Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Medicaid Reimbursement Act of 2018, the seventh time I have introduced this bill. My bill would increase the federal government's share of the District's Medicaid expenditures, known as the federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP), from 70 to 80 percent. The District, a medium-sized American city, should not pay more than other large cities. For example, in 2012-2013, New York City, the jurisdiction that powers the economy of New York State, contributed 20 percent of the state's Medicaid costs, while the state paid 33 percent, less than the District's federally mandated 30 percent contribution.

When the District faced financial difficulty as the only city to pay for state functions, Congress, with the District's consent, passed the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Revitalization Act), which transferred from the District to the federal government the costs and/or operations of several state functions, including prisons, courts and offender supervision. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which included the Revitalization Act, statutorily set D.C.'s FMAP at 70 percent. The District's financial crisis was largely the result of the District's uniqueness as the only city responsible for paying for state functions, while the federal government also imposed unique revenue limitations on the District. All of the revenue limitations remain. Congress recognized that state costs are inappropriate for a city to shoulder, though the District has continued to carry many of these burdens like a state.

Medicaid is a joint federal-state program. The FMAP statutory minimum is 50 percent and the maximum is 83 percent. Local funds may constitute up to 60 percent of a state's share. The FMAP formula is based on a state's per capita income relative to the national average, and the higher a state's per capita income, the lower the FMAP. If the District operated under the FMAP formula, as it did prior to the Revitalization Act, the federal government would pay only 50 percent of D.C.'s Medicaid expenditures.

The District, a city with no state to contribute to it, must alone absorb the state portion of Medicaid. Thus, the District pays for 30 percent of Medicaid, more than any U.S. city. Considering the difference in the size of its tax base, the District should certainly contribute no more than New York City's contribution to Medicaid. Therefore, my bill would raise the federal contribution to the District's Medicaid program to 80 percent, equal to that of New York City.

On December 21, 2017, Representative Morgan Griffith introduced a bill (H.R. 4709) that would blow a massive hole in the District's budget by reducing the FMAP for D.C. from the current 70 percent to 54 percent. Under the bill, beginning in fiscal year 2020, the federal government would pay the higher of the FMAP formula or a FMAP fixed percentage that decreases until it reaches 54 percent in 2027 and thereafter. This Griffith bill demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the uniqueness of D.C.'s structure and economy and the intent of the Revitalization Act. I will fight to defeat this backwards bill.

In 1997, a formula error in the Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital allotment reduced the 70 percent FMAP share, and, as a result, the District received only $23 million instead of the $49 million it was due. I was able to secure a technical correction in the Balanced Budget Act of 1999, partially increasing the annual allotment to $32 million from fiscal year 2000 forward. I appreciate that, in 2005, Congress responded to our effort to get an additional annual increase of $20 million in the budget reconciliation bill, bringing D.C.'s Medicaid reimbursements to $57 million, as intended by the Revitalization Act, although this amount did not reimburse the District for the years the federal error denied the city part of its rightful federal contribution.

In conclusion, this bill would treat the District just like the federal government treats other large cities when it comes to Medicaid reimbursement rates, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Federal Employee Short-Term Disability Insurance Act of 2018, which will help provide financial relief for federal employees who have a short-term injury or disability, become pregnant, or develop a pregnancy-related illness. This bill will offer federal employees short-term disability insurance at no cost to the federal government. Employees will be responsible for 100 percent of the premiums, and will be able to receive disability insurance benefits for up to one year, which would replace a portion of their lost income due to a non-work related injury or illness or pregnancy. These benefits will be particularly beneficial to ensure that our federal employees, who do not yet enjoy paid maternity leave, are able to utilize the 12 weeks of unpaid maternity leave permitted by federal law while continuing to pay their bills, buy groceries and make their mortgage, car and other loan payments without having to deplete their retirement or other savings accounts. Too many federal employees do not take advantage of federal unpaid maternity leave because they have no way to replace the lost income.

I decided to investigate how we could provide short-term disability insurance for federal employees after learning that many of them already buy short-term disability insurance as individuals in the private market at high individual rates. Although federal employees have good health insurance, federal health benefits do not replace lost income if employees are unable to work. Moreover, while federal employees may have available sick or annual leave days, they may not have enough such days to pay the bills if they have to be out of work for an extended period. Although there are long-term disability options for federal employees who become permanently disabled, federal employees do not qualify for such benefits until they have worked for the federal government for at least 18 months. My bill does no more than put federal employees in the same position as their private-sector counterparts, who often have access to disability insurance through an employer at group rates. This bill will not allow participating insurance companies to exclude persons based on preexisting conditions. Because of the federal government's purchasing power, this bill will provide these benefits at a more competitive rate than is available if an employee sought such insurance as an individual, as many do.

According to the Social Security Administration, a 20-year-old worker has a one-in-four chance of becoming disabled by retirement age. The majority of disabilities are not caused by major accidents, but by injuries or illnesses, such as back injuries or cancer, according to the Council for Disability Awareness. There is every reason to allow our federal employees to take advantage of the federal government's group rates to obtain the most reasonable price if they choose to purchase short-term disability coverage on their own at no cost to the federal government.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both of my friends for their work on this bill, and I want to thank Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop, who is a cosponsor of this bill, for his support and leadership of this legislation, as well as Ranking Member Raul Grijalva, who has also supported our efforts.

I also want to thank Oversight and Government Reform Chair Trey Gowdy and Ranking Member Elijah Cummings for their support and for moving this bipartisan legislation through their committee as well. So you see, we have gone through two committees, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased and grateful to Senator Lisa

Murkowski, chair of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which has jurisdiction over the bill, who has introduced the Senate companion of this bill.

