Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind words and acknowledgement of the chairman. I particularly appreciate the strong leadership he has given this bill from its inception and the continuing strong leadership he has afforded this absolutely vital bill to the residents of the District of Columbia.

Led by my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 has

always passed with bipartisan sponsors in the House and Senate and consistently strong support from Members of both bodies. We are particularly indebted to the chairman, who, because of the importance of higher education to those who live and work in this white-collar region, has always made this bill a priority of the committee.

This year he performed an additional critical act of leadership. When a problem arose in the Senate after the bill was approved in committee, he forged an acceptable compromise. The champions of the bill in the Senate have been a chairman, Senator George Voinovich and his ranking member, Senator Dick Durbin of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, as well as the Chair of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Senator Susan Collins and the ranking member, Senator Joe Lieberman.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express special gratitude to President Bush, who came to office several years after the law was in effect, saw the evidence of its exceptional success, and has continued to fund it in his budget at authorized levels.

The act, which partially funds college tuition through tuition access grants, or TAG, gives D.C. residents opportunities for college attendance that other Americans already enjoy through their State university systems. Because the District has no State university system, TAG substitutes for such a system by allowing D.C. residents to attend the public colleges in the States at instate tuition rates, subsidized up to $10,000. In the alternative, our students may receive $2,500 to attend private colleges at historically black colleges or universities in the city or region or other private colleges, provisions that also imitate what some States allow.

Already some 6,000 D.C. students have attended more than 150 colleges nationwide because of funds provided by the act. There are two particularly gratifying results from the first years of the Act. First, college attendance in the District has increased by 28 percent compared with only 11 percent nationally. Second, the act has been important to keeping tax-paying residents in the city and stemming the large and disastrous taxpayers' losses of the past three decades, particularly of parents who often left for the suburbs when their children were in reach of college age, rather than deny their children the benefits of a lower-cost, high-quality State university system. The high cost of tuition is a significant reason many residents left the District and others refuse to settle here.

The evidence of the success of the program and the return on the dollar to residents, to the city itself and to the Federal Government is not in dispute. Close monitoring by the GAO, by the committee and by our office have shown that TAG has been well run. TAG is universally popular among D.C. residents and businesses because of the act's simultaneous and immediate benefits to higher education in the District and, therefore, to the economic stability and viability of the city itself.

The program is an unqualified success and continues to exceed all expectations. The program has proved itself in becoming a valuable catalyst to where it is most needed. TAG deserves reauthorization, and I strongly urge its passage.

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

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

In closing, I want to say that the two gentlemen from which we just heard on the bill, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) who just spoke, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) who has led the bill, are both from this region.

This may be the most white-collar region in the United States. When District of Columbia residents did not have access to its State university system, it hurt the entire economy of the region because it meant the critical core of the region could not provide the same State university systems that are very beautifully provided in Maryland and Virginia. So one part of the region could not contribute to the economic viability of the region.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate particularly their work in understanding how vital the District's contribution was and is, and that it cannot be made except through higher education of the kind that is expected through this region.

Finally, a word about the Chair. This bill was finally passed in the Senate only in the lame duck session. It has been passed here because the chairman had smoothly led its passage in the House. It did not have a bit of controversy here. There were some changes made after some consultation with the House with the Senate, and all was well; and at the last minute a very small problem arose in the Senate. But when one person raises a problem in the Senate, that can mean the end of an entire bill. So I do want to say right here on this floor that the work of the chairman when we brought this to his attention that all efforts in the Senate to solve this one problem with one Member had failed for reasons no one could put their finger on, that his own creative sense of compromise is what rescued the bill in the Senate.

I want to express my deep appreciation for his work in the midst of the lame duck session, to think of what might be done, and then to speak with the Member in the Senate who raised an issue, and then to come forward with a compromise that has proved acceptable to all. We are very grateful for that, because without that work on the part of Chairman Davis, we would not be here.

This bill would not be authorized, and we would not be able to get the full amount which has already been passed by the appropriation committees on both sides into the President's budget when it comes here in January.

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

Mr. Speaker, I might ask the gentleman how he himself voted.

Mr. Speaker, the full faith and credit of the United States is not seriously at issue here. What is at issue is what we do not hear a lot about anymore. We do not hear the other side saying we can grow our way out of this debt. We do see the danger signs, the decline of the dollar, the rise in debt purchased by foreigners.

How can we plunge ourselves back into debt so quickly? As President Clinton dedicates his library, I cannot help remember the halcyon days of surplus where the President imposed pay-as-you-go discipline. We can do this ourselves.

Postponing a vote on the debt limit to get through an election is pathetically transparent. The moral bankruptcy of that postponement is deepened by the failure to even make a promise on PAYGO during this debate.

Unless we move, this generation will be remembered as the generation that had a party at the expense of their grandchildren, so selfish that they gave themselves a tax cut, robbed their children's Social Security, and then charged it straight away to them. Let us do better than that. That is the very definition of a national moral issue.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for this amendment.

I have an amendment pending in a package we have not gotten to. My pending amendment would in fact have relevant regions across the United States, whether within the same State or not, engage functionally in what I think this amendment would do. I would have a coordinator and the coordinator could be chosen by whoever were the various officials, whether across State lines or within a State.

Yes, it is true that the national capital region is the model for how it should be done. Here we have three States: Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. The portions of those States closest to where the security is of greatest need and where the Federal presence is, because the Federal presence is as much in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia, and in some cases more so, witness the Pentagon. This region has a long history of cooperating.

But after 9/11, even that long history of cooperation was not enough. Because of the uniqueness of the national capital region, Congress has said there has to be a paid coordinator for this region. Other regions, of course, would almost surely not have the Federal Government paying for the coordinator. The reason that the coordinator is paid for here is because virtually the entire Federal presence is located here.

