Floor Statements

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

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

Madam Speaker, the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999, which funds the D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant, or TAG program, was passed with bipartisan sponsors in the House and Senate, led in this House by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis). It included a number of cosponsors, as many, if not more, from the other side of the aisle as from this side.

The champions of the bill in the Senate were equally bipartisan. I am particularly grateful to the current House and Senate sponsors of H.R. 4012 who were on the original bill for their continuing leadership efforts in sustaining TAG and to President Bush who came to office several years after the bill was in effect, saw the evidence of its success, and has continued to fund it in his budget at authorized levels.

I want to specifically thank my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), who has offered indispensable leadership on this bill and on a number of other very important D.C. initiatives over the years.

The Act gives D.C. residents the options for college attendance routinely enjoyed by other Americans through their State college systems. This is the one jurisdiction in the United States that does not have a university system. D.C. has only one public university, the University of the District of Columbia, or UDC, an open-admission institution.

And as part of DC TAG, Congress allowed UDC to be funneled on an annual basis as a Historically Black College or University for the first time in our history.

The bill allows DC residents to attend any public college or university anywhere in the United States at in-state tuition rates up to $10,000 annually and to receive $2,500 to attend any private college or HBCU in the city or region. Already over 6,000 DC students have attended more than 150 colleges nationwide because of supplementary funds provided by the act.

The best indication of the success of the act is that in the 5 years since it was passed, college attendance in the district has increased by 28 percent, compared with only 5 percent nationally. DC TAG recipients range from residents for whom college was more a dream than a possibility, to residents who might otherwise have moved out of the district and along with them more of the district's already depleted tax base.

The cost of tuition is a significant reason many residents left and others refused to settle here rather than in Maryland or Virginia, each of which has more than 30 different colleges and universities to fit the specific needs and interests of residents.

The evidence of the success of the program and return on the dollar to residents, to the city, and to the Federal Government is not in dispute. Close monitoring by the GAO and by our office has shown that TAG has been well run. TAG is universally popular among DC residents and businesses because of the act's simultaneous and immediate benefits to both District residents and to the city itself.

This program is an unqualified success story. It continues to exceed all expectations. It deserves the 5-year extension the committee recommends today, and I strongly urge passage.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses a crisis that affects Members of Congress and all who live and work here resulting from a public health advisory regarding lead in the drinking water in the Nation's Capitol.

I am seeking to increase general project construction money in the amount of $20 million by increasing the amount of savings in slippage. The $20 million will help to address a federally created drinking water crisis caused by leaching from lead pipes installed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers more than 100 years ago amidst controversy that lead pipes were not safe even then.

EPA standards for lead in the drinking water is 15 parts per billion, yet thousands of homes in this city have tested above this standard, hundreds above 300 parts per billion. The water crisis I am asking Congress to address, however, not only affects people who live here but 200,000 Federal employees in the Capitol, the Supreme Court, the White House and Federal office buildings and millions of tourists from throughout the country and world who come here.

Public health officials testified at a May 21 Committee on Government Reform hearing that lead contaminated drinking water is dangerous for everyone, but can be especially dangerous to fetuses and young children under the age of 6, hindering their brain development and lowering their IQs. Yet, pregnant women and young children drank the water here not knowing about dangerous levels of lead. At the hearing a mother, Katherine Funk, testified that she unknowingly drank lead contaminated water throughout her entire pregnancy.

I support what we are spending to provide safe drinking water for the innocent people of Iraq. Today I am requesting a mere $20 million to begin the process here in the Nation's Capital. The $20 million will help replace lead lines. The lion's share is being borne locally, but some contribution from the Federal Government to reduce this crisis is particularly appropriate.

The lead water crisis emanates from the decision of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build the District's water infrastructure system using lead pipes more than 100 years ago. And that was so controversial then. I will insert into the Record two articles from the Washington Post of 1893 and 1895 discussing the controversy. Also discussed there is the role that the Army Corps of Engineers played in constructing these pipes.

The articles point out that the Army Corps knew of the health dangers of lead pipes that carried the District's drinking water but chose to use them anyway.