Our bill is noncontroversial, as you have heard, Mr. Speaker. It would only clarify that the District of Columbia has the authority to enter into cooperative management agreements, called CMAs, to maintain and invest in National Park Service properties in the city. There are many such properties, we are grateful to say, in the District of Columbia.

NPS already has the authority to enter into these agreements with States, and I believe with the District of Columbia, but the better part of valor was to make sure that that was understood.

Our bill would simply provide the District with the same opportunity to work collaboratively with the NPS as States and cities already do.

NPS is the steward of many of the country's most beautiful natural wonders, but they are uniquely responsible for most of the small urban parks in the District's neighborhoods, as well.

Given NPS' limited budget and resources, we should encourage local jurisdictions to work with NPS to make sure that our national parks are properly cared for in the way this bill incentivizes.

The city already has plans to enter into a CMA with the National Park Service to assume operational jurisdiction of Franklin Park. This park is located in downtown D.C., right in the center of town, but it has seen better days.

The city plans to work with the Downtown Business Improvement District to transform the park to its former glory by ensuring regular maintenance and providing amenities such as food, gardens, and other services.

As the city's downtown core has grown to include more housing, businesses, and workers, the need for green space also has grown.

The city's plans for Franklin Park are a model of what can be done when local jurisdictions get creative about protecting and improving the Nation's parks.

Mr. Speaker, I hope Members are taking this bill as a model for what can be done if they have parks. Perhaps the park for this bill would not be as easily patterned. But there are many small parks that are near local businesses. Local businesses do not thrive when green space is in poor condition, so we did not find it difficult to get the business community around this park to partner with the District of Columbia to bring it up to what a park should look like in the center of the city.

The National Park Service has a backlog that has been described by my friend on the other side, so we cannot expect the Park Service, even if it had the most robust funding appropriation here, to get to many of our parks very soon.

What works here can work throughout the United States. My bill is, of course, a win for my city, but it is also a win for the Federal Government, and it is a win for the more than 30 million visitors who visit the District of Columbia every day because it is our Nation's capital, and, of course, it is a win for the surrounding jurisdictions because this park is so centrally located in this region.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa) for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening to commemorate 44 years of home rule. The Home Rule Act was signed by President Richard Nixon on Christmas Eve 44 years ago after the Home Rule Act was passed by a bipartisan vote.

Although it was a Democratic Congress, I think it is worth noting what President Nixon said in his signing speech. I am going to quote a few of his sentences:

``As a longtime supporter of self-government for the District of Columbia, I am pleased to sign into law a measure which is of historic significance for the citizens of our Nation's Capital. I first voted for home rule as a Member of the House of Representatives in 1948, and I have endorsed the enactment of home rule legislation during both my terms as President.''

Then he went on to say: ``It is particularly appropriate to assure those persons who live in our Capital City rights the privileges which have long been enjoyed by most of their countrymen.''

The bill enjoyed bipartisan support throughout those congressional deliberations.

Mr. Speaker, surely we can get back to that moment. The District of Columbia is proud and pleased that it has been steeped in American history ever since the site of the Nation's Capital was chosen by George Washington himself.

We are proud to be not only hometown D.C., but the Capital of our country.

So this evening, I want to speak about those two roles and about the role of Congress as we move past December 24, 44 years ago--1973--to today, when D.C. residents have every reason to believe that our country is ready and overdue for D.C. statehood itself.

Now, my Republican colleagues understand fully our role as the Nation's Capital. They understand it because they welcome their own constituents,

the tourists who come here. There are something upwards of almost 20 million. Many of them come to their own congressperson's offices first. But Republicans often dissolve the District's role into their role without making the appropriate distinction.

Now, I appreciate it is not easy to understand a jurisdiction that has a double identity, a hometown identity and a Capital identity.

No, we are not schizophrenic here. So let's discuss this evening what this means. I want to discuss it in part because the inevitable turnover in the Congress means that I should come to the floor and explain this dilemma of our creation periodically.

The first thing we want to do is to avoid the slander that the Framers of our Constitution, the Founders of our country, meant to create a Capital City whose residents were not the equals of residents everywhere in the country, because if that had been the case, you wouldn't have had the Capital in the first place.

The Capital was created from two jurisdictions, Maryland and Virginia, where residents had the right to vote and where they had every single right of American citizens. Those two States were convinced to give the territory that is now the District of Columbia for the Nation's Capital. They were not about to give up their votes in the Capital and did not.

Isn't it interesting, during the transition period, the Representatives from Maryland and Virginia continued to vote as they always had and continued to be recognized in their own jurisdictions, all the while, for a 10-year period, when the land was, in fact, being transferred to become what is now the District of Columbia?

The relationship that the District has to the Federal Government, to the Congress of the United States, is an accident of history. It is an anachronistic accident that you would have thought would have been put aside within a few years after the District became the Nation's Capital in 1801.

During the Revolutionary War when the Capital was Philadelphia, Revolutionary War soldiers marched on the Capitol, then in Philadelphia. They wanted their pensions, and they wanted funding. When the Founders saw these men marching on their Capitol, confusion reigned. Whom to turn to bring order? Who was going to protect the Capitol? Was it Philadelphia? Was it Pennsylvania? There certainly weren't any Federal police as yet.

So what developed was fear that the Capital might find itself with that dilemma wherever it was located. Of course, that is not the case. The District is protected by 31 Federal police forces, and the D.C. National Guard and from the Capitol Police to the Park Police. I won't even name them all, there are so many of them.

That is not to mention, and I already have said, of course, the National Guard, and if necessary, the Armed Forces of the United States. Remember, we are talking about a Federal Government in formation. We can understand that mistake then. What we cannot abide is that mistake being part of the denial to American citizens the same rights that others enjoy.

Protection of the Federal sector is certainly not an issue, or the Federal sector and the Capital itself, more than two centuries later, is not an issue. But what should also not be an issue is that anybody, any resident, any American, would pay taxes and not be represented on this floor and in the Senate.

