Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce a bill to permit commercial filming and photography on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol. Currently, such filming and photography is only authorized on Union Square. The bill would permit commercial photography and filming outside of the Capitol and congressional office buildings by permit. In today's world, where many societies are facing upheavals, our country, with an exemplary model of democracy, should be the first to encourage commercial photography and filming to record various scenes of the legislature, which symbolizes U.S. democracy at work. The time is overdue to allow to commercial filming and photography of the exterior of the historic 19th century Capitol building. There is no good reason filming should be confined to Union Square. Specifically, my bill gives the Capitol Police the discretion, depending on the circumstances in and around the Capitol, to issue a permit authorizing commercial filming activity on any parcel of Federal property under the control of the Capitol Police with

views of the Capitol and congressional office buildings, under the same conditions as those in Union Square. Such areas might include Independence Avenue on the House side, and Constitution Avenue on the Senate side.

No policy or security reason exists to justify the limit of commercial filming and photography of the Capitol complex to only one location, Union Square, particularly considering that permits are necessary. The blanket selection of only one location for such filming raises serious First Amendment issues. People are regularly seen on East Capitol Street (east of 2nd street), where they get a full view of the Capitol building taking pictures, demonstrating how arbitrary it is to limit commercial filming to Union Square.

My bill would allow commercial filming and photography from areas with views of the Capitol and congressional buildings that are under the jurisdiction of the Capitol Police, in addition to Union Square, which is located directly west of the Capitol. In addition, the Capitol Police would have the authority to charge a fee to cover any costs incurred by the Architect of the Capitol as a result of the issuance of the permit, to be deposited into the Capitol Trust Account. The Capitol Trust Account was established to accept proceeds from any fees collected for commercial filming permits for Union Square. Amounts in the Capitol Trust Account would be available without fiscal year limitation for such maintenance, improvements, and projects with respect to the Capitol grounds as the Architect of the Capitol considers appropriate, subject to the approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate.

Vistas of the U.S. Capitol are among America's most iconic. Limiting commercial filming and photography of the Capitol, an important vehicle for telling the nation's story, does not serve the American people. Indeed, most of the world's people know our country and revere our system of government largely through commercial photography and films of the Capitol, which symbolizes our democracy at work. Commercial films and photographs of the Capitol, the seat of our democracy, are perhaps the best modem vehicles for telling the nation's story and showcasing its democratic system of government. My bill would enable appropriate, permitted commercial filming and photography of the Capitol, and would create economic benefits for the nation, the city, and private business.

I urge support of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concern on consideration of H.R. 311. This legislation would inexplicably weaken environmental safeguards against oil spills for one specific sector of our economy, American farms.

Under current law, any facility that stores certain quantities of oil is required to take precautionary steps to prevent the discharge of oil into U.S. waters. These requirements apply across the board based on the quantity of oil stored in the facility, which can range from an industrial facility to a service station to, of course, a farm.

These steps, outlined in the EPA's implementation regulations, known as the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure--or SPCC--rule, require facilities put in place appropriate measures to prevent any spilled oil from entering the water, which can include both the construction of containment systems or more simplistic measures to capture small leaks.

The SPCC rule also requires such facilities to have a plan in place in advance that identifies additional measures to clean up any oil that might otherwise escape such containment. These provisions generally have been in place since 1974 and have been in force for farmers since May 2013.

Since that time, all farmers who fall within the guidelines of the SPCC rule should now have put in place appropriately scaled countermeasures based on the size of their facility and the likelihood of an oil spill reaching U.S. waters; yet H.R. 311 would modify the existing obligations for farmers to comply with the SPCC rule.

In many instances, H.R. 311 would alleviate existing SPCC obligations for farmers to develop oil spill contingency plans, especially for those farmers that store less than 10,000 gallons of oil in above- ground containers.

In summary, this bill would tell farmers that currently have these measures in place to stop taking precautionary efforts to prevent spills.

Why does this legislation make this change? Is it because the oil stored on farms is less likely to spill or to pollute U.S. waters than other facilities that store oil? There is no empirical evidence in the committee record that this is the case.