But I have worried that what a coordinator would do is not being done in these regions. I appreciate what these Members have done. They have leaped over the title and essentially said do it, or at least do some of it, such as information-sharing. Other areas of their amendment make it clear that what Congress wants is coordination across State lines if necessary and certainly across regional lines.

I think minimally what this amendment wants is what the country needs, and I hope because this is a bipartisan amendment that it will pass; it will pave the way for the next step which would be of course coordinators for the various regions. Again, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for their amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment with regret. I believe every Member of the national capital region and everyone who cares about the security of the national capital region should oppose this amendment as well.

Normally, I would have absolutely no problem with a study. This study and this amendment, both the original bill and the amendment are called study of an expansion of area of jurisdiction of Office of National Capital Region Coordination. That is the special coordinator I just spoke about in the last amendment.

The amendment itself suggests the conclusion: expansion. This is not the time to even think about diluting the area defined by law as the national capital region. It has not happened haphazardly. I did offer to work with my colleagues from the greater region. I think an objective study that was done by the region, the agencies that have the expertise, and the gentleman has indicated that he knows that the GSA has it, yes homeland security might be useful. I am a member of both committees. The last thing I want to do is give the Committee on Homeland Security, which has existing mandates to report back to Congress, something else to do, something which I think is absolutely unnecessary.

The expertise exists within the government, and this is something that

does not require legislation at all. The resources that protect the national capital region we need to expand, not think about diluting. When we talk about this region, understand what we are talking about. We are talking about the Pentagon, the CIA, NIH, Arlington Cemetery, Andrews, Fort Belvoir, the FBI Academy, Goddard Space Center, the FDA. We are not talking about the District of Columbia. It goes without saying that is going to be protected. The greater Federal presence is found in nearby Maryland, Northern Virginia, and Montgomery and Prince George's counties.

What expense we have to go through just to protect this region I do not want to even talk about, but it includes the flyover, the guards we have to send out. We have to send them out if there were an agency somewhere out in the region.

The GSA and the National Capital Planning Commission have consistently been against sprawl of government agencies. It is already 6,000 square miles. We are talking way out into Maryland and Virginia, Loudoun, Prince William, Fairfax. They have opposed it because of security, commuting, taxpayer cost-saving reasons. They have consistently said we have to keep as many agencies as possible within this region. It is much harder to protect Federal facilities; and therefore they say, whether you are talking about embassies or Federal agencies, they ought to be within this region.

When there is an alert, they have to send them wherever the facility is. For economies of scale, we want to in fact keep agencies concentrated. If Members want a study, I am willing to study; but they do not need to come before this Congress and ask for an expensive study to be done, distracting the Department of Homeland Security from what it has already on its plate.

I am willing to work with the gentleman, but I think we do not need a new study at taxpayers' expense beyond what we already have the ability to do. The agencies that are within the national capital area, the coordination that we do now needs far greater focus and far greater resources. It is clear what the gentleman wants. I oppose this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I sat in a committee that I must say tries and often is bipartisan. I kept looking for gravitas of the 9/11 recommendations. One that is not here actually stunned me and that is the recommendation to strengthen our counternuclear proliferation efforts.

During the first Presidential debate there was a moment of rare agreement between Kerry and Bush. They both said that nuclear proliferation was the single most serious threat facing the United States. The commission agreed. It says that al Qaeda has tried to acquire or make nuclear weapons for the last 10 years and that the maximum effort should be made. H.R. 10 relegates this issue to a study. A study is a way not to do anything.

The Senate knew exactly what to do. You do not study it any more. You expand the proliferation security initiative and the proliferation programs literally on the books now. I represent this city. What a small nuclear device would do to the Nation's capital I do not want to contemplate.

The commission understands what nuclear weapons would do nation-wide. No serious effort can exclude nuclear nonproliferation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I thank the gentleman for his graciousness in respecting the independence of the people of the District of Columbia, citizens of the United States entitled to the same rights that all other Americans have.

I appreciate that the Committee on Rules, its chairman, its ranking member, Members who come forward today with this bill, have brought forward a conference report and a rule that enables the District of Columbia to get its own money out, and the money that is due it from the Federal Government, on time.

I think that we should be apologizing to the American people that, at a time when all but two of our appropriations are not out, as we get ready to go home, we are having to spend time on the budget of a local jurisdiction. It must be hard to make people back home understand what we are doing, working on the taxpayer-raised budget of the District of Columbia and its Federal funds, rather than on the large Federal appropriations that await conference reports and the President's signature.

At the same time, I am grateful for the timeliness of this conference report. Of the 13 appropriations bills, only two, Defense and D.C., will be signed by the President when we leave to go home at the end of this week. In a real sense, this turns on its head the practice in recent years and, certainly, since the Republican majority has been in control.

D.C., irrelevant, literally irrelevant, to Members of the House and Senate, because almost all of the money is raised by our own local residents and taxpayers, D.C., the smallest, has traditionally been the most troublesome of the appropriations; the last out, the appropriation that caused more Members to come to the floor with amendments. Amendments that had to do with the District of Columbia? Absolutely not. Amendments that were of special interest to that Member but of no relevance to the District of Columbia.

The opposite has been the case this year, and it is because of the leadership of the appropriators and of the authorizers. There are no new riders. Three were threatened, but the appropriators and the authorizers worked together so that those riders did not come forward to be voted on on this floor. It is not that these Members are omnipotent, it is that, when leaders exercise leadership and discourage extraneous material, particularly on the appropriation of a local jurisdiction, an independent jurisdiction, their leadership can and this year has proved to be critical.