As I stand here this evening, I represent almost 700,000 American citizens who have been put precisely in that position though--and this is a number to be remembered--they are number one per capita--number one--in taxes paid to support the Government of the United States.

Thus, one of the oldest U.S. jurisdictions, the District of Columbia, is the most--indeed, the only--unequal jurisdiction, that pays taxes without full representation.

To be sure, I vote in committee, and everybody knows that in the committees is where the primary work is done. But imagine the insult to the people I represent who pay huge taxes--$12,000 per person every year--that matters come up on this floor including matters affecting them, and nobody whom they have voted for can represent them on this floor.

The D.C. budget was just in that continuing resolution that passed. What is it doing over here? Nobody in Congress looked at the D.C. budget. Nobody in this body except me would know what to do with the D.C. budget. But it has to come here to be passed along with the Federal budget.

This is form without substance, Mr. Speaker. The sole reason that the D.C. budget comes here is for Members to try to overturn some of D.C.'s laws that they happen to disagree with. But, in a Federal Union, you can pass your laws. I don't like your laws, but you can't do anything about my laws--except if it is the District of Columbia.

So I think I ought to call the roll on what the District has to abide from Members of this body and the Senate and why, on this 44th anniversary of the Home Rule Act, the District of Columbia is seeking to become the 51st State.

Let's take guns. Senator Marco Rubio from Florida and Representative Tom Garrett from Virginia have a bill to eliminate all the District's gun laws.

It hasn't passed, and most of the bills I will speak of are pending but won't pass, because I have to spend a good deal of my time not only working affirmatively for what the District of Columbia wants, but for keeping bills like this from being passed.

Imagine your Nation's Capital as a city where anybody can have a gun. The most controversial figures in the world come to your Nation's Capital. They eat in our restaurants. They stroll in our streets. You sometimes see that police stop traffic to let their cars pass in the street.

We keep this City as safe as we can for ourselves, the 700,000 or so who live here, but also for the millions of people who come to do business or to have leisure or to see their iconic monuments.

Representative Tom Massie from Kentucky has introduced a bill. We were able to keep it from being passed. But imagine this bill that would say that the District of Columbia had to recognize any and every concealed carry permit as long as you had it from another State.

Some States have very strong concealed carry requirements. Others are very lax. Whatever your State has, just bring it into the District of Columbia.

Mind you, this body, this Congress, my Republican colleagues have seen to it that you can't bring a gun into this Chamber. They want to be protected here, but they don't want to protect even their own constituents in the streets of the District of Columbia and in the hotels and restaurants of the District of Columbia.

Senator Ted Cruz from Texas and Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina have introduced a bill that would require the District of Columbia to use its own funds to send children to private schools. All you have to do is come and ask the District for it.

There have been bills on this floor to allow private school vouchers--none of them have ever passed--but here come two Members wanting the District to give our local funds to anybody who wants to go to a private school.

Are you joking?

I am standing here to say that will never pass as long as I have anything to do with it.

Senator James Lankford from Oklahoma and Representative Brad Wenstrup from Ohio have introduced a bill to wipe out the District's death with dignity law.

That bill was actually passed in committee. It didn't get to the floor I think because there are six States that have such laws and two of them are States of our Republican leadership.

This is a controversial bill, but other States have similar laws. It allows people to take their own lives if they follow a very strict protocol.

You don't like it here?

Well, you don't live here. You don't pay taxes here.

President Trump's budget also had this provision.

Again, these are pending, and I am telling you that most of them will not pass. But that is because I have had to fight them tooth and nail to keep them from passing. That is unfair to the District and it is an unfair use of my time.

The Local Budget Autonomy Act that passed by 83 percent of the voters in the District of Columbia to keep our own local funds--we raise almost $8 billion on our own--from coming here for

no purpose except to attach amendments to overturn our laws.

The Local Budget Autonomy Act still stands, but Congress has continued to appropriate the budget. ``Appropriate'' means simply pass it without looking at it, when it comes to the District of Columbia. Congress has not repealed the Local Budget Autonomy Act. I will stand firm to keep that from happening.

We have been able to overcome attempts to overrule a D.C. law passed to protect private reproductive decisions. The District passed a law that prohibits discrimination within the District--it has nothing to do with the Congress--against any family because of the reproductive health choices of family members.

What am I doing, what is Congress doing, what is the District doing even knowing what your reproductive choice is?

What kind of Congress that believes in local control would so intrusively insert itself into such private matters?

Here is another that was almost laughable. It is a wipes labeling bill.

Representative Andy Harris from Maryland offered--and I thank him for withdrawing it--an amendment at markup. Representative Harris is a member of the Appropriations Committee. He would have prohibited the District from using its own funds to keep certain kinds of non- flushable products from being sold in D.C.

Pardon me, but what is Representative Harris doing in our toilets and sewers?

To his credit, he did withdraw his proposed amendment.

It was important to the District because these non-flushable materials stop up sewers. They are our sewers. It is our town. Stay out of our business.

The marijuana matter. First, Congress tried to overturn the District's law that enables possession of a couple of ounces of marijuana. I was able to find a flaw in the proposed language. So the marijuana law still stands.

But Congress keeps D.C. from commercializing marijuana, as is done in several States. I think there are eight States. It keeps D.C. from regulating marijuana further. That is dangerous. D.C. ought to be able to regulate marijuana to keep it out of the hands of children, for example.

The interference of this body in the affairs of a local jurisdiction about which it knows nothing is not only outrageous on its face, but yes, it can be dangerous.

The abortion rider or amendment comes annually. It keeps the District from spending its own local funds on abortions for low-income women, although there are upwards of 17 States that use local funds for abortions because they have the autonomy that we seek.