Is it because the oil stored on farms is any different from oil stored at other facilities? Again, the answer is likely no.

The stated reason for this legislation is that these safeguards simply cost too much for American farmers, but the reality is, for many farmers, many of these costs have already taken place, especially any capital costs that might have been required for containment structures.

So, in reality, many of the compliance cost concerns expressed in this bill may well be overstated, as annual compliance costs may now be reduced simply to cover periodic maintenance.

Mr. Speaker, again, I have concerns with this legislation, and I hope that, as we continue to work through this issue, we will come up with a more sensible way of addressing the protection

of our American farms, as well as the protection of our U.S. waters.

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

Natural Resources Defense Council,

Washington, DC, March 11, 2014.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: Today, March 11, the House of

Representatives is scheduled to consider H.R. 311, under

suspension of the rules. This bill would decrease the

oversight of oil storage and safeguards against spills at

locations around the country for one class of facilities

without showing that they are safer than other facilities

with the same volume of oil.

H.R. 311 increases the amount of storage capacity that

triggers various requirements under the spill prevention,

control and countermeasure (SPCC) rules for any ``farm,''

defined as ``a facility on a tract of land devoted to the

production of crops or raising of animals, including fish,

which produced and sold, or normally would have produced and

sold, $1,000 or more of agricultural products during a

year.'' Consequently, more operations will be subject to

weaker requirements or will be exempt altogether, as compared

to the safeguards currently in place.

Oil is no less harmful to waterways and the people and

wildlife that depend on the nation's waters if it happens to

be spilled at an agricultural operation. It is common sense

that any facility located such that a spill could reasonably

reach waterways and cause harm--including agricultural

facilities--should take steps to prevent spills and plan to

respond to those that occur. Coming so soon after the

chemical and coal slurry spills in West Virginia and the coal

ash spill in North Carolina, it is nothing short of

astonishing that Congress would weaken protections that seek

to prevent, plan for, and address spills that could

contaminate drinking water supplies or harm aquatic life.

The changes that H.R. 311 would impose would weaken current

protections enormously. Take for instance the provisions that

exempt facilities from the SPCC requirements; under H.R. 311,

agri-businesses with an ``aggregate aboveground storage

capacity'' of oil of 10,000 gallons or less would be exempt,

compared with 1,320 gallons under current law. That provision

alone is troubling, but the bill is even weaker than it

appears at first blush, as it would also change the threshold

for storage containers that can be ignored in the calculation

of aboveground storage capacity from 55 gallons to 1,320

gallons, so long as a facility has not had a history of

spills. That would allow covered operations to avoid the SPCC

planning and prevention requirements entirely by having an

unlimited number of 1,319-gallon tanks on site.

Agri-business operations already have been given

significant flexibility in meeting the SPCC requirements.

They have had an extended period of time to comply with

changes to the applicable provisions; other facilities have

been subject to these requirements since 2010 or 2011,

whereas agri-businesses with the requisite oil storage

capacity were due to comply in May, 2013. Section 1416 of the

March, 2013 continuing resolution, Public Law 113-6, later

prohibited the use of funds to enforce this requirement until

September, 2013. The rules also provide flexibility in

developing plans for certain operations with smaller storage

volumes and a good history with respect to spills. And EPA

provided for individual extensions of the deadline under some

circumstances. Given that the deadline has now passed for

farms, it is hard to understand what H.R. 311 would

accomplish, aside from allowing newly-exempt operators to

ignore the plans and procedures they have already developed,

and rewarding those facilities that did not comply with the

rules on time.

Congress should not gamble the nation's water resources for

the sake of one industry. Please maintain sensible safeguards

against oil spills and oppose H.R. 311.

Sincerely,

Scott Slesinger,

Legislative Director,

Natural Resources Defense Council.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I introduce an important bill for the administration of justice in the District of Columbia. The bill would make minor, technical changes to the authorities of the District of Columbia Courts (Courts), the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (PDS) and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA), placing these entities in the same position as their federal counterparts for more effective management and operation.