The Federal Government's role in providing water here goes beyond the pipes to the treatment of water itself. The Army Corps also built and still runs the Washington aqueduct which treats the water supply for the district and parts of northern Virginia.

The Committee on Government Reform hearing heard testimony from scientific experts that the switch in chemical treatment of the drinking water in 2000 at the aqueduct without

adequate testing is the likely cause of leaching of lead pipes into the drinking water.

With the Corps embedded in the crisis through lead lines and faulty chemical treatment, the government should assume at least some share of the responsibility. The amount being requested here will not and is not intended to cover anything close to the cost of replacing these lines, but it will hasten the current replacement efforts being undertaken by the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority.

I certainly ask that the Federal Government step up to its responsibility. The residents of the District of Columbia have more than stepped up to their responsibility. This was done well before there was any home rule when the residents could have and did have no affect upon it.

The water I am talking about is the water that is on our rostrums every time we go to committee hearing. We should do something to protect ourselves, to protect Federal employees, and to protect the residents of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, at this point, I will insert the two articles I previously referred to.

[From the Washington Post, June 9, 1893]

Lead Pipes Unsatisfactory

Capt. Powell, the Engineer Commissioner, has determined

that a substitute must be found for lead pipes which,

according to the present plumbing regulations, must be used

in providing a water service for residences. The general fear

that such pipes might cause lead poisoning under certain

conditions makes their general adoption in the District a

menace to the health of the people.

It has been shown that the chemical character of Potomac

water causes such pipes to become coated on the inside with

an insulation of carbonate of lime, soda, and clay, held in

solution in the water. This coating, it has been argued, is a

sure protection from danger of lead poisoning, but the

engineer department has decided that it is too slight a

safeguard. It is probable that the city's supply of water

will be filtered at some future day, as sand filtration of

drinking water has been adopted in many large cities abroad

and is rapidly becoming popular.

Just what effect the filtered water may have in the coating

of lead pipes has not been determined. The fact that iron

pipes become thickly rusted on the inside, which causes a

material loss of water pressure, makes their use

unsatisfactory. Yesterday Capt. Derby, in charge of the

division of water and sewers, examined the first substitute

for lead pipe that has been presented since the investigation

began. It was what is known as the improved Bower-Barff

process, being a steel pipe coated inside and out with black

oxide of iron. Capt. Derby reported it was ``worth

experimenting with,'' and tests of the pipe will be commenced

at once. Several other styles of pipe are to be examined.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, after speaking with the distinguished chairman concerning matters involving lead in the water that are transpiring in the other body, I think a vote is unnecessary. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor because of two court decisions that will have, I think, very important effects on the criminal justice system, on justice in our country, and on the lives of many Americans who have indeed not had the benefits of equal justice in our country. One comes from the Massachusetts Supreme Court where a district judge has thrown out the Federal sentencing guidelines as unconstitutional. This is an interesting case because the guidelines were upheld in 1989 by the Supreme Court, so it will be important to look closely at this case because the judge clearly feels that there are now grounds to throw the sentencing guidelines out notwithstanding the Supreme Court decision and probably because the Supreme Court decision does not take into effect all that the Massachusetts district judge has found.

This has to go, of course, to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. It is very significant. What makes it more significant is that the Supreme Court itself has now just thrown out Washington State guidelines of a kind that are very similar to the Federal guidelines, at least in many respects, in an opinion written by Justice Scalia.

Essentially what the court found in the 5-4 decision is that the Washington State guidelines violate the sixth amendment right to a jury trial because the sentence is beyond the ordinary range for the crime and this increase in punishments was decided by a judge and not by a jury. Therefore it was in violation, according to the Supreme Court, of the sixth amendment right to a jury trial.

Essentially what the court seemed to be saying was that the Washington State sentencing guidelines allow a judge to enhance sentences beyond what has been placed before a jury and beyond what the crime usually carries. That is exactly what the Federal guidelines do and that is why everyone is scrambling to see whether or not we have something very significant and how to take charge of it.