At the same time, I must take strong exception to the riders that remain; not new riders, but riders that remain. They are particularly inexcusable.

First, the needle-exchange rider, which makes D.C. alone in the United States of America. Hundreds of jurisdictions use their own money to pay for the exchange of dirty needles for clean needles, in accordance with all of the scientific evidence, and, I may say, all of the great scientific organizations, official and private, that say you save lives when you do not allow dirty needles to be passed around so that you spread HIV-AIDS.

So I should thank the Congress of the United States in the name of the people of the District of Columbia that, because of the needle- exchange admonition and bar in our appropriation, we have the highest HIV-AIDS rate in the country.

The interference with needle exchange, of course, is very different from other interference, because it costs lives. It is why we have so many men, women and children who otherwise would not be anywhere close to the AIDS epidemic with AIDS today. That calamity is laid at the feet of this Congress and essentially at the feet of this House, because the Senate asked that the District be able to spend its own local money for needle exchange. It was the House that refused to let the conference report come forward if, in fact, that was included.

There are, of course, other old riders in this bill. The old rider that says all the rest of you in the United States of America can spend your money for abortions for poor women, but not the residents of the District of Columbia. They are American citizens, but we are not about to treat them as first-class citizens. Remember, they are second-class citizens. So they can't spend their own money for abortions for their own poor women.

Perhaps as a matter of ordinary democracy, the most shameful rider says that the District can't spend its own money to lobby for its own rights. This House, not the Senate, the Senate has said, we are not on that boat, let them spend their own money if they want to spend their own money to get full and equal rights in the House and in the Senate, and we think that is their right and prerogative as Americans, but the House said, ``Oh, no, that is not for the District. In my district, we better be able to spend our own money to lobby for anything we want to. Not in the Nation's Capital.''

This is a time of war, this is a time of great and urgent matters in our country. This is not the time when we ought to be considering this appropriation at all. At the same time, I am grateful that, if it had to be here, that before we went home this appropriation was out of Congress; that I am not here in November, that I am not here in December, trying to get my own money out of this Congress.

In past years, the House has been critical of the management of the District of Columbia without conceding that not allowing the District to spend its own money on time has wrapped the District in knots as it tries to balance on last year's budget while waiting for the Congress to release its own money.

The appropriators, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), our authorizer, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), have gone very far in helping us to meet this burden. I appreciate that the Committee on Rules has taken taking us to the next step and making us one of two appropriations to clear the Congress before we clear out of here.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, for yielding me this time. I begin with special thanks to the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, if they will allow me to call them the engineers who have wrought this miracle. For those of us in the District of Columbia, it seems nothing short of that. I call them the engineers because they drove the train straight to the station with no unnecessary stops along the way. For the residents of the District of Columbia whose appropriation is now out, that has very special meaning.

I am also grateful to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who I believe is term-limited and to the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), because throughout their tenure on the committee, leading the committee, they have always understood that if the D.C. appropriation had to be here at all, it ought to be up and out. I appreciate their leadership throughout.

I cannot say enough about the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah). Their leadership shines on the face of this conference report. They must be exceedingly proud that there are only two conference reports out, ready for the President's signature, and that, except for Defense, D.C. is the only one. We are very grateful that D.C. is one of those two. We are particularly grateful because these two leaders have understood that these are Federal funds that are very different from other Federal funds, that these are Federal funds for a city and not a Federal agency, and, therefore, when the funds of a city are held up, untold damage is done to the management of that city.

The Congress has been critical of the management of the District of Columbia over the years without understanding the role the Congress has played in those management difficulties.

Try running a big city when their appropriation is here 3, 4, 5 months later than in their own State or city and perhaps they will get an understanding of why, for the District, this has meant management disarray, in part its fault, no doubt, but certainly with the degree of responsibility in the Congress itself, with disarray from bills for school books that could not be paid so books would not come, or could not be delivered, to vital programs that could not be started.

This year something very important happened, and it is the second year that it has happened. The appropriators were able to allow D.C. to spend its own money on time. This is the rest of the money. This is the Federal money. This is the nontaxpayer-raised money. That D.C. was able to begin October 1 spending its own money is virtually unheard of, at least since the majority took control, and it is profoundly appreciated by the residents of the District of Columbia. Spending our own money, not at last year's levels, but at the approved levels of the Committee on Appropriations has made a world of difference already.

I must say that I think that the District deserves this treatment and respect. It deserves it with seven balanced budgets and surpluses. It deserves it because the city that 8 years ago had an investment bond rating that was below investment grade now has an A rating by all three agencies.

One of the reasons that it has not been able to get above A, as it strives to do, is because of the congressional process. The investment agencies have been very clear that the District's budget having to come here at all imports uncertainty, and that uncertainty has to be reflected in the interest that the District of Columbia taxpayers pay. Therefore, anything of the kind we have seen this year, where our appropriation gets out on time, first and foremost comes to the attention of the investment agencies. And that means that taxpayer- raised money in the District of Columbia can go for the real necessities of the District of Columbia instead of for increased interest.

We have the highest debt service. All of this is wound up in the unique structural difference between the District and other States and localities.

The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) have recognized that to the extent that they could mitigate the burden that the congressional process brings to the District budget both in time and in extra cost, that it was their choice to try to do so. And I appreciate that they have done exactly that.

Few States can say that they ran 7 straight years of surpluses and balanced budgets. These were years of some hardship for States. The District of Columbia was in the same economy and in some sense worse, because of 9/11, because our largest industry, the tourist industry, was seriously affected, and yet those surpluses have come. The reason for that is, of course, extraordinary prudence. For that prudence it seems to me we all would want to commend the Council of the District of Columbia and the Mayor of the District of Columbia. They have had the highest reserve fund, and I appreciate and they appreciate that there have been small reductions that I think take into account the prudence with which they have run the city.