Then, at the last minute this year, there was something that Representative Steve King decided that he had to do.

You see, I think when Members intrude in D.C. affairs, they must not have enough to do, and I am calling on their constituents to watch them. If you have a Member that does what--and here I am going to indicate this one shortly, but the ones I have just spoken of--if they have a Member that spends his time writing laws about someone else's jurisdiction, they ought to call him to account.

Representative Steve King is from Iowa. He introduced a bill that would make it a Federal crime to commit violence within the District in connection with a legitimate labor dispute.

Well, maybe it ought to be a crime and there may be some Federal legislation that deals with this matter nationwide, but if not, and it takes place within the District of Columbia and there is a legitimate labor dispute and there is violence, we have got enough cops to take care of that, Representative King. We do not need this to be a Federal crime in D.C. alone.

So, after calling the roll on those proposed anti-home rule provisions, let me indicate most of them I have been able to keep off of the D.C. appropriations bill, the only way they get them passed.

It would be very difficult to get them passed by coming here, get the votes, and then go to the Senate and get the votes. So Members try the easy way: just attach it to the D.C. appropriations bill that should not be here in the first place.

The budget matter really does gall us. More than 7 in 10 Americans believe that the District of Columbia should control its own budget. That is what this board graph shows. More than anything else, the American people guard their own money. That is why this is so important.

Republicans pose as the champions of local control. In fact, they want the Federal Government out of much of its own Federal business and let the States and the localities handle it.

How could they then abandon their cherished principles when it comes to the Nation's Capital?

Look at these numbers, red and blue on this chart. The numbers show that Democrats and Republicans believe D.C. should control D.C.'s budget, slightly more in red or Republican States.

I think numbers like that show that what I am saying about local control and about equality in this body represents the views of the American people. I defy anyone in this body to show differently.

Ultimately, we recognize on this 44th anniversary of the signing of the Home Rule Act that there is no substitute for statehood.

I should mention that Congress experimented with home rule for some time before the Home Rule Act was finally passed in 1973. It gave D.C. home rule in 1820. Sometimes it would take it back, and then try again. Imagine living in a city where they can take back your local control.

To their credit, after the Civil War, the Republican Congress gave D.C. home rule and a Delegate. I am called a Delegate and a Congresswoman. They gave D.C. home rule. That version of home rule is precisely what D.C. has today. The 1973 Home Rule Act essentially is a replica of the home rule given to D.C. by the Republican Congress after the Civil War.

How did we lose it?

The Democrats, controlled by Southerners, took back home rule after Reconstruction and left the District for 100 years struggling to get back the self-government that the Republican Congress had given the District after the Civil War.

This all started with Republicans. It ended with the Home Rule Act, Richard Nixon, and bipartisan support in the Congress.

There is no substitute for being equal to the States. You can't have some second class citizens in the United States today, not in 21st century America.

We are seeking the major elements of statehood, even before we get statehood.

For example, the District of Columbia government has actually shut down when the Federal Government is shut down, even though the D.C. budget is balanced and nobody in the Congress has even looked at it. I have now been able to get a bill every year that allows the District to stay open even if the Congress closes the Federal Government down.

We don't know what will happen over in the Senate even today. We have just passed a continuing resolution--pitiful, though it was--to keep the government open for just a few more weeks. That passed this House. It has to pass the Senate. I can't take the chance that the District will close down for no reason except that the Congress doesn't know how to take care of its own business.

I was finally able to convince the Congress to extricate the District from their fights to keep open, whatever you do to us--and you certainly haven't extricated us altogether because our budget still comes here. But you certainly don't mean to close down a big city like the District of Columbia, its budget, which handles vital matters like the police and keeping order.

I don't mean to say that all Republicans have failed to see this. My hat is off to Representative Darrell Issa, who headed the committee that has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia.

He called witnesses from the District of Columbia--the mayor, the city council chairman, the chief financial officer--on a routine hearing since, yes, Congress can do that. It rarely does. He heard-- even more important, he listened to--their testimony. And when he heard these officials from the District of Columbia testify about the financial condition of the District of Columbia, its reserves, that its growth

was among the best in the Nation, Representative Issa--listened.

Maybe you don't think Members of Congress are always listening to your testimony. He was listening to this testimony. Because after hearing that testimony, Representative Issa from California endorsed D.C. budget autonomy, and he has worked tirelessly with local officials and with me to secure the autonomy of the District's budget so it wouldn't come to Congress.

I haven't asked him, but he may not be for statehood, and I doubt that he is. He is a Republican. But I think he understands, perhaps better than most of his colleagues, that no one has any business, in a Federal public handling somebody's local budget in this Chamber, and I will be forever grateful.

I want to say my thanks, as well, to former Representative Tom Davis, who resigned from the Congress a few years ago, and was instrumental in helping the District get votes for a vote for D.C. in the House and in the Senate. That bill, the D.C. Voting Rights Act, actually passed the House and passed the Senate.

So why don't we have at least the vote in the House now? The reason is that the National Rifle Association convinced some Members to place an amendment that would have wiped out all of the District's gun laws; and, therefore, the residents of the District of Columbia, after helping me for years to achieve their first vote on this floor, had to leave that vote on the table.

I will be forever grateful to Representative Tom Davis for his help.

Now, what kind of jurisdiction are we talking about? It is very important for us to remember that we are talking about a city with a $14 billion budget, which is larger than the budget of 12 States. Why shouldn't D.C., therefore, have statehood like those States?

We are talking about a city that has a $2.5 billion surplus. That is the envy of the States. Ask my colleagues how many of them have a surplus that large.

The per capita income of the people I represent is higher than that of any State.

