Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. I thank her for her very hard and thoughtful work on this bill.

I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, (Chairman Duncan) as well. I appreciated the hearings you had trying to press us really to new plateaus on water projects. I am grateful for the inclusion in the manager's amendment of an amendment that would require the Secretary to coordinate with the governor, the mayors, for a 10-year plan for restoration of the Anacostia River which flows within sight of the Congress. In many ways, it is the Congressional River, not only because it is so near, but because if you will forgive me, when Congressional toilets flush on a rainy day, the waste from the Anacostia, the waste goes into the Anacostia River and finds its way all of the way down to the Chesapeake Bay, one of the great wonders of the United States.

This is about more than beauty, however; it is about health and the ecologically integrity of the waterways of this entire region. The Federal Government is a major offender. One-third of the sewer system here serves the Federal presence. The Federal Government is a rate payer; it would not be a rate payer, of course, if it was not strongly and significantly involved. The Federal Government built the sewer system here 100 years ago. The Corps of Engineers still runs it.

But the Federal Government is not a major contributor to the billion dollar combined sewer overflow problem, much of it of its own Federal making.

There are many projects in this bill. We do have $55 million in this bill, for which I am very grateful, but historically, if you look over the last 20 years, there have been projects, large amounts of money to jurisdictions and projects which have absolutely no relationship to the Federal sector.

Here we have the Federal sector deeply involved, a billion-dollar problem, and we have yet to really get to the bottom of it.

I want to particularly thank you for the way in which the Chairman and the ranking member have understood this problem, and for the ways they have made us understand that part of the problem is a larger one, our approach to water rehabilitation, which is starkly different from the way we understand we have to rehabilitate roads. We cannot see what is happening in our water structures. We can see what is happening on our roads. It is time we saw what is happening to our health when we do not deal with our waterways in the same way.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Madam Speaker, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff came before our Committee on Homeland Security with his second review of the agency. It was an impressive review. Of course, the promise lies in the implementation, but he has done a competent job there.

Astonishingly, though, Madam Speaker, he mentioned not one word about London or about the vulnerability of rail and public transportation in the United States, even

though we are barely 10 days out of London. There was, as we stood here this morning, a moment in solidarity with those who died in London.

Madam Speaker, WMATA, our own Metro system here, is considerably ahead of most of the country. In fact, WMATA is designated as the lead agency for emergency coordination for the entire region's transit and commuter rail. We are ahead of most of the country, after Oklahoma City began to take real action that most still have not begun to take. In June, 19 million people rode WMATA. That breaks all of its records. Many of those were constituents of the Members of this House and the Senate, because 20 million visitors come annually to the District of Columbia.

WMATA indicates that its most pressing needs are current WMD detection equipment, decontamination equipment and testing, surveillance systems, antiterror equipment for transit police, video cameras for buses. Remember, this is one of the best prepared systems in the country.

Yet, Madam Speaker, yesterday, Democratic Leader Pelosi, Ranking Member Thompson of the Committee on Homeland Security, and other Democratic leaders stood with me as I reintroduced the Secure Trains Act, an act I first introduced more than a year ago, simply to bring the country somewhere approaching where we have now, for some time, been in aviation, having gotten there for aviation after the fact.

We are breaking the post-9/11 promise that we would never be caught flat-footed again. In fact, the President's 2006 budget eliminated dedicated mass transportation funding all together. I trust that we will put it back, or something back, before we go on August recess. Ninety percent of the funds that we have allocated have been for aviation security. Yet 9 billion passenger trips are made annually on rail and on public transportation. What are we thinking?

This bill, a modest $3.8 billion for the basics: cameras, communications systems, explosive detection, security upgrades on tracks and tunnels. Is this too much to ask? More than 4 years after 9/ 11, is this too much to ask, following more than 50 dead in London, almost 200 dead in Madrid, hundreds injured when you tally them both together?

Mr. Chertoff allowed as how $8.6 billion was ``available for transit operators'' under one of the homeland security programs. What he was talking about, Madam Speaker, is that a local jurisdiction can use transit for transit security money, money that we have allocated for first responders. I do not believe we mean transit security to be the stepchild of homeland security when that is where the people are. Far more people than ever consider getting on an airplane, and we are borrowing from first responders who are screaming that they do not have enough funds in order to skim off money for rail transportation, after Madrid, after London, and after a terrible accident involving HAZMAT in South Carolina, which could just as easily have been a terrorist event.