This appropriation process, rounding it out, completing it, was necessary because the Federal funds for State functions particularly are in this bill. And these are State functions, prisons, courts that no city carries. The Revitalization Act, therefore, takes up the cost of those State functions, and those State functions are there, and we are very grateful for that. Other non-D.C. funds, Federal funds, are here.

I am grateful that the Public Safety Reimbursement Act, the act I introduced some years ago, is now regularly funded in the President's budget. It is fully funded here. It reimburses the District for national events, everything from President Reagan's funeral to the huge Choice March here. All that expense used to fall to the residents of the District of Columbia, making it very difficult for the city to get toward the balance and the surpluses that it now insists upon.

I am grateful for the increase in the Tuition Access Act. Not every Member understands why the Federal Government should be funding this bill. I can understand their confusion. But the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) worked so closely with us. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), who was the lead sponsor of this bill with me, worked on this bill 5 years ago because the District of Columbia has no State university system the way every other Member here does.

All this bill does is put the District in the same position that other Members are in by allowing our residents to go to State colleges, State university systems, and elsewhere. And look what

it has done. In a region where one needs a college education to get any kind of decent job, we now have a 30 percent increase in young people going to college.

Most critical and what we have tried to do, the authorizers and the appropriators, is to put the District in the same position that any other city would be in. For us it means that taxpayers do not move out of the District when the children get to be 15, 16, and 17, because they can walk across the line into a region and get a low in-State tuition.

So this bill, besides its equity function, has been critical to keeping taxpayers in the District of Columbia. The large return to the Federal dollar is unspoken, but it cannot be denied.

I am grateful to the chairman. I am grateful to the ranking member, and I am grateful to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) that there were no riders on this bill. That is one of the reasons this bill was always last out, because we have to fight those riders, and that simply elongates, stretches out the time that this bill is on the floor.

I have seen this bill on the floor 8 and 10 hours. This is the smallest bill. This bill is irrelevant to every Member except me. With their eye focused on the prize, our appropriation, let us get it up and out; the appropriators have done their job to a fare-thee-well.

I regret that there are still riders on this bill that will not be on the bills in the Members' States, the rider that forbids us to pay using our local funds for abortions for poor women. That rider is perhaps always going to be controversial.

But the Senate removed two riders: the needle exchange rider, which would allow us to fund the exchange of dirty for clean needles and reduce the HIV/AIDS rate; and the rider, the shameless rider, that keeps us from lobbying for our own rights. Those, the Senate said, also should be eliminated from this bill. The House was not able to do so.

Finally, if I could once again thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) for the extraordinary job that they have done on this bill. Let me say that in a real sense, what they have done on this bill forecasts, is a prologue of what would happen if the budget autonomy bill that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and I have pending before this House passes.

We think that there is a very decent chance of its passing in the session when we come back. It would automatically release our Federal funds, as my colleagues have had to do by act of the Committee on Appropriations. So they have, I think, demonstrated, by the way in which they have run the District of Columbia Subcommittee, something far larger; and that is how the House should move, to generally smooth the operation of the D.C. budget out of this House and into the hands of the people who raise the money, the people of the District of Columbia. They have my gratitude.

I know I expressed the gratitude of our elected officials in the District of Columbia and also of our residents, who have watched this bill this time pass through this House with what for us seems like lightning speed. It is the speed on the wings of the two leaders of our appropriation, and they have our thanks once again.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time to manage the bill, and I especially thank my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, for introducing this bill with me.

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

The District of Columbia Mental Health Civil Commitment Modernization Act would significantly help modernize the way mental health services in the District of Columbia are delivered. Under the Home Rule Charter, these changes require affirmative action by the Congress.

The amendments are intended to reinvigorate the rights of people with mental illness in the District of Columbia and encourage community- based treatment alternatives to costly and restrictive hospital confinement. The amendments are designed to ensure that people with mental illness are treated in the least restrictive setting, consistent with the individual's needs and public safety. The amendments also are designed to promote the use of private or community hospitals by people who are in need of acute psychiatric care, thus reducing the burden on Saint Elizabeth's Hospital.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4302 would adopt verbatim the changes to the Commission on Mental Health proposed in the District's law. In passing this bill, the Congress will play an important role in aiding the District to reform its mental health services and to treat its mental health patients with dignity and respect.

Last year, the District government approved sweeping changes to its 40-year old civil commitment statute, commonly referred to as the

``Ervin Act'' after its principal author, Sam Ervin. Some provisions required no more than the 30-day congressional review period, while others required affirmative congressional approval. The amendments were intended to reinvigorate the rights of people with mental illness and encourage community-based treatment alternatives to costly and restrictive hospital confinement. The amendments are designed to ensure that people with mental illness are treated in the least restrictive setting consistent with the individual's needs and public safety. The amendments also are designed to promote the use of private or community hospitals by people who are in need of acute psychiatric care, thus reducing the burden on St. Elizabeth's Hospital, and increasing the amount of acute care that can be paid for by Medicaid instead of local tax dollars.

Among its significant improvements, the District's new law sets a limit on the length of commitment and limits how long a person can be confined to a hospital while waiting for a hearing. Specifically, this bill: (1) changes the duration of civil commitment from an indeterminate period to a year period; (2) permits the Commission on Mental Health to determine the least restrictive setting for a patient's care; (3) sets new limits on the postponement of the Commission's hearing; and (4) permits qualified psychologists to join the panel of doctors who preside over hearings on a rotating basis.