This bill would allow the Courts to collect debts owed to it by its employees (e.g., debts from loss or damage to property, improper credit card payments, erroneous payments to employees). The Executive Officer of the Courts would have to provide employees with at least 30 days' written notice regarding the debt collection, and employees would have the right to a hearing conducted by an independent officer. The bill would also give the Courts the authority to purchase uniforms to ensure the safety of its building engineers, facilities maintenance workers and mail personnel. These service employees must regularly access buildings run by the Courts at all hours. The increase in the number of security incidents in courthouses throughout the country and the location of the Courts in the nation's capital require visual security and uniformity of staff to help ensure that unauthorized persons do not enter secure areas.

The bill would expressly allow PDS to accept and use public grants, voluntary and uncompensated services, such as unpaid law clerks and interns, and private contributions made to advance PDS's work. It would also allow PDS board members to be treated as PDS employees for purposes of liability. Apparently, a drafting oversight in the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 makes PDS's volunteer board of trustees District of Columbia employees for purposes of any action brought against board members. This bill would rectify this oversight.

Finally, the bill would allow CSOSA to develop and implement incentive-based programming to accompany its current sanction policies. Combining both sanctions and incentives has been proven to be more effective in improving compliance with supervision. The bill also would authorize CSOSA to solicit, receive and use gifts for the purpose of advancing its work, and would require the Director to keep detailed records on the use of CSOSA's gift authority. It would also permit the Director to enter into cost-reimbursable agreements with the D.C. government for space or services provided. The D.C. government is a frequent partner of CSOSA due to its location in D.C. and CSOSA's mandate to assist in the reintegration of D.C. code offenders into society. Giving CSOSA the authority to enter into reimbursable agreements with the District is necessary to assist CSOSA in its daily work.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill to require the Library of Congress

(LOC) to install the District of Columbia seal in the Main Reading Room of the Thomas Jefferson Building of the LOC. The bill calls on the Library of Congress to take the appropriate action to depict the seal of the District of Columbia on the stained-glass windows in the Main Reading Room, where the seals of the states are depicted. Currently, the stained-glass windows contain the seals of all states and territories that existed when the building was constructed, except for the seal of the District of Columbia, whose seal was readily available at the time and should have been depicted. This omission was brought to my attention by a District resident, Luis Landau, a former docent at the Library. We are asking that this omission be corrected at the earliest time. In addition to the omission of the District of Columbia, the only currently unrepresented states from the stained-glass display are Hawaii and Alaska, but they were not states or territories when the building was constructed. The fact that these two states were not part of the Union at the time of the creation of the stained-glass windows argues for a depiction of the District seal as well, which, after all, was in fact the nation's capital at the time.

The residents of the District of Columbia have always had all the obligations of American citizenship, including paying federal taxes and service in all the nation's wars, including the War of 1812, during which the Capitol building, which then housed the Library of Congress, was burned, prompting construction of the current Library of Congress building with the state and territory seals. It is, therefore, without question that the District and its residents should receive equal treatment among the stained-glass windows that portray the history of the United States. D.C. residents deserve to have their history and American citizenship recognized.

There is existing evidence that the seal of the District of Columbia should have been depicted. The Members of Congress room in the Jefferson Building, which is not open to the public, has a painted depiction of the D.C. seal, along with state seals, on its ceiling. This precedent reinforces our request to be represented among the stained-glass windows in the Main Reading Room, which is open to the public. There is no reason why the D.C. seal cannot be added with the planned restoration of the stained-glass. The right time to add the seal of the District of Columbia, whose residents pay full taxes and have served in all the nation's wars, like the residents of the 50 states, would be during the planned restoration.