I beg the House, before we go on August recess, to do our duty, keep our post-9/11 promise to do what is necessary for passenger rail, light rail, ferries, buses, the vehicles, the public transportation that our people get on every day to go to and from work. There is still time to do it. I do not think we would want to go home when every single Member will have a question like this: What have you done for our subways? What have you done for our buses? We do not need to go home and say ``nothing,'' Madam Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am reintroducing the Secure TRAINS, Secure Transit and Railroads Across America and Investment in National Security, Act of 2005 for the second time in 2 years, and pleading the urgency of passage before Congress goes on its August break. I am pleased to have as co-sponsors, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Ranking Member Jim Oberstar, Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Bennie Thompson, and Senior Transportation Committee Member and Chair of the Democratic Caucus Bob Menendez. London should be too close for congressional comfort while the country's subways, buses, rail, light rail and ferries go unprotected. London's tally thus far of 52 dead and 700 injured and the Madrid totals of more than 190 killed and 1,800 injured could be far worse here, considering the abysmal state of passenger and freight preparedness across the United States today.

Instead of direct passage, I tried to get the Homeland Security Committee, on which I serve, to include Secure TRAINS in the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, authorization bill, passed by the House in May, but my bill was defeated on a party line vote. I managed to get two amendments requiring DHS to develop passenger security best practices for mass transportation operators, and to develop a national plan for public outreach and awareness for employees and I passengers. However, the key provisions of the bill and of another I cosponsored for freight hazmat security protection were defeated because the President's budget did not fund them.

President Bush's 2006 budget eliminated dedicated funding for mass transportation altogether, instead forcing mass transit into the Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program, TIPP, to compete with other transportation sectors, such as ports, which already receive at least some dedicated funding. Last year, Congress provided only $150 million for mass transportation security grants, but this year the Senate Appropriations Committee already has reduced these grants by $100 million.

I can only ask, rhetorically, whether the administration and Congress know what the people ride each day. Approximately 16 times as many passengers use public transportation as use airlines--9 billion passenger trips annually on public transportation--but 90 percent of transportation security funding has gone to air travel, after the fact, after the catastrophe. We are breaking our post-9/l1 promise not to be caught flat footed again because we have let the record stand at $21 billion for air travel security and $550 million for public transportation security all told. Secure TRAINS at a little over $3.8 billion modestly increases investment in public transportation and freight security.

Unlike much of the wasteful, open-ended funding for homeland security in the period following 9/11, most of the funding in Secure TRAINS would be available through grants. Thus, the Homeland Security Committee's formula based on threat, vulnerability and consequences would be applied with far greater financial efficiency and efficacy. The bill provides for first-line commonsense security, including cameras, communication systems, explosive detection, and security upgrades on tracks and in tunnels. The bill also includes whistleblower provisions I have been unable to get in prior bills. If stockbrokers and accountants can be protected by Sarbanes-Oxley, it's time we gave the same whistleblower protection to employees charged with keeping trains and buses secure.

We must not go on August vacation leaving subways, busses and rail as they were last week when London was attacked for the first time since World War II. This is the third time I have tried to get this bill passed. We must let it become three strikes and you're out.

Mr. Speaker, because of my personal admiration and friendship, I am particularly pleased to rise today to introduce a resolution that gives me personal pleasure even beyond the pleasure I would normally have in commemorating the service of District of Columbia Court of Appeals Chief Judge Annice Wagner. Judge Wagner's distinguished service for almost 30 years to the courts and to the people of the District of Columbia is documented in this resolution, also introduced in the Senate by Governmental Affairs Chair, Susan Collins, I am pleased to ask the House as well to express its gratitude to Chief Judge Wagner.

Judge Wagner was first nominated as an Associate Judge by President Jimmy Carter in 1977, re-nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, and appointed Chief Judge in 1994 By President Bill Clinton. Under Judge Wagner's leadership, the Court has benefited in many ways while growing in respect by the profession, the bar and the Congress. Recently, along with other officials, I helped Judge Wagner break ground on the renovation of the historic Old District of Columbia Courthouse (Old City Hall), a project she has long championed as the new home of our highest court, which Chief Judge Wagner has so successfully led. The Chief Judge led the court through a historic transition after the federal government for the first time assumed financial responsibility for the D.C. courts. Although the President always has appointed the judges of the D.C. courts, the District of Columbia alone was responsible for the costs until passage of the District of Columbia Revitalization Act of 1997. Joining the financial responsibility with the appointing power helped the District emerge from its worst financial crisis in a century. However, the transition required changes in many details of operations, and the leadership of Chief Judge Wagner was critical to the success of this important transition.