H.R. 4302 would adopt verbatim the changes to the Commission on Mental Health proposed in the District's law. In passing this bill, the Congress will play an important role in aiding the District to reform its mental health services and to treat its mental health patients with the dignity and respect.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for his words of encouragement on H. Con. Res. 131, and I begin by thanking, as well, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, respectively, for working with me to introduce and schedule this resolution in a timely manner.

I rise this evening to speak to an issue that we all care deeply about, the education of the Nation's children not only from the perspective of the classroom, but about activities outside the classroom that also enrich a student's educational experience, including field trips and traveling to the Nation's historic sites, many of which are located here in the Nation's capital. This resolution acknowledges that student travel is an integral component of the educational process today.

H. Con. Res. 131 has application to districts in every State of the Union. However, the attacks of September 11 and subsequent security alerts have made us all more watchful, particularly here in the District of Columbia where so many of the symbols of democracy are located. For the months following the 9/11 attacks, visits to our Nation's monuments were down more than 30 percent. The Smithsonian Museums reported a similar decline in attendance. I am pleased that these numbers appear to have since reversed and tourism to the District has been rebounding since 2003. According to the Washington, D.C., Convention and Tourism Corporation, close to 1 million students have traveled to the Nation's capital since 9/11.

The District of Columbia showcases symbols of freedom that are recognized worldwide. Students can come to see the Declaration of Independence, see the flag that flew over the Pentagon on September 11, view exhibitions that trace the history of our country from its inception to the present, and learn how this country, the great experiment, has grown and fared over the past 228 years. The educational experience that students receive in visiting this city, above even others in our country, enhances what they are learning in our Nation's classrooms and inspires the next generation of leaders.

Therefore, I urge Members to join with me in encouraging student travel

to the Nation's capital and to other tourist sites throughout the United States, realizing the educational value and inspirational impact that such visits have on the lives of the Nation's youth.

I thank them again for their support and urge agreement to H. Con. Res. 131.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. First of all, I want to say nothing but kudos to the leadership of this committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the subcommittee leadership. This committee has worked together as well as any committee in Congress, particularly during these hard times, on a bill that was entirely responsive to other Members and entirely responsive to the needs of the country.

We can keep extending bills. The problem is we cannot extend the need. The need just gets worse. Many of us are close to desperation now. We have done our work. Our leadership has tried desperately to get this bill out, and we are left with what looks like the sixth extension. The highway bill is about extensions, not bills. This is the first time that I have ever seen a White House that did not want a highway bill, that wanted to go into an election without a highway bill.

Members recognize we had some concerns here and we tried to work them out. I was a conferee, and I understand what those concerns were. My problem with the extension is we are extending with funding from 6 years ago. The problem with that is the need has grown larger and people want this bill because they want whatever new amounts the committees and the Congress can give them.

I will be frank; most of the money that comes to the District of Columbia does not have anything to do with the 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia. My desperation comes because the highway money for my district could just as well be put in the homeland security budget because it is going to go for tunnels and bridges which will get people out of here in the case of an event, and for well-traveled Federal roads which are used by literally millions of commuters and visitors every year. So operating at levels from 6 years ago puts us in a real trick bag. I ask that we finally get this bill out before the end of the year.

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

Mr. Speaker, when this law was first introduced, it was simply regarded as another absurd piece of legislation. There are lots of them during a session of Congress. When we moved toward a vote on this law, it left the realm of the absurd and entered the realm of the truly reckless, particularly reckless and callous at a time when 16 of our children are dead from guns in this city, far more than in any recent year; and at a time when, to their credit, the mayor of the city and the police chief of the city have reduced adult homicides by 25 percent.

I am on the floor this morning largely because this repeal will largely affect kids in the District of Columbia, and I cannot believe that that is the will of the great majority of the people of this House. There could not be a more wrong time or a more wrong place, a more wrong city, a more wrong region. This region still has not recovered from the sniper attack of 2002, which left 10 people in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia dead, 5 more injured from a Bushmaster assault weapon that would now be legal to have in your homes, to have in your businesses, to have in your workplaces in the District of Columbia, in the Nation's Capital, which is now under an orange alert.

This bill did not move anyplace, Mr. Speaker. It was referred to the Committee on Government Reform, on which the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and I both serve. He is the primary sponsor of this bill. There was no interest in the committee in this bill. The committee is deep into matters affecting Iraq and Homeland Security and Federal reorganization in the DOD, in the Department of Homeland Security, and even in the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, which I am pleased to serve on with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Of course, this bill had to leap over every subcommittee and leap over the committee, because it never got a hearing, because there was no interest and there was no view that this is the kind of bill, particularly after 9/11, that any self-respecting Member of Congress would want to bring to the floor of the House. Yet here it has come, courtesy of the leadership of this House.

Moreover, this matter was considered a settled matter, if ever any matter is. The one group of local matters most prized as local in our country are criminal justice matters. And this matter has been settled by the people who

will be overwhelmingly affected if you vote for repeal today. It has been settled by the people of the District of Columbia, who alone have the right to make decisions as to how to safeguard their lives.

Thank you very much, you of the paternalistic variety who are going to tell us how to safeguard our lives. I am not going to tell you I do not expect you to tell my mayor, I do not expect you to tell my unanimous city council, I do not expect you to tell me, that is to say, if you still believe this is a Federal Government and you believe that we are as much citizens of the United States as you are, and we are.

When this bill came to the floor, with no opportunity to make any changes, of course, the only thing you can do is to go to the Committee on Rules. There we found a hostile attitude toward amendments, except amendments from one Member. Members came forward from both sides. This is a matter of compelling interest to the entire country. And the only Member to in fact get an amendment in order was the sponsor of the bill. He happens to be a Republican. No partisanship there, of course.

