern is to wonder whether or not this is a harbinger of the baby boomers, the first baby boomers have just come forward, whether we are about to see that huge group of people show up, bringing increased pressure on the economy.

So I compliment the gentlelady from California for coming forward with a bill that I am sure will have bipartisan support.

In the District of Columbia, I have to tell her that we are not a poor city. We are second per capita in Federal income taxes and, therefore, a lot of middle-class and rich people in the District of Columbia, but one of every three children in the District of Columbia lives in poverty.

I want to make sure that whatever we do to stimulate the economy or to pay attention to this resolution hits those children very quickly. We have 10 percent of District residents living in extreme poverty, even though the District cannot be counted among those cities which have lost so much, many of them lost a base, because we have the Federal Government here, because even our real estate industry continues to boom.

Madam Speaker, I think this timely resolution is important not only for its own sake, but because it draws our attention to what I believe will be a first priority for the Congress this session, especially today as our congressional leadership on both sides of the aisle are meeting with the President of the United States on the very stimulus package that I have described.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may desire to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) who authored the resolution.

I certainly will.

Madam Speaker, the poor in our country have assumed a high profile today because of the state of the economy. I hope that the gentlelady's resolution helps us to bear in mind that the poor in our country need a higher profile throughout the 110th Congress.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4211) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 725 Roanoke Avenue in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, as the ``Judge Richard B. Allsbrook Post Office''.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

I am pleased to join my colleagues in consideration of H.R. 4211 which names a postal facility in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, the Judge Richard B. Allsbrook Post Office.

H.R. 4211 was introduced by Representative Butterfield of North Carolina on November 15, 2007. It was reported from the House Oversight Committee on December 12, 2007 by voice vote. This measure has been cosponsored by 12 Members and has support of the entire North Carolina congressional delegation.

I am asking the House to join me in honoring Judge Richard B. Allsbrook, a dedicated civil servant, who passed away in October 2007.

Judge Allsbrook served his country as a second lieutenant in the United States Navy before becoming an attorney in North Carolina at a family law firm. In 1978, Judge Allsbrook was appointed resident superior court judge for the Sixth Judicial District, from which he retired in September 2000. In addition, he served as a mediator in the North Carolina judicial system, and was sitting president of the Roanoke Rapids Chamber of Commerce.

The community was deeply touched by his efforts. Madam Speaker, I urge swift passage of this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chairman, I am obliged to speak up on the HOPE VI bill before us today, particularly because of the District's track record has made this city a shining success story, the fourth largest recipient of HOPE VI funding in the Nation, and an innovative leader in HOPE VI projects spurred on by federal funds available until recently, and the District's success in obtaining HOPE VI grants. I have devoted considerable time and effort to help the city obtain these grants. The great success the city has had in the stiff, nationwide competition it has faced in seeking each grant it has won, greatly energized by its own efforts. Even now, the District of Columbia has a grant pending.

HOPE VI has been the functional equivalent of a federal government stamp of approval. The District provides a fabulous example of how a little government money can act as a magnet for private and nonprofit funds that otherwise would not be available. Having received over $140 million in HOPE VI grants, the District has been able to maximize every grant dollar, leveraging the grant awards at a ratio of 1 to 7 to attract unusually large

amounts of public and private funds, $740 million of non-government funding to five HOPE VI sites in the District.

A brief sampling of HOPE VI successes in the city illustrates the incredible economic impact that the grants have had. The H Street Barracks in Ward 6 is the hottest retail strip under HOPE VI. The District's first HOPE VI development, the Town Homes in Ward 6, not far from where we stand today, has been occupied by District residents for over eight years. In its prior life, the Town Homes was known as the Ellen Wilson Dwellings and stood abandoned for eight years, depressing the vibrancy of the surrounding community. However, a $26 million HOPE VI grant, awarded in 1993, transformed the public housing units into 134 cooperative, mixed-income town homes, with 33 families at 0 percent to 24 percent of area median income, AMI, 34 families at 25 percent to 50 percent of AMI, and 67 families at 50 percent to 115 percent of AMI.

One of the most ambitious HOPE VI projects undertaken nationwide is transforming the Arthur Capper/Carrollsburg Dwellings, a 23-acre 758- unit public housing complex near the Washington Navy Yard and the Southeast Federal Center, into a revitalized residential part of general Anacostia waterfront revitalization, one of the largest urban redevelopment areas in the country. The Arthur Capper/Carrollsburg development is the first HOPE VI site in the country to provide one- for-one replacement of demolished public housing units. The $34.9 million grant award has been leveraged to provide a total of over $424 million for the creation of 1,562 rental and home ownership units, replacing the demolished units with 707 public housing units, 525 affordable rental units and 330 market rate homes for purchase, for a total of 1,562 new units, and additional office space, neighborhood retail space and a community center.