When Judge Wagner was Annice Robinson and I was Eleanor Holmes, we were close friends and classmates at Dunbar High School. Annice was known then for her top academic achievements, her leadership skills, and her ability to bring people together. No one who knew Annice Robinson would be surprised that she would become Chief Judge of the highest court in her hometown or that she would leave her signature on the Court and on our city.

We are fortunate indeed that Chief Judge Wagner will assume senior status enabling the courts to continue to tap her years of experience and dedication. The Bar of the city, our elected officials, and our residents have been the direct beneficiaries of Judge Wagner's extraordinary service. Because of the role of the federal government in our local government, Congress shares in the pride and gratitude of the city and the profession for Chief Judge Wagner's service. I ask the House to join me in endorsing this resolution of appreciation and commendation for the service of Chief Judge Annice Wagner.

Mr. Speaker, the bill introduced today has been summoned by the District's lead water crisis. The national attention our crisis generated for the likely presence of lead in the water supply drew many jurisdictions to do their own investigations uncovering similar problems. When Senator James Jeffords, Representative Henry Waxman, and I looked at the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (SFDA) and the Lead and Copper Rule, it was clear that even the revision of the Rule in 1991 did not meet standards that should have been adopted at that time. Our bill incorporates what we have learned from hearings on the D.C. water crisis this year and from the state of the current science. This bill would lay to rest well-placed anxiety about lead in the drinking water here and nationwide.

The District of Columbia has provided us with a virtual case study in why the Act must be revised. Here are some of the most important provisions taken from the D.C. experience: (1) Valid Testing. This bill eliminates the giant loophole that allowed the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) to continue testing once it exceeded the 15 parts per billion (ppb) action level, in order to dilute its findings, reduce the percentage of homes to less than 10 percent, and thus relieve WASA of the requirement to replace lead service lines. Instead, 10 percent of lead pipes must be replaced until all are eliminated. (2) Total Lead Service Line Replacement. Instead of replacing only publicly owned lead service lines, this bill requires total replacement, including the portion owned by the homeowner. Our hearings showed that partial replacement can actually increase the amount of lead in drinking water, because the new metal, such as brass or copper, can interact with the remaining lead pipe and accelerate: lead leaching into the drinking water. (3) Individual Notice From Detection to Correction. Instead of allowing public notices to be delayed or buried, using generic language deep in a brochure or water bill, as WASA did, our bill requires notice to all customers, individually within 30 days of lead exceedence, stating the scope of testing, results and corrective actions. (4) Alternative Water Supply. Where excessive lead is found, the bill requires that certified water filters be provided to each residence, school and day care facility, a measure that was delayed in the District despite the danger to pregnant women and children under six. (5) Testing Water Treatment Chemicals. The Army Corps of Engineers switched chemicals at the Washington Aqueduct from chlorine to chloramines without conducting a corrosion control test. The evidence is that the new chemical is the likely cause of the spike in lead levels here, but only now are phosphates being tested to counter lead corrosion in the water supply. This bill requires water systems to have corrosion control plans within one year of switching chemical treatment or a finding of excessive lead in the water. (6) Lead Free Plumbing. ``Lead free'' in this bill is defined as 0.2 percent, the standard already used in Los Angeles, down from the current 8 percent. We heard testimony at our hearings that most brass and copper plumbing contains 8 percent lead. (7) Lead Testing In Schools. This bill requires the repair or replacement of school water coolers found to have excessive lead. Annual testing of water coolers in schools is also required.

The District of Columbia experience has opened the nation's eyes to lead in the water that millions of Americans may be drinking. Our bill will reduce the well-earned fears of residents here and across the country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) has pulled back from total repeal of our gun safety laws. I wish I could thank him, but I do not think Mayor Williams or Chief Ramsey would yet be ready to do so. Our moderate, even-tempered Mayor, who has worked so well with this Congress and the administration, is much praised in this Congress, is really beside himself when at a time crime is at a 20-year low, here comes the Congress to do what he and the police chief say will surely increase crime.