Actually, that fact, the one amendment coming from the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the sponsor, is the front end of the partisanship of this bill. This bill is not about whether it will pass or fail. It comes a month before election, for reasons that the Members have not even tried to deny: Close to the election, let us hold up the Democrats, especially the Democrats from rural areas, from southern areas, from western areas. Let us dare them to vote for home rule, as they usually do. Let us take them down with NRA ads if they do. Everybody gets it. That is the only reason Democrats are on this bill. They saw Democrats taken out by NRA distortions of their positions on weapons just a few years ago.

The Souder amendment is really an amendment to wipe the red off the sponsor's face because he had sent a Dear Colleague, advising that a previous Dear Colleague saying that the bill would allow fully-loaded assault weapons to be carried in public was a matter of scare tactics. I can understand why the gentleman from Indiana made the mistake. It is not his law, it is not his business, he does not know what he is talking about, and he made the kind of mistake I would make if I tried to mess in the business of his jurisdiction. I am not familiar with what they do. He made a straight-out error. He said, oh, no, we were wrong; he was right.

Then, of course, he comes forward with an amendment, which is a mea culpa that admits that he was wrong. Actually, his amendment does not help very much, because it assumes an assault weapon, a Bushmaster, a loaded handgun which you could keep in your home, in your business, that somehow they are going to be contained in your homes, in your businesses, in your workplaces. Everybody knows that once you have a gun there, it stays there. That is, unless you have the experience of running the District of Columbia or living in the District of Columbia. And as our police chief says, there would be a moment, a moment in time before weapons in people's homes would find their ways to the streets to settle domestic violence matters, acquaintance quarrels, kids settling matters among themselves.

And, Mr. Speaker, we have even seen some of that when guns have gotten into kids' hands. We know what would happen with those guns because we live here and we know our people. They would make their way into Ward Six, where I live, which is close to the Capitol, and they would surely make their way to the streets in the poorest wards of the city, across the Anacostia River, where most of the killings of residents, and particularly of children, have taken place.

The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) does not know any better, and I can forgive him that. What I cannot forgive him is introducing and pressing this bill at a time when we have child killings at a record we have not seen in many years. Why in the world would anybody want to make laws for somebody else's jurisdiction?

So I said, well, if I could do only one amendment, what would I do? Because I knew that you would not want to put in a great many amendments to a bill that was being put forward for transparently political reasons. And I said, I know the one I would do, because I know what I have heard from my police chief. I would put in an amendment to say at least if you are going to have ammunition, let there be no cop killers' ammunition. And I came forward with an amendment that was aimed chiefly at doing whatever little we could do to protect our police officers and our children, the two categories of people most vulnerable because they are the disproportionate victims.

This amendment, however, like every Democratic amendment, was not made in order. I think it goes without saying that most Members would prefer not to have armor-piercing incendiary ammunition floating around their districts. The fact is that the kind of ammunition that my amendment would bar are not barred by Federal law. In fact, Congress, in fiscal year 2001, fiscal year 2002, and fiscal year 2003, in the DOD appropriation, actually added to the appropriation language that barred armor-piercing incendiary ammunition being transferred from DOD to private parties.

In the name of my children and police officers, I thought maybe they will throw me this sop. There are no sops to be thrown here. This bill not only is brought forward for political purposes, this bill is brought forward in callous disregard of these children. Their parents have been to the Hill, begging to have this vote rescinded. Our mayor, our new superintendent of schools, and our police chief were here yesterday to say this is exactly what we do not need.

I ask you to respect the people who know best, the people who will have to pay the price, the people who have had to go to the funerals. I ask you to defeat this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to begin by noting the ludicrous logic on which this debate has already begun. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the prime sponsor, has just argued that gun safety laws cause murders by arguing the fallacious notion of causation. I am embarrassed for the statement.

Mr. Speaker, in my nearly 14 years in Congress, I have come to regard Members not only as colleagues but as friends. At the same time, I have seen various Members of Congress try to do some low-down, dirty, mean things to the people of the District of Columbia, all to promote their own political agendas against the will of the people who live here.

This bill to repeal the city's gun safety laws, when child gun killings have sharply increased, scrapes the bottom of the lowest level yet. As citizens, we in the District of Columbia do not take attacks on our all-American right to self-government lying down. I am grateful that these attacks occur less frequently today, and am particularly grateful to the appropriators who have

discouraged the use of the D.C. appropriation for such attacks.

Congress has seen that we are prepared to fight and fight hard, with D.C. appropriation fights in the past sometimes lasting 8 to 10 hours, with vetoes of our appropriation that we encourage to compel changes. And Congress has seen that we are always prepared to take the fight to the home district of a Member to let his own constituents know that their Member is taking time from their concerns to mettle in the local business of a local jurisdiction far from home.

Notwithstanding prior fights on D.C. matters, the attempt to repeal our gun safety laws is a brand new low for this body. That we are here discussing this matter is yet a new low. Repeal shows special contempt for the people who live here because the city has sharply reduced its homicide rate, now at a 20-year low, down almost 25 percent this year alone, and down 55 percent since the assault weapon ban and the Brady bill were passed in 1994. At the same time, the city is heartbroken that 16 children have been killed by gunfire, more than in any recent year.

Repeal advocates claim they want guns here to help people protect themselves. Can repeal help the children killed by guns in increasing numbers here in the Nation's Capital to protect themselves?

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the 16 names of the children killed by gunfire this year, and an article on Chelsea Cromartie, the youngest of these children.