Its significance, of course, cannot be doubted. For myself, my chief interest is not only as a constitutional lawyer but my interest as well is on the effect of the Federal sentencing guidelines on an entire generation of young black men. Only crack cocaine drug offenses have enhanced sentences. That is to say, if you have cocaine, there is no enhanced sentence. But if you have crack cocaine, there is an enhanced sentence. As you might imagine, crack cocaine, because it is cheap, is found in lower-income communities. The effect has been quite outrageous. Essentially if you look at our country today, black men are 5 percent of the population. They are almost 50 percent of those in jail. Have they been in jail for being drug kingpins? Not at all. These are mostly drug users. Any selling they have done has been to support their habit for the most part. And the Federal sentencing guidelines have so outraged the Federal judiciary that the Judicial Conference has in fact for years now been for the repeal of the guidelines. No less than two conservative justices, Justice Rehnquist and Justice Kennedy, have come forward in speeches against the Federal judicial guidelines.

These cases merit real attention. The harm that has been done has been done

by this Congress. It is the Congress who in effect has virtually instructed the sentencing commission to enhance sentences and to enhance sentences as much as possible and particularly for these drug offenses which are far from where the harm is being done.

The essential effect is to destroy the African American family. Young women, well educated, who are out in the world working in disproportionate numbers to the young men who are there; young men as boys siphoned off into the drug economy, the gun economy, the underground economy which is the economy left in the inner cities of our country; a huge disparity between marriageable young men and marriageable young women, all traces back to the criminal justice system.

These cases have a lot to teach our country. They are going to make their own changes. These cases are an instruction to us to look closely at the Federal sentencing guidelines so that we can do our part to get rid of this injustice in the criminal justice system.

Offered By: Ms. Norton

Amendment No. 4. Page 3, line 17, after the dollar amount

insert the following: ``(increased by $20,000,000) (reduced

by $20,000,000)''.

Offered By: Ms. Norton

Amendment No. 4. Page 3, line 17, after the dollar amount

insert the following: ``(increased by $20,000,000) (reduced

by $20,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this time, and I appreciate his work in managing this bill and bringing it forward on our side, and his own work for civil rights in his own State of Virginia. I want to thank the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his support and cosponsorship of this important resolution. I also want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), for his work on the resolution as well as for his steadfast effort of four decades in establishing and preserving civil and human rights in the Congress and in our country.

Not surprisingly, but nevertheless with gratification, I note that this resolution is also cosponsored by all the members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

As a former chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I was pleased to introduce this resolution and to work with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to perfect its wording.

The 1964, Civil Rights Act was enacted during the most fruitful period for civil rights legislation in our history since the Civil War. President Kennedy called on Congress to pass a civil rights bill, and the great march on Washington of 1963 was perhaps the seminal event leading to passage. After much debate, on July 2, 1964, Congress passed the Act. President Lyndon Johnson, whose political skills and dedication to civil rights were vital to passage, signed the bill into law.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act is the most comprehensive civil rights legislation in the Nation's history. The Act, among other things, prohibits the use of Federal funds in a discriminatory fashion, bars unequal application of voter registration requirements, encouraged the desegregation of public schools, and authorized the United States Attorney General to file suits to compel desegregation. And very importantly in this period of many demonstrations, it banned discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other places of public accommodation engaged in interstate commerce.

The Act contained a historic prohibition against discrimination based on sex. That was inserted at the very end, but has since changed the workplace and our country profoundly.

Perhaps the most important provision of this very important Act was the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was established to administer the Nation's first Federal antidiscrimination employment law that had been a major goal of African Americans throughout the 20th Century.

Mr. Speaker, the 1964 Act is one of the great milestones of the United States Congress. We see the fruits of the Act virtually everywhere in our country. Forty years later, may the act inspire us to continue to do what is necessary to arm the EEOC and the Justice Department, and to arm ourselves to carry its work to completion.

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

Mr. Speaker, visual health and oral health are integral to our general health, as the House well knows. Oral and eye diseases are progressive and become more complex over time. Our ability to eat, see, read, learn, and communicate all depend on good visual and oral health.