Now, that is an interesting figure that should be explained. There are many poor people in the District of Columbia, but there are many high earners, too; and when you put them together, that is one of the reasons you get the highest per capita taxes paid. That is why you get $12,000 per year in Federal taxes from D.C. residents.

The personal income of the people I represent is higher than that of seven States; the per capita of personal consumption in expenditures is higher than that of any State; and the total personal consumption expenditures are greater than those of seven States. This is a very productive, a very hardworking city that pays its own way and contributes, as well, mightily to our country. And Americans understand that because the District is attracting residents in large numbers.

We have had, in this city, a 15.3 percent increase in residents since the last census. That becomes, on a monthly basis, 800 new residents coming to live in your Nation's Capital every month--almost 700,000, a larger population today than Wyoming and then Vermont, but these States, they have two Senators. They have the same number of Representatives as the District of Columbia--one.

If the truth be told, the District is about the same in population as seven States. Those seven States have two Senators each and one Representative who votes on this floor. They and I are equivalent in every respect except, of course, for the taxes per capita D.C. residents pay, and yet they have the vote. Notwithstanding that the District is number one per capita in taxes District residents pay, those seven States have the congressional vote and we do not.

This week, in fact, just today, we passed a new tax bill. So imagine how the residents I represent feel about a new tax bill. They are going to end up paying more taxes because SALT, the State and local tax deduction, has been capped. It has been with us for almost 100 years. So instead of taxation without representation, my constituents will have double taxation, at least when it comes to that particular matter, the State and local taxes, double taxation without representation.

So when the bell rang for the tax vote, I did not come down because I could not vote for the citizens of the District of Columbia. When there are votes on this floor for matters involving our military and life and death, I do not come down because I cannot vote.

Still, I remember the purple fingers from the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan, where they not only were signifying that they had voted, but they were signifying who gave them the vote: members of the military from the United States, including members from the District of Columbia, who have fought and died in every war since the war that created the United States of America.

District residents have overpaid for the equal citizenship they seek, and this chart illustrates it tragically:

World War I, 635 District of Columbia residents lost their lives in that war. That was a figure greater than three different States.

World War II--that was a big one--3,573 District of Columbia residents lost their lives. That was five times greater than the District's losses in World War I, and it was greater than losses in four different States.

Moving on to the Korean war, 547 District residents lost their lives. That figure was greater than the loss of life by the military in eight different States.

And finally, the Vietnam war, 243 casualties in that war. That was a figure greater than 10 different States.

All told, this city, which is a relatively small city, has had almost 200,000 residents serve in the military, and that is only since World War I. I hasten to add that there has never been a war--and I have not counted the 19th century wars--there has never been a war where the residents of your Nation's Capital were not among those who fought and died.

Now, I must ask if there is any Member of Congress who would stand for the Federal Government dictating a local budget or her local matters coming to the House floor after showing what I have shown here this evening about the District of Columbia. Maybe there will be some understanding of why we must protest and resist the treatment of the District of Columbia until the District is given the equality to States by becoming the 51st State.

As I have indicated, it is impossible to lay our present predicament on the Framers of our Constitution. Remember, they went to war, it is they who gave us the slogan of ``taxation without representation.'' They were willing to die, to commit treason, largely because they were paying taxes to the crown and had no representation. How can we possibly lay the present predicament of the District on the Framers? It is not them. It is on us today.

In the 21st century, Congress cannot continue to ask the residents of the Nation's Capital to watch democracy in operation for everybody else except them.

If a matter involves the District of Columbia and has to come before us, then everybody gets to vote on that matter except the Representative of the District of Columbia. You can't justify that alongside American principles, given how much in Federal taxes the people I represent pay, given their sons and daughters who have always gone to war for their country, all of that without a vote in the House and the Senate required by consent of the government.

Well, we have two choices, but when you think about it, we have only one. Congress can continue to exercise autocratic authority over the American citizens who live in their own Nation's Capital, treating them--if I may quote the words of the great Frederick Douglass, whose bicentennial we will be celebrating in 2018 (who was a resident of this City), and who said our country was ``Treating the District and its citizens as aliens, not citizens, but subjects.''

We are not subjects. We are American citizens. The only alternative today is to live up to the Nation's promise and ideals and pass the Washington, D.C. Admission Act to make the residents of your Nation's Capital equal by affording them the right to live in the 51st State of the Union of States called the United States of America.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of S. 1393, the Jobs for Our Heroes Act.

This bill is a step in the right direction to help the Nation tackle the longstanding commercial driver's shortage--a shortage that I must say I have been working on ever since I have been on this committee and especially since becoming ranking member of the subcommittee--and, of course, at the same time, to support veterans in a successful transition from military to civilian life.

S. 1393 ensures that all qualified medical professionals employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs can perform commercial driver physical examinations for their veteran patients.

The medical professionals that this bill addresses are already eligible to become certified medical examiners. This bill simply allows these individuals to utilize an alternative certification process that is currently being finalized by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

The most recently available data shows that, of the 54,000 medical professionals listed in FMCSA's National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners, only 25 medical professionals are employed by the VA. The online training and testing system being developed by FMCSA and the VA should help remedy this situation. These two agencies have done a good job creating an alternative process that will eventually allow more VA doctors to become certified medical examiners, while maintaining the safety and integrity of the certification system.

Although the FAST Act provision authorizing this process referred to physicians, FMCSA should allow VA-employed nurse practitioners, chiropractors, physician assistants, and other qualified medical professionals to participate. This bill ensures that these medical professionals are eligible to use this process.

The bill also ensures that current servicemembers who have military experience operating commercial motor vehicles will be able to more easily obtain a commercial driver's license. Congress included a provision in the FAST Act to allow States to waive the written CDL knowledge test for drivers with military commercial motor vehicle driving experience, but it restricts this waiver to ``former members'' of the military.