More Guns Mean More Children Dying

Robert Adams, 16; Chelsea Cromartie, 8; Devaun Drayton, 17;

Javon Gaskins, 16; Timothy Hamilton, 15; Jahkema Hansen, 14;

Antoine Holroyd, 16; Myesha Lowe, 15; David McMorris, 16;

James Richardson, 17; Michael Simms, 17; Franklin Smith, 17;

Wardell Smith, 17; Michael Swann, 13; Roderick Valentine, 16

and Ashley Walker, 16.

D.C. Homicides Down 24% this year but, more children slain

by guns in the first 5 months of this year than in all of

last year and more than in any recent years.

Save Our Children.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the full committee with jurisdiction over this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I take the gentleman's suggestion that we can scare criminals away by yelling ``gun'' but not that we have guns in our own homes fully assembled, loaded and ready to go.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. Speaker, for the information of the gentlewoman, 100,000 guns are registered in the District of Columbia. We encourage people to use rifles for sports.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

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

My law-abiding citizens in the southeast and everywhere else in the District of Columbia have not elected this Member but only the Member before him. So I would appreciate the courtesy of his not telling me what the law-abiding citizens of the southeast want or need. They will get rid of me if I am doing the wrong thing today. They cannot touch him, unfortunately, if he does the wrong thing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

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

Mr. Speaker, in all deference to the gentleman from Arkansas, handguns in homes in this town are not used by people. Those guns, according to the police chief, quickly make their way to the streets and do not stay at home. At home, however, they are overwhelmingly used for domestic violence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article on al Qaeda seeking ties to local gangs that appeared in the Washington Times.

[From the Washington Times, Sept. 28, 2004]

Al Qaeda Seeks Tie to Local Gangs

(By Jerry Seper)

A top al Qaeda lieutenant has met with leaders of a violent

Salvadoran criminal gang with roots in Mexico and the United

States--including a stronghold in the Washington area--in an

effort by the terrorist network to seek help infiltrating the

U.S.-Mexico border, law enforcement authorities said.

Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, a key al Qaeda cell leader for

whom the U.S. government has offered a $5 million reward, was

spotted in July in Honduras meeting with leaders of El

Salvador's notorious Mara Salvatrucha gang, which immigration

officials said has smuggled hundreds of Central and South

Americans--mostly gang members--into the United States.

Although they are actively involved in alien, drug and

weapons smuggling, Mara Salvatrucha members in America also

have been tied to numerous killings, robberies, burglaries,

carjackings, extortions, rapes and aggravated assaults--

including at least seven killings in Virginia and a machete

attack on a 16-year-old in Alexandria that severely mutilated

his hands.

The Salvadoran gang, known to law enforcement authorities

as MS-13 because many members identify themselves with

tattoos of the number 13, is thought to have established a

major smuggling center in Matamoros, Mexico, just south of

Brownsville, Texas, from where it has arranged to bring

illegal aliens from countries other than Mexico into the

United States.

Authorities said al Qaeda terrorists hope to take advantage

of a lack of detention space within the Department of

Homeland Security that has forced immigration officials to

release non-Mexican illegal aliens back into the United

States, rather than return them to their home countries.

Less than 15 percent of those released appear for

immigration hearings. Nearly 60,000 illegal aliens designated

as other-than-Mexican, or OTMs, were detained last year along

the U.S.-Mexico border.

El Shukrijumah, born in Saudi Arabia but thought to be a

Yemen national, was spotted in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, in

July, having crossed the border illegally from Nicaragua

after a stay in Panama. U.S. authorities said al Qaeda

operatives have been in Tegucigalpa planning attacks against

British, Spanish and U.S. embassies.

Known to carry passports from Saudi Arabia, Trinidad,

Guyana and Canada, El Shukrijumah had sought meetings with

the Mara Salvatrucha gang leaders who control alien-smuggling

routes through Mexico and into the United States.

El Shukrijumah, 29, who authorities said was in Canada last

year looking for nuclear material for a so-called ``dirty

bomb'' and reportedly has family members in Guyana, was named

in a March 2003 material-witness arrest warrant by federal

prosecutors in Northern Virginia, where U.S. Attorney Paul J.

McNulty said he is sought in connection with potential

terrorist threats against the United States.

A former southern Florida resident and pilot thought to

have helped plan the September 11 attacks, El Shukrijumah was

among seven suspected al Qaeda operatives identified in May

by Attorney General John Ashcroft as being involved in plans

to strike new targets in the United States.

Citing ``credible intelligence from multiple sources,'' Mr.

Ashcroft said at the time that El Shukrijumah posed ``a clear

and present danger to America.'' In August, an FBI alert

described him as ``armed and dangerous'' and a major threat

to homeland security.

Earlier this month, Mr. Ashcroft confirmed that U.S. border

agents and inspectors had ramped up efforts to find El

Shukrijumah amid reports that the al Qaeda leader was thought

to be seeking entry routes into the United States along the

U.S.-Mexico border.

Mr. Ashcroft noted that increased enforcement efforts were

under way in the wake of a rise of arrests of border jumpers

from Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Pakistan,

the Philippines, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

Authorities said Mara Salvatrucha gang members moved into

the Los Angeles area in the 1980s and developed a reputation

for being organized and extremely violent. The gang since has

expanded into the Washington area, including Virginia and

Maryland, and into Oregon, Alaska, Texas, Nevada, Utah,

Oklahoma, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Georgia and Florida.

More than 3,000 Mara Salvatrucha gang members are thought

to be in the Washington area, with a major operation in

Northern Virginia. Other gang centers, authorities said,

include Montgomery and Prince George's counties and the

Hispanic neighborhoods of Washington.

