Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I associate myself with his opening remarks.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to try to inject a heavy dose of economic reality into what has been a morning of self-congratulation. TANF was not a success because of our brilliance, Mr. Chairman. The economy more than any other factor made TANF a success, yet this bill ignores the economic cycles and is on automatic pilot going in precisely the wrong direction.

This is the worst economy in 15 years. Yet we are increasing the hours of work for those who receive TANF and increasing the percentage of families in work-related activities. We have got 6 percent unemployment for those who are already in the workforce with skills. What worries me most, Mr. Chairman, is that TANF has already creamed off the most ready to work, yet we are raising requirements for the hardest to place. This is nuts.

This bill is a recipe for failure, not the success we have enjoyed. Look at the racial composition. We are told, hey, we have reduced the rolls. Are the rolls really down? For whites, they are down 5.8 percent; for blacks, they are up 2.1 percent. This is since 1996. And for Hispanics they are up 5.2 percent. In the third quarter, 39 States had increased welfare rolls.

In the face of these difficulties, we need more flexibility, not less. Less prescriptiveness, this is the opposite of what this bill is giving us. We know how to respond to economic cycles when it comes to business and when it comes to those who have been in the workforce. We must respond in the same rational way to those left on TANF, particularly considering that they are the hardest to place.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a very special tribute to one of this city's most distinguished churches, New Bethel Baptist Church; and to its pastor, a leading citizen, former House colleague, and my predecessor as District of Columbia Delegate, Reverend Walter Fauntroy. The church is celebrating the 100th anniversary of New Bethel.

New Bethel Baptist Church is revered in this city for its leadership on many levels. The church is not only a spiritual center. This historic church, located centrally in the historic Shaw district, also is a leader of social innovation and programs that serve its community in diverse and essential ways.

New Bethel's wide ranging service to its community and our city is not surprising. The church's spiritual leader, Reverend Walter Fauntroy, is not only a talented and dedicated minister of the gospel. He has long been a major figure in the civil rights movement even before being elected to Congress. Reverend Fauntroy served for 19 years as a distinguished Member of the House and has been a leader of many activities for social and economic justice here and in the nation since resigning his House seat. Pastor Fauntroy's life and work have added to the unique place New Bethel occupies in the life of his church community and of the District of Columbia.

New Bethel is among the oldest and most distinguished churches in the city. In its hundredth year, it is almost half as old as the city itself. The group that formed the church met first in the home of Brother Benjamin Graves under the guidance of Dr. W. Bishop Johnson, Pastor of the Second Baptist Church. The membership grew and purchased a building on 15th Street, NW. Under the leadership of the Revs. Alfred A. Agerton, Samuel Washington and Richard L. Holmes, the congregation experienced steady growth.

In 1903, the Rev. William D. Jarvis accepted the call to the pastorate, and the church embarked on a 37-year journey of spiritual growth and prosperity. In February 1915, the first worship service was held in the building at 9th and S Streets, NW., which had been purchased from the Grace M.E. Church. Before Dr. Jarvis' retirement on October 1, 1940, the church had grown to 600 worshipers and had become a welcome fixture in the community.

In May 1941, the Rev. C. David Foster, of Philadelphia, PA, was unanimously called to the pastorate. Under this leadership, the church grew spiritually, numerically and financially, and the building underwent extensive renovation.

On January 19, 1959, the Rev. Walter E. Fauntroy, a son of the church who had served as supply pastor, received a unanimous call from the members to serve as pastor. For forty-three years, he has responded to the spiritually needs of the congregation and the rapidly-changing dynamics of the community. Existing organizations have been revitalized and new ones have been created. The position of full-time Assistant Pastor was established, and a ministerial staff was implemented. A tithing program was launched and, in 1973, New Bethel constructed the C. David Foster House, an eight-story building with 75 units for low and moderate-income families of the Shaw area and other displaced persons.

In 1977, the old structure at 9th and S Streets was razed, and a striking new building was constructed on the site and dedicated and entered in 1982. Today, guided by the pastor's five-year plan, the church continues its mission of service to church members and to the Shaw community.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to offer this tribute to my predecessor and to his distinguished congregation. I ask that this body join me in saluting our former colleague, the pastor, and the members of the New Bethel Baptist Church on the occasion of their 100th Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, of course the CR before us is not supposed to have items that raise the cost of government, nor agreement on what the cost should be. There is a sleeper item in this CR that Members need to know about because it certainly raises the cost of government a great deal and a great deal more than was necessary.

We are treated in this CR to a lease. That is I must say an unprecedented circumvention of the committee process. Perhaps that could be justified

under some circumstances. There are three hugely negative consequences for doing so today. We have raised the price of the interim headquarters for the Homeland Security Department. We have disrespected the committee which was in a position to help mitigate the price and the length of the lease, and we have undermined the economy of the Nation's capital. Let me say a word about each of those.

First, raise the price. What we have here is something that gives every appearance of a sweetheart lease. It was supposed to be 5 years, it is 10 years, which is more than is necessary because this is an interim headquarters. This is not the headquarters. It cannot be cancelled. It is for $250 million, a quarter of a billion dollars for a 10-year lease. After 10 years, we could have bought a building. Why would we lease a building for 10 years at a time when we are cutting appropriations to smithereens.

We disrespected the committee to the detriment of this lease because the committee had ideas about how to meet the deadline without signing such a long lease that in effect bought the building, but at the end of 10 years taxpayers will have nothing to show for a 10-year lease. A quarter of a billion dollars is the least of it. We are going to have to add millions more to enhance the security of this leased building, this building we do not own. We could have built this building.

Finally, we have undermined the economy of the Nation's capital. What has been done is the Federal Government has taken all of the most valuable land in the District of Columbia off for yourself. Having done that, all we get in return are Federal jobs. We cannot tax the people who come in here for their Federal jobs, but at least they can leave their disposable income here. Now we will not even have that.

Mr. Speaker, according to a survey that we had done, a study that we had done, the cost to the District of Columbia over 10 years is a loss of $342 million. We cannot replace that money. Under the Constitution, there are only two sectors in the Nation's capital, government and tourism. We are leaving the Nation's capital without an economy. We had no fair chance to compete for the interim headquarters.

Mr. Speaker, sadly the District of Columbia had no fair chance to even compete for the interim headquarters. That is clear if we review the language of the request for proposal. They preselected the suburbs from the beginning. The language gave it away. They might as well have said, ``We want to locate this in Northern Virginia.'' What they said instead is we want an office park setting. Give me a break. We do not have office parks in big cities.

They took out what is standard in all RFPs for Federal sites, and that is that there be access to a Metro. That means that the residents of the District of Columbia, those particularly in the lower levels, do not have any way to get there from here. This is a heartless thing to do to the Nation's capital, but that is what has been done.

Let me put Members on notice, all the District of Columbia asks is not that we get a site, but that we have a fair chance to get a site. This administration did not give us a fair chance to get the interim headquarters. We will not allow the Homeland Security Department to be the only department other than the Pentagon whose headquarters are located outside of the District of Columbia. The Pentagon had to be located out of the District of Columbia because there was not enough room for it. There is enough room for the Department of Homeland Security in the Nation's capital. We insist that the permanent headquarters be located here, and I ask Members of this body to assist us in making sure that happens.