There are a significant number of current reservists and members of the National Guard with military commercial motor vehicle experience who could benefit from the waiver. These servicemen and -women receive what the FMCSA describes as ``thorough and comprehensive training,'' including many hours of behind-the-wheel training, something that I have long sought and advocated for as a requirement for civilian drivers. These military drivers already have it.

FMCSA has already taken action to make current servicemembers eligible for the knowledge test waiver on a temporary basis. Last year, FMCSA issued an exemption that allows States to waive the CDL knowledge test for trained military truck drivers, whether they are current members of the military or our veterans; however, FMCSA's temporary exemption expires October 2018.

This bill makes permanent the ability of current members of the military to utilize the FAST Act waiver. S. 1393 is nearly identical to two bills the House previously passed earlier this year, H.R. 2547 and H.R. 2258, both of which passed by votes of 409-0, or unanimously.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar).

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill marries two priorities: jobs for our veterans. So many come back, and they have had training, yet we are finding that we can't always find jobs for them. Here are jobs where there is a chronic problem, tough jobs, jobs which require people to be away from home, often for long hours, jobs that do not pay as well as some other jobs. So there has been a chronic shortage.

This bill serves both purposes, and it serves our Nation very well.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of S. 1532. This legislation institutes a lifetime ban from operating a commercial motor vehicle for any individual who has used such a vehicle to commit human trafficking.

In the summer of 2017, 10 people died in San Antonio, Texas, in the process of being illegally trafficked in a truck at Walmart. That horrendous incident served as a stark reminder that the transportation sector can be exploited for heinous acts.

Since 2007, the National Human Trafficking Hotline has received reports of more than 22,000 sex trafficking cases inside our country. In addition, it has received over 5,000 reports of individuals who have been coerced into forced labor or indentured servitude.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children estimates that one of every six runaway children who was reported to them last year had become victims of sex trafficking.

The FMCSA currently prohibits any individual from operating a CMV for life if he or she is convicted of committing specific crimes, including negligent manslaughter and drug trafficking. This bill ensures that the FMCSA also takes action against perpetrators who use their CMV to commit ``severe''--and that is the operative word--forms of sex trafficking, as defined by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported an identical bill, H.R. 3814, to the House by a voice vote in November. This legislation takes important steps to reduce human trafficking in the transportation sector.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is another example of what bipartisanship can achieve in the House of Representatives, unlike, sadly, the tax bill that was just passed just before us in the House of Representatives here this afternoon.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill as well. S. 1536 will help ensure that the U.S. Department of Transportation has the necessary tools to reduce the prevalence of human trafficking in commercial vehicles.

In 2016, more than 7,000 cases of human trafficking were reported to the National Human Trafficking Hotline. With this legislation, Congress is stepping in to ensure DOT has additional authority and resources to combat this egregious crime.

This bill provides the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA, more flexibility to combat human trafficking by authorizing funding from two existing grant programs to be used to support the reporting and the prevention of human trafficking. The bill will also help DOT coordinate efforts to fight human trafficking with other Federal agencies, and it establishes an advisory committee on human trafficking.

The advisory committee will convene experts from law enforcement, victim advocacy organizations, and the transportation industry to advise DOT of concrete steps it can take to improve the recognition and the prevention of trafficking.

The advisory committee will also develop and share best practices with State and local stakeholders so that they are better equipped to combat the trafficking in their own communities.

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported an identical bill, H.R. 3813, authored by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty), to the House in November.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty), the author of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).

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

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Civil Enforcement Equality Act. This bill is necessary to allow the District to enter into contracts with private attorneys to sue on the District's behalf for violations of D.C. law that may otherwise go unpunished due to a lack of resources. This bill would give D.C. the same authority enjoyed by states, other local governments and most federal agencies.

The federal Anti-Deficiency Act, which applies to both the federal and District governments, prohibits contracting in advance of appropriations, such as contingency fee contracts. However, Congress has provided the authority for most federal agencies to enter into such contracts, notwithstanding the Anti-Deficiency Act, but has not done so for the District. This precludes the District from entering into contracts with attorneys on a contingency fee basis. In a contingency fee contract, lawyers pay for the initial costs of the litigation, and then the lawyers are reimbursed only for out-of-pocket expenses and receive a percentage of any amount awarded to the plaintiff.

There is no federal law that precludes states and other local governments from entering into such contracts. At least 36 states, both red and blue states, have already used contingency fee contracts to enforce state laws, in addition to numerous city and county governments across the country. Contingency fee contracts are especially useful in cases with a large, costly discovery component. Examples of cases that are commonly tried on a contingency fee basis by state and local governments include nuisance, deceptive lending, securities fraud and debt and tax collection.

This is an important step to increase D.C. home rule and generate revenue for the District, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Joseph Tran-Malan for his participation in the Congressional App Challenge (CAC).

The CAC began in 2013, and has since grown to include nearly 4,000 students across 33 states and territories. Specifically, the CAC encourages students to learn how to code through an annual district- wide competition.

For his CAC submission, Joseph chose the video game Overwatch. In particular, he created a video that described why he chose Overwatch, and what he would do to make the video game better as part of his app.

Currently, Joseph is in the third grade and attends Harmony DC Public Charter School, which has a Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) program. In addition, the school organizes two major STEM events every year: the Harmony Science and Engineering Fair, which serves as a way for students to learn more about the scientific process; and the Stem Festival, where students

participate in various STEM demonstrations and explain the science behind them.

Joseph is a proud big brother and the son of Mr. and Mrs. Jose and Kim Tran-Malan. In his free time, Joseph likes to travel and see new things, but is content with spending quality time at home with his family. He also loves to dance and use his imagination by building with LEGOs or by creating new worlds in the video game Minecraft. I am very proud of Joseph.