Mr. McNulty, whose office has prosecuted Mara Salvatrucha

gang members, has described the organization as the ``gang of

greatest interest'' to law enforcement authorities. He said

gang members are recruited predominantly from Hispanic

communities and typically among juveniles, some as young as

13. Recruits are ``jumped'' into the gang by being beaten by

members while others count to 13, he said.

Gang rules, he said, are indoctrinated into new recruits

and ruthlessly enforced. Those who cooperate with law

enforcement are given the ``green light,'' he said, meaning

that the gang had approved their killing.

In March, the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office filed an

injunction against Mara Salvatrucha, charging that the gang's

criminal activity constituted a ``public nuisance'' based on

the number of killings, robberies and drug crimes. The

injunction requires gang members, under public nuisance

statutes, to follow curfew rules and regulations and

prohibits them from associating, driving or appearing

together in designated areas of the city.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

In closing, I would just like to give the Members a sense of what this bill would do. If it passes, it would allow someone to carry a 50- caliber sniper rifle in one hand, armor-piercing ammunition, and incendiary combination ammunition in the other, and go into our Metro, so long as he, and let me read this to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, as long as he was on his way to an informal target practice or a dog obedience training class.

Mr. Speaker, this is sheer lunacy. Save yourself from embarrassment. Save our children. Save our Nation. Save this Congress from looking like idiots and fools in the middle of an orange alert by bringing more guns into the Nation's capital. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 3193.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and also for her help on this bill. I thank the gentleman from Georgia who is managing the bill for his excellent statement and for bringing the bill forward.

I also would like to begin by thanking my good friends who have taken a special interest in this bill, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), as well as the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member, for scheduling this resolution.

I rise today to honor the 30th anniversary of the Duke Ellington High School named for the legendary composer and musician, the great Duke Ellington, a native son of the District of Columbia. The genius and artistry of Duke Ellington and his fabulous 50-year career are universally recognized. Many of today's musicians, from a variety of genres, but most especially jazz, look to Ellington as the world-class leader of the American classic, jazz.

I am pleased to recognize his achievements during the 30th year anniversary of the Duke Ellington School of the Arts, a nationally acclaimed high school that trains talented area students in a variety of arts such as dance, theater, instrumental music and the visual arts. The Duke Ellington School of the Arts operates in the tradition of Ellington excellence. It has a partnership with the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and offers a college preparatory curriculum with advanced placement courses and professional artistic training. Students perform and work at professional-quality levels. Its graduates, such as the famous soprano, Denise Graves, have carried the Ellington tradition proudly into the arts. The work of students and graduates alike have shown that the high school is worthy of the Ellington name.

Duke Ellington was much celebrated during his glittering career. He was a recipient of the President's Gold Medal in 1966 and of the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1969. He won 13 Grammy awards and numerous honors from organization all over the world. His music gave rise to the famed Cotton Club, which showcased jazz talent from Sarah Vaughn to Ella Fitzgerald to Dizzy Gillespie and Louis Armstrong.

The popularity of jazz music that he helped spread spawned the creation of Blue Note Records, the influential jazz recording label which is marking its 65th anniversary this year. Music critics have been writing about jazz in the

equally important Downbeat Magazine which is celebrating its 70th anniversary.

Jazz is our much-celebrated unique American treasure, and Ellington was the leader of the band. We are particularly pleased to recognize the Duke Ellington Jazz Festival which will begin next fall. It will feature a number of artistic events culminating in 2 days of concerts on the National Mall. It is especially fitting this festival will take place here in the Nation's Capital, Duke Ellington's birthplace and the city that nurtured his talent on the 30th anniversary of the extraordinary high school named for the Duke.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for and support H. Con. Res. 501.

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

(Ms. Norton asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for his leadership on this bill and rise in strong support of H.R. 4731, a bill to extend the authorization of the Environmental Protection Agency's National Estuary Program. This popular program provides Federal assistance to local stakeholders to implement locally designed management plans for the protection of the Nation's estuaries.

At the same time, the program serves as a national clearinghouse for successful management approaches, technologies and ideas, providing local communities with concrete examples of what works in addressing the unique needs of estuaries. This program authorizes funding for the development and implementation of comprehensive conservation and management plans for estuaries of national significance.

A comprehensive approach to addressing estuary health is particularly important as the stressors on the health of estuaries continue to expand. EPA's most recent water quality report indicated that 50 percent of estuary waters do not meet their designated uses. Programs such as this, coupled with significant additional resources for wastewater infrastructure, may allow for water quality in estuaries to improve and ecosystems to be restored.

I strongly support authorization for the National Estuary Program. And I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on H.R. 4731.

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

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

(Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his graciousness and good wishes. And he knows I would do almost anything for him, but as he knows, baseball has been well beyond my jurisdiction for 33 years. We think we have rectified that with today's announcement. I may have a little more to say about it than I have had since I was a child and the Senators were here. I want him to know that some wise guy called in, when we said, what should we name the Senators? And they said, noting my status on this floor, why do we not call them the Delegates?

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5105 authorizes the Board of Regents at the Smithsonian Institution to construct an astrophysical observatory located at Kitt Peak, Arizona, and to carry out related activities in support of the project. The bill was introduced by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

This construction project will support the work of the Very Energetic Radiation Imaging Telescope Array System, or VERITAS, the project that deals with radiation imaging. The bill authorizes $1 million for the construction and related activities. The construction will involve an inexpensive metal building which will be approximately 4,500 square feet to include a repair area, meeting rooms, general storage and kitchen. The building will be fire-resistant.

The project is being conducted in partnership with the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. It is a very worthwhile project, and I urge passage of the bill.