Periodic eye and dental examinations are an important part of routine preventive health care. Many visual and oral conditions present no obvious symptoms. Therefore, individuals often are unaware that such problems exist.

There are safe and effective measures to prevent the most common eye and dental diseases. That is why early diagnosis and treatment are important for maintaining good visual and oral health and why a vision and dental benefit should be made available to Federal employees and annuitants.

We know that in 1987 the Office of Personnel Management stopped plans in the Federal Health Benefits program from adding new vision and dental packages. OPM did so for various reasons. However, the decision was made over 15 years ago, and it is time to take a fresh look at how we can meet the visual and oral health needs of Federal employees.

In the long run, preventive care, through periodic examinations and doctor visits, will help keep down long-term vision and dental costs due to early detection.

To further improve the bill, during subcommittee consideration of H.R. 3751, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) offered an amendment requiring OPM to include glaucoma screening and hearing benefits in its study.

The amendment would require OPM to study the feasibility of providing hearing benefits to Federal employees and retirees. Currently, over 28 million Americans suffer hearing loss, half of whom are under the age of 50. Hearing loss is not just a problem affecting adults. Thirty- three children are born every day with some form of hearing loss. With early detection and treatment, these children can be taught in regular classes, saving a school system as much as half a billion dollars during a 12-year education.

Like vision and dental benefits, most insurance plans do not provide hearing benefits, such as coverage for hearing aids. We believe the Federal Government should consider taking a lead in this area.

In addition to hearing benefits, the gentleman from Illinois' (Mr. Davis) amendment required OPM to include

glaucoma screening in its study. This amendment was offered to better understand H.R. 3268, which was introduced by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

H.R. 3268 would extend the same glaucoma screening coverage provided by Medicare to Federal employees who are in high-risk populations.

The studies conducted by OPM under H.R. 3751 will go a long way in helping the Federal Government to craft a better dental, vision and hearing benefit for Federal employees.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Let me begin by thanking my friend and colleague on the Committee on Government Reform, its chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), for working closely with me in moving H.R. 3797. This legislation institutes a new process that will significantly facilitate D.C. government operations, promote greater efficiency in Congress by conforming the handling of District of Columbia matters to House rules, and improve the efficiency of both the House and the District of Columbia on these matters.

This is the first time that the Committee on Government Reform, the authorizing committee for District of Columbia matters that must come to the Congress, has introduced a bill to enact legislative changes that have been

passed by the D.C. council, and are here only because they require affirmative action by Congress to become law because they amend the D.C. Home Rule Act, which can only be amended by the Congress.

Perhaps the most noteworthy provision, in light of recent events, is the change in the fiscal year for D.C. public schools and the University of the District of Columbia's academic year to conform to the school system's new fiscal year. Imagine the difficulties if the fiscal year and the academic year are not in tandem, as they have not been. The proposed change was already in the bill, but its necessity is underlined by the fact that this is one of the changes requested by the top candidate for superintendent of the D.C. public schools, Carl Cohen.

Similarly, as requested by the mayor and city council, H.R. 3795 amends the Home Rule Charter to give the city council and additional 6 days with which to review the mayor's proposed budget, restoring the full 50-day period to the council to allow the D.C. government to use compressed schedules in order to exempt employees from Federal overtime requirements, to allow the D.C. government to offer enforced annual leave, or enforced leave without pay as a disciplinary action for corporation counsel attorneys while an investigation is underway for alleged misconduct, and to allow oversight of D.C. chartered banks to be changed from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in order to bring D.C. banking law into conformity with what occurs in all 50 States, relieving the current regulatory burden that has discouraged the establishment of D.C. charter banks.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Government Reform, I am pleased to join my colleague in the consideration of H.R. 4222, legislation naming a postal facility in Kansas City, Kansas, after Newell George. The measure was introduced by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) on April 27, 2004, unanimously reported by our committee on June 3rd, 2004, and enjoys the support and cosponsorship of the entire Kansas delegation.

Newell A. George had a distinguished career serving the citizens of Kansas. He served as a member of the 86th Congress from 1959 to 1961, representing the second congressional district. This district was later redesignated as the third congressional district following the 1960 congressional reapportionment.