Therefore, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring achievement at a very young age by recognizing Joseph Tran-Malan for his participation in the Congressional App Challenge.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Christopher Gresham for his participation in the Mandela Washington Fellowship Reciprocal Exchange.

The Mandela Washington Fellowship, the flagship program of the U.S. government's Young African Leadership Initiative, helps to develop the next generation of African leaders across government, business and civil society. The fellows build strategic partnerships and lasting connections through training and networking opportunities at leading institutions of higher education.

The Reciprocal Exchange Component, for which Christopher has been competitively selected, provides U.S. experts and leaders a chance to expand their work in partnership with Mandela Washington Fellowship alumni in Africa. Past participants have included a wide range of experts, from entrepreneurs to disability rights advocates, who have contributed meaningfully to efforts such as promoting peace, stability and economic prosperity in the region. The program provides important contributions to U.S. diplomacy efforts.

A native Washingtonian, Christopher has dedicated his career to breaking down barriers and promoting diversity in entrepreneurship. He graduated from The George Washington University and went on to obtain a Master's from Thunderbird School for Global Management. He then became the Vice President of Communities at SEED SPOT, where he works to increase startup activity and economic growth with a focus on entrepreneurs developing sustainable solutions to address some of the world's most pressing problems. In addition, Christopher founded Swillings Coffee, an impact-driven venture that works directly with small family-owned farms in rural Colombia to apply sustainable growing techniques and employ women in the local community. As part of the Mandela Washington Fellowship Reciprocal Exchange, Christopher empowered hundreds of Beninese entrepreneurs with entrepreneurship training, educated its largest university on sustainable economic development programs and promoted cooperative trade with the U.S. and multiple institutional stakeholders.

Therefore, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Christopher Gresham for his accomplishments and for his participation in the Mandela Washington Fellowship Reciprocal Exchange.

Mr. Speaker, in light of recent train derailments across the country and ongoing transportation security threats, I rise to introduce the Save Our Community from Risky Trains Act, which directs the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to find ways to the greatest extent possible to reroute trains that are carrying certain hazardous materials from selected high-threat urban areas, including the District of Columbia. This legislation is needed now more than ever, especially given DOT's recent announcement that it will rescind a requirement that rail tank cars carrying crude oil be outfitted with an advanced braking system designed to prevent derailments.

Derailments of rail cars carrying hazardous materials are a serious concern and should be a priority of Congress. In 2016, 16 cars of a CSX freight train derailed in a dense residential neighborhood of the nation's capital, disrupting Metrorail, passenger rail, and freight rail service and putting families at risk. Among the derailed freight train cars, cars carrying sodium hydroxide, calcium chloride and ethanol--which is flammable and led to a Metrorail shutdown--spilled. The neighborhood was lucky that there were no injuries, but the continuing threat to the safety and security of urban communities is clear.

In 2007, the House passed the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007, which included my amendment to protect the

District and similar communities nationwide from dangerous hazardous material shipments by mandating that federal regulations and penalties be developed to increase security and safety for the shipment of these materials through high-threat urban areas. My amendment was not included in the final bill signed into law. While freight companies have begun working with DOT to voluntarily reroute the shipment of certain materials that are toxic or poisonous by inhalation, or explosive from these communities, there is no federal law requiring them to reroute the materials.

This bill would require the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to require enhanced security measures for shipments of security-sensitive materials. The bill also requires railroad carriers to use the most secure route and storage pattern to avoid moving certain hazardous materials by rail through selected high-threat urban areas. These security sensitive materials include a highway route- controlled quantity of a Class 7 (radioactive) material; more than 25 kilograms of a division 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 explosive; more than one liter per package of a material poisonous by inhalation; shipment in other than a bulk packaging of 2,268 kilograms gross weight or more of one class of hazardous materials for which placarding of a vehicle, rail car or freight container is required; and select agents or toxins regulated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

High-profile derailments in North Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia, and Canada demonstrate the need for this legislation. Ethanol, which is flammable, still travels through big cities, and even within a few blocks of the U.S. Capitol. This bill will protect our communities from the risk created by trains carrying hazardous materials.

I urge support for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, 44 years ago this month, Congress passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. A Republican President signed it. A Democratic Congress, together with the Republican President, freed the Nation's Capital from government by three unelected commissioners.

The irony is that the self-government the District of Columbia enjoys today is a virtual replica of what a Republican Congress and a Republican President granted to the District of Columbia right after the Civil War. It granted the Home Rule Act and, of course, a Delegate to Congress.

But, with Reconstruction and Democratic control, Democrats took back what Republicans had granted and, once again, Democrats denied the District of Columbia self-government.

Then, 44 years ago, with bipartisan support, after 100 years of struggle, the District of Columbia finally won what we call home rule.

My colleagues should respect their own history. It was Richard Nixon who signed the Home Rule Act, acting on the most revered, as far as we are told, Republican principles of local control, that local residents should always have a democratically elected local government controlled entirely by their government. The District has become one of the most successful jurisdictions in the United States since home rule, with a $14 billion budget.

Before and after home rule however, District of Columbia residents have always paid Federal income taxes. Today, D.C. residents rank number one--that is first--per capita in taxes paid to support the government of the United States.

In signing the bill for the Home Rule Act, President Nixon wrote: ``One of the major goals of this administration is to place responsibility for local functions under local control and to provide local governments with the authority and resources they need to serve their communities effectively.''

Since Congress granted the Home Rule Act, it has shown no interest in governing the District of Columbia, but it requires the D.C. budget to actually be passed again here, by Congress, for the sole purpose of seeking to overturn local laws that Members of Congress don't support.

The basis for our federation of States is that each has its own laws and they must be respected, yet there are eight different laws pending here to be overturned by the Congress of the United States.