Disassembled weapons, yes, citizens may have them in their house. Look what this does: loaded shotguns, loaded handguns, as long as citizens had them before 1976, in your home or in your place of business. Let me say that the Board of Trade does not want them in our places of business. They came to testify in total support of the laws as they are. The businesses of the District of Columbia have petitioned the Congress to keep our laws exactly as they are. Businesses say the last thing they want is the kind of liability and responsibility they would have for keeping a gun in the place of business, so they do not do it.

Post-9/11, do Members really want to legalize shotguns, handguns grandfathered in the District of Columbia at a time when we are still stopping people at checkpoints to see whether they are terrorists? Do Members know what can happen here? Someone can take one of these rifles or shotguns to the roof of an apartment or office building, aim it at foreign visitors, tourists, Members of Congress or their families, not to mention residents of the District of Columbia. I am particularly worried about children, teens.

Imagine big long guns, now loaded. Some people would call that an attractive nuisance. That is a term of art in the law. Parents, I think, would call it an unattractive, deadly, very lethal weapon. That is who is most likely to be attracted by this new set of gear that you can have loaded in your home.

There must be countless handguns that have been disassembled that were held before 1976. Now just load them up. So the same kids who knew they were unloaded before, do not know perhaps that now the guns are loaded, and here we have kids among the thousands who die every year in play from guns.

Mr. Chairman, no Member of Congress has the right to usurp our right to protect ourselves and our kids as we see fit. That is a basic right of self-defense of every jurisdiction.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentleman talked about somebody breaking into your house. What his amendment does is to legalize shotguns, rifles. Already it seems to us insane that you would have a handgun at the ready when somebody broke in. And, remember, handguns grandfathered before 1976 would be legal. But imagine somebody breaks in and you go get a long rifle or a shotgun. This isn't about self-defense. This is about pressing forward the gentleman's preferences on the District of Columbia where unanimously every mayor of the city of D.C., every city council member overwhelmingly, all the residents have voted ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. No Member of Congress has the right to encourage guns in homes where the overwhelming evidence is that they are mostly used for suicides and in domestic quarrels, and please do not do that here in the District of Columbia because that is the most likely use of such guns in homes. The most bankrupt rationale offered for this outrageous interference in a local jurisdiction is that we already have gun violence in the District of Columbia. Let me hear the cosponsors argue with a straight face that allowing guns in people's homes will reduce rather than increase the gun violence in the District of Columbia.

The most deeply held principle of the Founders was local control. First local from England, and then because they were so deeply principled, they denied to the national government that they themselves created any control of the local jurisdiction. The Congress gave us this control in the Home Rule Act. I ask the Congress of the United States to respect the mayor, the council and the residents of the District of Columbia by in fact defeating this amendment.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for doing so.

I rise to claim my time in opposition, but I do not intend to oppose because I believe when we are finished with this colloquy that the amendment will be withdrawn because of assurances from me and from the responsible officials in the District of Columbia.

If I may, I want to thank the gentleman for the way in which he handled this matter. First, I want everyone to know that the gentleman did not come to the floor first. The gentleman called the District of Columbia, and I want to apologize to the gentleman that the staff who handled this did not tell me that a Member of Congress had done them the courtesy of calling about a matter so that I might have become a part of this beforehand because the gentleman did exactly the right thing.

The gentleman from Mississippi went to the source of the problem to see if he was really reading correctly that disabled people who came here, for example in a wheelchair, might have to go to the DMV in order to take advantage of the same free parking that someone in a wheelchair here would have.

The staff involved simply told him the reason for the policy. The reason

for the policy is sometimes rather flagrant abuses by residents and nonresidents. Usually, the nonresidents live a whole lot closer to us, I say to the gentleman, than his own constituent from Mississippi, and as a result, this matter was not resolved, and the Member did what one might expect. This was the chance then that he had to do it. It came to my attention only last night.

At that point, I thought I ought to go upstairs and talk to not the staff who apparently had been involved but to the Mayor, the chair of the City Council and the chair of the committee that has jurisdiction.