While serving in Congress, Representative George served on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. After his defeat, former representative George served as U.S. Attorney for Kansas from 1961 to 1968. After that, he practiced law until his death in 1992.

Newell George was an exceptional public servant and active member of his community. Naming a postal facility after the late representative from Kansas honors his legacy and dedication to public service. I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), for sponsoring this bill and I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

At the time that I was in Mississippi, the gentleman was Chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. And while in 1964, I guess I had become a lawyer because I had graduated, I first came to Mississippi in 1963 in order to prepare for the summer of 1964 when students would come to the South and help the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee to register African Americans to vote in large numbers in the South.

The gentleman from Georgia and our Southern colleagues in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had, in fact, essentially opened up much of the Southeast and they wanted to tackle Mississippi, the hardest territory in the civil rights struggle. In the summer of 1963, we experimented with freedom schools, which is what we were about doing in 1964. We were going to bring African Americans, the sharecroppers out of the cotton fields, talk about how they should prepare themselves to pass the test, and try to register people.

The summer of 1964 was a summer of both heartbreak and hope because no sooner had the students arrived than we lost three of them in one of the worst atrocities in the entire history of our country in Philadelphia, Mississippi, an unforgettable sacrifice of three young people, one a native of Mississippi, the other two from the North who had simply come to peacefully register people.

We must not forget the summer of 1964, because while it was the summer of great sacrifice, it was also the summer when, in fact, at the Democratic National Convention, we broke the notion that delegations to political conventions could be discriminatory. It was the summer when we were passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Indeed, a bill on suspension to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act will be on the floor.

But it is important for us not to forget how we got to these great landmarks, particularly the civil rights legislation. We got to them through a lot of sacrifice, some sacrifice by very young people who helped our country reach one of its greatest aspirations, and that is that everybody should be treated the same way and have the right to vote.

We remember Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner today for the tragedy, to be sure, but for the way in which their sacrifice reminded people that we could overcome this greatest flaw in our democracy. We are still in the process of overcoming. But we will have a much better chance of achieving a more perfect society with racial discrimination gone if we remember the sacrifices of such Americans as these very young men, Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as cosponsor of H.R. 163.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would hope that an amendment for the study of the crime and accident rate in the most-used national parks would be made in order and regret that it is not made in order. The issue is so important, I would like to discuss it on the floor at this time.

There have been troublesome reports of increases in crime and vehicle accidents in the national parks. It first surfaced perhaps in a major way here

in the District of Columbia when former Police Chief Teresa Chambers complained that she could no longer adequately cover the park territory entrusted to her. She said that there had been redeployment of her troops to cover monuments and other important places after 9/11.

But then I began to note complaints of a rise in crime and homelessness in parks here and around the Nation as well. The crush of crowds we now understand all the parks are experiencing during this season makes this claim much more credible.

I want to be clear that I take no position on whether there has been an increase in crime or accidents. I really do not know. This was only a request for a study so that we could begin to find out. The study would go to the appropriate committees; and they could decide what, if anything, to do with it. It would have looked at the heavily used units of the national parks from 1998 for about 6 years to give us a critical mass of years to look at crime and to look at accidents on nearby roadways.

I noted that right after 9/11, there was a bump up in the number of park police just as there was a bump up in police everywhere; but park police stabilized while, for example, Capitol Police continued to soar. And I do not want to make any invidious comparisons here. We need all the help we can get on the Hill. But I cannot help but be moved by the fact that if we are going to have millions upon millions of people visiting our parks, they are protected not only against accidents and against crime but they are protected by the patrols in the parks against terrorism as well.

I know about complaints in my own parks, for example on Rock Creek Parkway, about Park Police cruisers not being available, but that is anecdotal. I wanted a study to see if these were in fact complaints we should take seriously, and particularly now it is clear to me this has become a national concern.

We should not be deploying personnel, we should not be in fact authorizing and appropriating money for personnel, without knowing more about needs, especially when those needs are changing, as they are in the Nation's parks.