I believe I will be able to retain most of these laws for the District of Columbia, but why should I have to spend any of my time protecting local laws passed by my local jurisdiction?

They range from trying to get rid of all the District's gun laws; making the District pay for private schools out of local funds; the medical aid in dying law, which six States already have and DC would not be allowed to have, although two Republican leaders have such bills in their States; no budget autonomy law; repeal of the nondiscrimination law that the District has based on reproductive choices of family members; no local funds for marijuana commercialization, though that is now done by eight States; and the prohibition on spending for abortions for low-income women. That is done by 17 States.

This is a sampling of what is pending, Mr. Speaker. Congress allows these same laws to exist in their own local jurisdictions.

The way to commemorate self-government for the District of Columbia granted by Congress 44 years ago is for Congress itself to respect the Home Rule Act it passed in 1973.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill to redesignate the National Park

Service-owned Rock Creek Park, in the District of Columbia, as ``Rock Creek National Park.'' Renaming this park will highlight its significance to the nation, including visitors to the nation's capital, and will help get much-needed funding for the park's inviting trails, waterways and other unique features.

Rock Creek Park is already a national park, established by Congress in 1890 ``for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the United States,'' and is the oldest urban park and the third federal park ever created, after Yellowstone and Sequoia. Rock Creek Park was designed to preserve animals, timber, forestry and other interests in the park, and to ensure that its natural state is maintained as much as possible, for all American people, not just for D.C. residents.

Over time, several structures have been established or donated to further preserve Rock Creek Park. In 1892, for example, the federal government acquired Peirce Mill in Rock Creek Park, one of the mills used by local farmers during the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. In 1950, the Old Stone House, located at 3051 M Street NW., with its great pre-Revolutionary War architectural merit, was acquired by the park. The building was restored, and programs explain the house's rich history from the colonial period to the present day. The Fort Circle Parks were also acquired to interpret and preserve the Civil War Defenses of Washington, which created a ring of protection for the nation's capital during the Civil War.

Today, Rock Creek Park offers residents of the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Northern Virginia, as well as thousands of visitors, an escape from our increasingly urban environment. Residents and tourists alike also enjoy many activities in the park's 2,000 acres, including hiking and bike riding on the historical trails, horseback riding, picnicking, tennis and other recreational activities in some of the open fields. Our residents have expressed their appreciation by volunteering to clean up and maintain the trails and waterways.

Redesignating Rock Creek Park as Rock Creek National Park will help recognize the national status of the park and protect and revitalize this remarkable resource in our nation's capital.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Virginia. He is doing a public service with his response to the bill that is coming forward today.

Mr. Chairman, you can call this bill whatever you want, but it is not a reform bill. It creates a problem in order to get rid of it.

Mr. Chairman, 0.18 percent is all of the employees who get dismissed. The sponsor must want more. Instead of taking that as an indication of the competency and of the excellence of Federal employees--under 1 percent, only 0.18--there must be more to be

fired than that. The data shows the opposite.

The Federal workforce has consistently been understood to be the best qualified public employees in the country however you look at them, particularly with their education and with their efforts.

The first reason the sponsor gives for this bill is that managers ``simply lose track of time and are unaware of the 1-year deadline approaching.''

Whose competency should we be checking? Not the employees, surely. Management should be doing its job. They are paid big Federal bucks precisely for that.

But they are paid to do something else. They are paid to observe. They are not observing if they are not even looking for the 1-year deadline wherein they could fire an employee.

They are supposed to assist employees during that first year. They are supposed to help correct employees during that first year.

What are they doing during that first year losing track of it? Who bears the burden is the employee who may be perfectly competent but wasn't receiving the assistance or the oversight to which she was entitled.

We are moving without information that would help us understand if there is a problem. What is the reason for not calling witnesses to find out if there is a problem? Because if there is, then we ought to do something about it.

We do know this: 36 percent of all the employees dismissed are dismissed in that first year. That would seem to indicate that maybe management is doing its job.

Today's young workforce is always looking for better opportunities. Pass this bill, and you chase away the best and the brightest from even applying to work for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the contributions of Nancy M. Ware, who served as the Director of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA) for the past six years.

A native Washingtonian, Director Ware has been tireless in her fight to improve public safety and the quality of life in neighborhoods throughout the District. She began her educational pursuits in District of Columbia public schools, ultimately graduating from Coolidge High School and then going on to earn her Bachelor's and Master's degrees from Howard University. Early in her career, Director Ware served in various leadership positions for a number of organizations and government agencies, including the Rainbow Coalition, the Citizen Education Fund, the District of Columbia's Mayor's Youth Initiative Office and the Department of Justice's Weed and Seed Program as well as its Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs.

Of Director Ware's many accomplishments, her work as the first Executive Director of the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) stands out. The District's criminal justice system is a complex web of federal and local jurisdictional authorities. Director Ware led the development of the infrastructure to promote collaboration between the District and federal governments on critical public safety issues. As director of the CJCC, Director Ware was instrumental in advancing the city's technical capability and capacity to support criminal justice information sharing among CJCC member agencies.

On December 1, 2011, she was sworn in as Director of CSOSA, an independent federal executive branch agency that is tasked with enhancing public safety, preventing crime and reducing recidivism among those supervised. As the head of CSOSA, Director Ware was responsible for leading over 800 federal employees in providing community supervision for as many as 15,000 adults on probation, parole or supervised release in the District. During her tenure at CSOSA, Director Ware's accomplishments are numerous, ranging from establishing a young adult initiative that focuses on supervisees 25 years old and younger to enhancing the agency's internal and external communications and program integration.

Therefore, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Director Nancy M. Ware for her dedication to public service and for her continued commitment to ensure that the nation's capital remains safe for residents, workers and visitors, and that juveniles and adults who have become involved in the criminal justice system are provided opportunities to contribute and thrive in their community.