One of the best examples of how HOPE VI grants have helped DC communities is the lowest-income ward in the District of Columbia, Ward 8, where HOPE VI developments are transforming an entire ward. Ward 8 leads the city in housing starts and new rental housing. A Giant Food grocery store near the Henson Ridge HOPE VI development is the only supermarket in the ward and the largest in the region. The Henson Ridge HOPE VI across the street gave Giant an immediate customer base and now draws the entire ward.

HOPE VI has been nothing short of a veritable economic engine to drive the reinvigoration of entire communities. It would be a national tragedy for Congress to allow HOPE VI to expire rather than building on the success of the District and other cities. The investment by the government pales in comparison to the return generated. I strongly support H.R. 3524 to reauthorize the HOPE VI program for the next eight years with up to $800 million dollars a year, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I introduce the Old Post Office Development Act to make fully useful to the government the nearly empty Old Post Office a unique, historic treasure located at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., owned by the Federal government's General Services Administration (GSA). For many years the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management has expressed concern about the waste and neglect of this valuable government site and has pressed the GSA to develop and use this building. The GSA recognized the need in 2004 and issued a Request for Expression of Interest for which it received many indications of interest. However, for no good or sufficient reason GSA has never proceeded to the next step.

Because the building was designed as a Post Office in the 19th century, it's present design makes it virtually unusable without appropriate remodeling. During decades of underutilization the government has attempted to make the space suitable for office space, but its huge, cavernous central area on the main floor and the areas that surround the atrium could only accommodate a few very small agencies currently housed there, GSA has indicated that these agencies can be easily and economically relocated elsewhere in the District of Columbia.

As we begin a new year, further delay in making use of a centrally located historic treasure can no longer be tolerated. Apparently, the private sector stepped forward when the GSA asked for indications of interest. GSA must respond without further delay. I will seek quick passage of this bill to assure that the taxpayers receive the value due long ago for this Federal site.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 856) expressing heartfelt sympathy for the victims and families of the shootings in Omaha, Nebraska, on Wednesday, December 5, 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I join my colleagues in consideration of H. Res. 856, which expresses heartfelt sympathy for the victims and families of the shootings in Omaha, Nebraska, on Wednesday, December 5, 2007. H. Res. 856, which was introduced by Representative Lee Terry on December 12, 2007, has the support of 72 Members of Congress.

The community of Omaha, Nebraska, experienced a shooting spree at the hands of a troubled teenager carrying a rifle on December 5. Sadly, nine people died, and four others were wounded in the Westroads Mall. Thankfully, first responders, the Omaha Police Department, Douglas and Sarpy County Sheriff's Department, and Omaha Fire Department all arrived within minutes of the attacks to secure all entrances.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express great sympathy for the community's tragedy and all of the lives lost. I commend my colleague for sponsoring this measure, and I urge the swift passage of the resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I express the deep condolences and regrets of, I know, the entire House for the Omaha tragedy, particularly coming at this time when the whole country comes together in great love and respect.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 851) honoring local and State first responders, and the citizens of the Pacific Northwest in facing the severe winter storm of December 2 and 3, 2007.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in consideration of H.R. 851, honoring local and State first responders and the citizens of the Pacific Northwest in facing the severe winter storm of December 2 and 3, 2007. H. Res. 851 was introduced by Representative David Wu on December 6, 2007. This measure, which has been cosponsored by 83 Members, has the support of the entire Oregon congressional delegation.

On December 2 and 3, 2007, a severe storm hit the Pacific Northwest, destroying homes, schools, businesses and roads, thus leaving thousands of people in Oregon and Washington without power, water, or road access. The Oregon and Washington National Guard and the U.S. Coast Guard rescued hundreds of individuals trapped in or on their homes. Oregonians and Washingtonians became extraordinary citizens by opening their hearts and their homes.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in commending the first responders and citizens who helped in time of need. I urge the swift passage of this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and great feeling of sympathy and of great respect for those who have suffered so courageously through this storm that I yield to Mr. David Wu.

I want to say to my good friend from Oregon that his resolution not only informs us about the heroic efforts of first responders and the residents, but educates us about places where catastrophic storms may occur unexpectedly. It sounds as though the States of Oregon and Washington had a short-term version of Katrina and managed somehow to deal with it themselves. So we commend first responders and citizens of both States.

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

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