The Mayor was getting on a plane. I did not have time to talk to him in depth, but he said something to the effect, you know, Eleanor, this is the mecca of equal opportunity; I cannot imagine how we can have unequal treatment of that kind. I told him about the DMV, and he is famous for jokes about the DMV.

I have time.

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

I will in a moment yield to the gentleman from Mississippi for him to respond. I just wanted to explain myself because frankly I am embarrassed by the fact that the gentleman had to call our officials.

Needless to say, everyone has gone out of their way to assure the gentleman from Mississippi and to thank him frankly for bringing the matter to our attention. I just want to read one part of the letter on behalf of the Mayor from the city administrator, the top person under the Mayor.

``We were seeking to curb abuses, not create difficulties for disabled visitors to our city. We are especially proud to be an important tourist destination receiving 20 million visitors annually. We also take pride in our policies regarding equal treatment for disabled people. I would very much appreciate your courtesy in giving me the opportunity to work with Public Works and the Environment Committee Chair Carol Schwartz and our City Council to correct the flaws you have found in this statute.''

Ms. Schwartz, who is the committee chair, by the way the only Republican on the City Council, wrote, and she said that, ``this was always our intent, but I also recognize that there may have been some unintended consequences.'' She has spoken directly to the gentleman from Mississippi, and I am grateful that she herself spoke with him.

Again, could I invite all Members, when you see something like this, maybe we can get it done, maybe we cannot, but if you would follow the example of the gentleman from Mississippi and go directly to the source, but by the way, always tell me so I can hammer them, too; then we will try to correct such matters, to keep them from taking up the time of the House.

I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman that they have represented to me, and I believe that they are sincere, that they meant no discrimination between the disabled out of state and the disabled here. Therefore, citing the precedent the gentleman himself has indicated, I will represent to him that there will be no disabled out-of-state tickets given during the time that this matter is being straightened out.

Let me also represent to the gentleman, because Members are accustomed to coming to me about tickets that should not have been issued, Members under certain circumstances may not get tickets in the District of Columbia. They sure know how to find me. I want my colleagues to know if they have any constituent who is ticketed during this interim period, they should find the Congresswoman from the District of Columbia so she can see that those tickets are not outstanding, and I represent that to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, again, for the way in which he has handled this matter, and may I say as well that I thank him for bringing it to our attention. This is a tourist destination and is frankly embarrassing that this matter was not taken care of beforehand.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), ranking member, and the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) for their work on a bill that happens to include the District of Columbia in this new consolidated appropriation. The chairman and the ranking member are making their debut, and I want to congratulate them on being in on time on one of the most complicated bills because it has many unrelated issues, and yet they have worked very collegially together.

I want to speak only briefly to three items. The least important part of the bill for every Member but me is the District of Columbia section. I appreciate the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg), who was once Chair, both of whom worked with the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia and the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) as a recent past Chair, for the way they have worked with the

Committee on Rules to give us a rule that will just let this bill pass through as the least important part of what they are doing here today. I particularly respect the self-government respect they have shown to our city. The Mayor and the police chief were here yesterday. There will be a point of order regarding a matter on gun safety, and I think that that should simply take care of it.

On CDBG I was very pleased to hear the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) say he was trying to do what he can, because it must be hard to find a Member in this body who is not with us on this program, which has been so productive for large and small cities alone. All we see around us in the new economic development in the District of Columbia has been aided by the CDBG.

Amtrak is before us. It is perhaps the most controversial part of this bill. I am supporting the amendment to add funds and have myself, out of one of our authorizing bills, contributed funds out of one of our appropriations. That is just how important it is to me. But not just important to me, of course. Union Station is the second busiest behind New York. But what is important to Members of this House is the 500 stations and the 46 States that would essentially be left with the present level of funding with no Amtrak.

I ask Members to remember that no country in the world is able to run a railroad privately. This claptrap about the private sector and the States, I draw to their attention the only reason we have Amtrak at all is that in 1970 the private sector came and literally dumped it on the Congress, saying, We cannot run this; we lose too much money.

Railroads are first and foremost the responsibility of great nations. This is our responsibility. We cannot just hand it back to them. They cannot do it. If we cannot do it with a profit, why in the world do we think that the States, which are running to us screaming about Medicaid and other unfunded mandates, can do it?