My own district happens to have many of the Nation's most important parks, from the Mall to the beautiful Rock Creek Park itself, but there are parts of the country which are far less densely populated than the national capital park regional area, but have far more heavily used parks.

It is time we found out how to better deploy the Park Police. I regret that we will not be able to do this study through this appropriation. I hope that the Park Service on its own will see the importance of doing a study with the resources it has before it.

Offered By: Ms. Norton

Amendment No. 11: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new title:

Offered By: Ms. Norton

Amendment No. 17: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new title:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen) for bringing this bill to the floor. I support this bill.

I am very pleased that this question has been settled by the commitment of the Department of Homeland Security to make its home in the District of Columbia. It is unthinkable that the Department of Homeland Security of our country should be elsewhere. I commend Secretary Ridge for his personal involvement in this decision. I am a member of both of the committees involved with this issue, the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I am not a member of the Committee on Armed Services, of course, and the Subcommittee on Public Buildings, Economic Development and Emergency Development of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Since the Department was created 2 years ago, I have worked with both the Department of Homeland Security and the General Services Administration to identify suitable space in the District of Columbia to house the new Department. I am delighted that for now, and until the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reviews and approves housing plans, which the Department is in the process of drawing, the Department will be housed at the Naval complex on Nebraska Avenue.

The Department has spent considerable time in preparing a housing plan, but it is important to note that this is a department in formation, so the Department itself is having its difficulties thinking about how the Department will look 5 years out, 10 years out; and for that reason we have not held hearings to review the DHS's plan for what security elements will be included in headquarters operations. Members can imagine that they would have to be extraordinary.

My colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in a bipartisan fashion shared that they all have concerns about the language contained in the title. The language is that this facilitates the establishment of a headquarters complex at the Nebraska Avenue complex. This may seem like a technical matter. I hope it is a technical matter.

We would hope if the director, after drawing his housing plan, were to decide that he wished to be elsewhere, the way in which the GSA operates is it goes and tries to find him space elsewhere. We do not even know how big this Department will be and if it will outgrow the Nebraska headquarters, so the notion that this is the headquarters could be read technically to mean they do not have the authority to move elsewhere.

By way of background, officials from the White House Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Homeland Security, the General Services Administration, and the Navy agreed to a three-step approach whereby: (1) the Nebraska Avenue complex would be transferred to GSA; (2) GSA would lease the space to homeland security; and (3) the Navy would be made whole for the expenses associated with its move from the site.

In fact, in February of this year, these officials met with the transportation committee staff on a bipartisan basis to review the details of this approach. That is the administration and the staff on both sides of the aisle meeting in the same room. The original bill title merely spoke about the use of the property by homeland security, not establishing permanent headquarters. Again, this is a very technical matter, but we have seen how technical matters can throw people off once they want to do something in the Congress. I am not making a major objection, but I want to go on the record to say that if Secretary Ridge says this is a whole lot smaller space than we need, I do not want us to say you are locked in by the language of the title. That is all I am bringing to Members' attention.

The Nebraska Avenue complex is 38 acres in northwest Washington. It contains 33 mostly unconnected buildings, over 1,000 parking spaces, and 556,000 square feet of office space. Many of the buildings are old, one dating back to 1916, many constructed in the 1920s. The site is not nearly as secure as it has to be for the agency with the highest security mission.

Currently, there are 1,300 personnel at the site, almost evenly split between Navy personnel and DHS personnel. Eventually DHS intends to house 1,986 personnel at the site; at least that is what they think now. Those personnel are now housed in mostly leased space in over 5 million square feet of space in the District and the region.

Given the enormous impact DHS will have on the government's administrative costs, and the impact it will have on the District and the region, more thought and attention should be given to establishing a headquarters in the District of Columbia. I have to assume that the decision of the Secretary would be controlling, it always is, when we look for space for an agency.

The bill also contains a mandatory sale provision of the property in the event the Navy is not fully reimbursed for its moving cost. A sale of such magnitude in the District of Columbia should be consistent with provisions of the Property Act, and not an act conducted solely by the Navy.