I thank the gentlemen for all their work on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster). I would not come to the Floor particularly to make a case here, and the maker of this amendment knows full well that I am on his subcommittee and have strongly supported this effort and all of his efforts on drug reduction.

But the fact is this fund, the Federal Building Fund, has become a habit, and when we get to the point where we have a $1 billion hit on one fund, we have an unsustainable hit, and here comes $25 million more.

The Members may be unaware that the courts, which have strong homeland security issues, came to our subcommittee and asked to be excused from putting any money into the Federal Building Fund. The administration strongly opposed that because it would collapse the Federal Building Fund.

I just want to draw to the attention of Members that this $1 billion hit collapses the Federal Building Fund, and it is not just about making sure that Federal workers are comfortable. It is about, for example, an amendment that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and I were going to put in and now are not going to put in, although he is going to offer it I think and perhaps later withdraw it, to transfer some funds from the GSA administration to glass refraction because we cannot begin to make all of the Federal buildings secure throughout the United States, but we can at least keep glass, should there be some kind of bombing like Oklahoma City, from, in fact, falling in on people with sharp metal and all the rest of it.

So I just ask that Members stop here, and we have got to find some money for the Souder amendment. I think we should find it, and I think we should find it in conference. I think we should defeat this amendment now.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to strongly support his amendment. You see that this is a committee that is not adverse to reducing funding. We were not simply going to reduce it; we were going to put this funding where it was most needed, in the glass refraction program.

On the other hand, what led us to this moment was, of course, GSA's failures for the subcommittee, and those failures apparently have gotten the attention, at least the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has gotten the attention of GSA.

I share his frustration. GSA has not come forward with the information we wanted about its own housing. It wanted to move. We wanted to understand why it wanted to move out of owned space. Only cursory responses. We learned the courts want to waive any contribution to the building fund not initially through GSA. It was an outrage, and we learned it very late. And, of course, the prospectuses did not come before us, and the administrator himself was out of town when the hearing was to be held.

For that reason, I agreed entirely with the chairman that they needed to understand the professionalism that the subcommittee requires. They apparently now understand it. We want, frankly, to preserve as much of the Federal building fund now as is left, since it looks like we have virtually bankrupted it. So I would defer to the chairman as to what disposition he now wants to make of his original amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Fair Land Transfer Compensation Act, a bill for fee simple transfer of certain federal lands to the District of Columbia to provide partial in-kind compensation for the federally imposed structural balance documented in a 2003 GAO report to be ``between $470 million and up to more than $1.1 billion.'' My bill would transfer 65.73 acres of land in Southeast Washington, D.C. known as Reservation 13 and the parcel known as Poplar Point, also in Southeast. The bill introduced today would assist in providing the compensation that would be authorized by H.R. 1586, the Fair Federal Compensation Act (FFCA) introduced by the bipartisan House regional delegation and me in April. The FFCA would authorize an annual federal contribution of $800 million (to increase annually with the consumer price index) to partially compensate the city and relieve a dangerous structural imbalance.

The extensively documented GAO report confirming exclusive federal responsibility for the District's structural imbalance and the bipartisan sponsorship of the FFCA demonstrate the need for federal action. However, neither the administration nor the Congress has responded, despite the District's continuing apprehension and repeated introduction of the FFCA. Today's bill providing valuable land to partially compensate the District would mark the first significant federal response to the FFCA.

The District of Columbia has had administrative control of Reservation 13, a GSA property, for 150 years and has used the parcel for the D.C. General Hospital, the District of Columbia jail, and other public facilities. Poplar Point is a strip of land owned by the National Park Service but has never been developed for use as a park.

The transfer authorized in this bill has several advantages for the District and for the federal government: an immediate benefit in partial payment that the District has long sought from the federal government to compensate the city for the structural imbalance; satisfaction, through the transfer of valuable federal land, of some of the responsibility the GAO reports that the federal government bears for the District's structural imbalance; the highest and best use for underused land that the District desires for mixed uses that are unavailable if the District continues to have administrative control but not ownership; a continuing revenue stream in the nature of an annual contribution from investments the District will be able to attract following transfer of the land; and compliance with the Federal Property Act (FPA) requirement that the federal government receive value for the transfer. The bill requires an appraisal and estimates of the financial benefit to the District that are necessary to determine the extent to which the bill would reduce the federal government's responsibility for the structural deficit.

The federal government has never used the parcels in my bill, and has no intention of doing so. At the same time, the District is unable to get value from this strategically located land in the city. Achieving maximum use of available sites located in the nation's capital, where the federal government owns and occupies the most valuable land, is essential to maintaining the financial stability of the District of Columbia.

This bill would compensate the District for some of the costs responsible of the structural imbalance which include the federal removal from the tax rolls of more than 40 percent of District's land for federal and other purposes; services provided by the District to 200,000 federal employees, notwithstanding a ban on taxation of commuters, most of whom are federal employees; and the District's responsibility for several state costs, although the city is not a state and lacks the broad tax base of a state.

The costs to the District to cover this structural deficit are unsustainable. Among the most serious are the city's debt service, the highest in the country; its taxes, among the highest; and deferral of major capital improvements for vital facilities such as schools and for roads, a major factor inhibiting economic and population stability and growth.

The existence, source and danger of the structural deficit imposed by federal mandates have been fully acknowledged and are no longer debatable. In addition to the definitive GAO report and the findings of the District's Chief Financial Officer, the details are reported in two other studies (McKinsey, March 2002, requested by the Federal City Council consisting of regional business representatives; and Brookings, October 2002, led by Alice Rivlin, former director of the CBO and of the OMB).

According to the GAO, the only available options to eliminate the federally imposed deficit are ``to expand the District's tax base or to provide additional financial support.'' The bill I introduce today will ``expand the District's tax base,'' creating a continuing revenue stream because ownership will allow the District to get the highest and best use of valuable land through its own development initiative. I ask that the House begin the process of compensating the District for the federal deficit carried by the city by enacting the Fair Land Transfer Compensation Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the 30th Annual Capital Pride Festival, a celebration of the National Capital Area's Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender, GLBT communities, their families and friends.

The Capital Pride Festival has grown from a small block party in 1975 to the current week long celebration. This year Capital Pride culminates with the Pride Parade on June 12th and a street fair on Pennsylvania Avenue in the shadow of the Capitol.

I have marched in the Pride parades since coming to Congress to emphasize the universality of human rights and the importance of enacting federal legislation to secure those rights for the GLBT community. Each year the Parade stops for a moment of silence to remember those who have died in the preceding year. That quiet will be particularly poignant as will remember local two women, who, in confronting injustice, were never silent: Wanda Alston and my frequent marching and running companion, Sister Maria, O.W., the Blue Nun.

This year's theme of ``Honor Our Past, Fight for Our Future'' holds special meaning for the citizens of the District of Columbia and its GLBT community in particular. Eleven years ago the District of Columbia lost the first vote it ever won on the floor of the House of Representatives, the delegate vote in the Committee of the Whole. The Republicans retracted the District's vote when they assumed control of the House. Our city of nearly 600,000 residents, who pay more taxes per capita than 49 of the 50 states, remains the only jurisdiction in the United States subject to Taxation Without Representation. Our Nation's Capital is entitled to that vote on the House floor now and to our birthright as American Citizens of full voting representation in Congress.

The joy of the Capital Pride Festival contrasts with the unhappy lot of GLBT soldiers who volunteer to protect our country with their lives, but must serve in silence and without the open support of their chosen families and communities, neither asking nor telling. The Armed Forces' homophobic policies, especially as they apply them to their own speakers of critical languages cannot continue to compromise our national security. Congress must pass The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2005 this session.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the first comprehensive clean-up plan for the Anacostia River. It has been called the ``forgotten river,'' ``a neighborhood river,'' ``the dirtiest river in America'' and an especially appropriate name would be the congressional river. The current original cosponsors include Representatives Jim Moran, Tom Davis, Chris Van Hollen, Robert Brady, Ed Markey, Albert Wynn, and Raul Grijalva and I expect additional regional members who signed on when I originally introduced the bill during the last Congress to do so again. The Anacostia River flows within 2,000 yards of the Capitol Dome. For years the Anacostia River and region have been associated with blight and despair. Like many cities across America in the past few years that have developed their waterfronts, the District of Columbia government has decided to end the underutilization of the riverfront by creating the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, dedicated to developing the Anacostia waterfront. However before development and hope can be brought to this area of the city, the river must be cleaned up. If the river is cleaned, it could be a very important economic development asset for the entire region. With a cleaned up river, visions of restaurants, parks, office buildings and pedestrian walkways will become a reality.

The bill introduced today would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to establish a program within the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) known as the ``Anacostia Watershed Restoration Initiative.'' This initiative would create an ``Anacostia Watershed Council,'' composed of the EPA Administrator, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Interior, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Governor of Maryland, the Governor of Virginia and the County Executives of Montgomery and Prince George's County. The primary responsibility of the council would be to develop an action plan for the restoration, protection, and enhancement of the environmental integrity and social and economic benefits of the Anacostia watershed. Several federal agencies, such as the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, Transportation, the EPA, and Army Corps of Engineers would be involved in the development and implementation of the action plan. This bill also calls for $3 million for each of 10 years to be authorized for use by the EPA, and $1 million for each of 10 years would be authorized for the other agencies. The strong Federal involvement in the bill reflects not only the location of the river, but also that Federal facilities represent the major source of its pollution.

This vital piece of legislation also would amend the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) to authorize $150 million to repair and upgrade the District's inadequate combined sewer overflow system, a critical part of cleaning up the river. The District's combined sewer system was designed and constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers 160 years ago. The sewer system services Federal downtown DC, including the Capitol complex. As such, the Federal Government is directly responsible for the sewage and pollution that drains into the Anacostia River on a daily basis. I had secured a $35 million authorization in last Congress's WRDA bill in 2003, but the Senate never acted. This year I have requested $150 million, even though this amount is not enough to help the District address the combined sewer overflow problem. However, this authorization will be a major step toward correcting a serious problem.

This bill also will be the first step in bringing real hope to a region often referred to as ``east of the river''. With this bill, this once neglected region of our Nation's capital will become a thriving gathering place for tourists and residents of this region. 60 Minutes recently captured the story of the young people who are cleaning up the Anacostia River in a moving segment entitled ``Endangered Species.'' These young members of the Earth Conservation Corps (ECC) are working not only to clean up the river but to ``empower our endangered youth to reclaim the Anacostia River, their communities, and their lives.'' With the Anacostia River as their classroom, the ECC has been able to achieve positive strides, both environmentally and socially. There is more we can do to support and expand their efforts and help Anacostia to become the jewel of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I very much thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time.

I must say I am grateful for small favors. This is, after all, the first authorization bill, almost 4 years after 9/11. But for that, the credit is due to the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), ranking member, for working collaboratively and, in doing so, establishing the jurisdiction of our committee and their jurisdiction over the Department. These are not small matters.

I am grateful as well that an amendment of mine on rail safety is in the bill. It is so basic that it does tell us a lot about my disappointment that this bill simply does not address rail safety even though that is where the people are. I do have report language in the bill, and the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) worked hard to make sure that he got as much in the bill as he could. However, he was under powerful constraints. We were noticed that no amendment that, in fact, called for authorization of a single dollar extra would be allowed in the bill. We have just heard about the problem four blocks from the Capitol with hazardous substances going by and the embarrassment that I think the Congress should feel that there has been no administrative action to do anything about it, and so there was a lawsuit actually won at the first level because of the danger posed when Congress does not act and local jurisdictions stepped forward.

We do have to get to work, and if Members do not believe me, remember last Wednesday in the rush from the Capitol. It was not a comedy of errors. Indeed, it was not very funny because these were not mistakes. What we had were huge questions opened up. Not everything was done that should have been done, but we do know what should have been done in the first place. Do we know why the plane came so close, why the President was not informed, why the District of Columbia was not informed even though there was a sergeant sitting right there in the Department of Homeland Security? Above all, why were we not in the basement of the Capitol rather than out on the streets when there was such a small plane involved and we were probably in greater danger on evacuation.

Lots of work. Let us begin to do it today.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

The Thompson substitute is necessary. It fills great holes in our major bill. There is not one dollar in this bill for the transportation that America

uses to go to work: rail, light rail, buses, subways, ferries. Yet even after Madrid, we are not dealing with the al Qaeda favorite. One-third of all the attacks has been on public transportation.

Cargo within four blocks of the Capitol. Explosives. One car, 14 miles. If one attack occurred, 100,000 people dead in a half-hour. How can we reauthorize or authorize the first homeland security bill without having any section in that bill on rail security? I do not think we can.

The American people deserve better. The Thompson substitute is clearly superior.