Congress already automatically includes the District of Columbia and its residents, or has corrected the omission of the District of Columbia, when honoring the states. For example, the District of Columbia War Memorial honors District residents who served in World War I, the World War II Memorial includes a column representing the District of Columbia, the flag of the District of Columbia is displayed among the flags of the fifty states in the tunnel connecting the House office buildings to the Capitol, and D.C.'s Frederick Douglass statue now sits in the Capitol alongside the statues from the 50 states. In January of last year, the President signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which contains language requiring the armed services to display the District of Columbia flag whenever the flags of the states are displayed. Legislation was also enacted to give D.C. a coin after it was omitted from legislation creating coins for the 50 states. I also successfully worked with the U.S. Postal Service to create a D.C. stamp, like the stamps for the 50 states, and worked with the National Park Service to add the D.C. flag alongside the state flags. Inclusion of the D.C. seal, along with the seals of the states, is the next step.

I urge support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate the birthday of Frederick Douglass, I introduce a bill that would establish a Bicentennial Commission to study ways that the Federal Government might honor and celebrate the life of Douglass during the bicentennial anniversary of his birth in 2018.

Frederick Douglass was born into slavery in 1818 on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. He learned basic reading skills from his mistress and continued to teach himself and other slaves to read and write despite the risks he faced, including death. After two attempts, Douglass successfully escaped from slavery to New York and became an anti- slavery lecturer and abolitionist. He went on to serve in several administrations, including as a close advisor to President Abraham Lincoln, U.S. Marshal of the District of Columbia under President Rutherford B. Hayes and District of Columbia Recorder of Deeds under President James Garfield. In 1889, President Benjamin Harrison appointed Frederick Douglass to be the U.S. minister to Haiti. He was later appointed by President Ulysses S. Grant to serve as secretary of the commission of Santo Domingo.

Douglass dedicated his life to achieving justice for all Americans. He lived in the District of Columbia for 23 of his 57 years as a free man and was deeply committed to obtaining equal congressional voting and self-government rights for District of Columbia residents. His home, Cedar Hill, was established as a National Historic Site, in Anacostia in Southeast Washington, DC and his statue in the U.S. Capitol is a gift from the almost 650,000 American citizens of the District of Columbia.

My bill would simply establish a commission to examine ways the Federal Government can honor Douglass during the bicentennial anniversary of his birth, including the issuance of a Frederick Douglass bicentennial postage stamp, the convening of a joint meeting or joint session of Congress for ceremonies and activities relating to Frederick Douglass, a rededication of the Frederick Douglass National Historic Site, and the acquisition and preservation of artifacts associated with Frederick Douglass. The Commission would report its findings and recommendations to Congress.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Promoting National Service and Reducing Unemployment Act, to address one of the greatest workforce tragedies resulting from today's economy--our unemployed young people--and to spur economic growth and alleviate strain on state and local governments. This tragedy is not only hurting our young people, it is costing our government $25 billion each year through lost tax revenue and other costs. While over 10.4 million Americans are unemployed, my bill targets the 3.8 million young people who have not had a fair chance to ever use their high school and college education, which this nation has strongly urged them to get.

What is particularly disappointing is the high unemployment rate for young people who heeded our advice to graduate from high school and college, only to try to enter the workforce in the worst economy in generations. The total unemployment rate was 7.3 percent compared to 16.3 percent for young adults aged 16 to 24 even during the recent summer. Hundreds of thousands now compete for unpaid internships wherever they can find them. By significantly expanding AmeriCorps, my bill, without needing a new administrative structure or bureaucracy, would allow unemployed young people to earn a stipend sufficient to support themselves and to obtain work experience and secure a good work history to help them obtain future employment. The net cost of the expansion would be low, because these young people would be providing urgently needed local services that are being dropped or curtailed because of federal, state, and local budget cuts, such as after-school programs, tutoring, and assistance for the elderly.

The bill would significantly expand job opportunities for young people who have played by the rules but find themselves unemployed in this economy. It would increase the number of participants in the AmeriCorps State and National program from approximately 78,000 to 500,000 full-time participants. Participants receive a living allowance, which most find sufficient to meet their basic needs, and are also eligible for an education award equal to the value of a Pell grant, for school-loan forbearance, health care benefits and child care assistance. By expanding the program, we would reduce the number of unemployed young people, provide them with the work skills and experience they would not get while unemployed, and help cash-strapped states and local governments provide services that they would otherwise have to cut.

For some time, it has been clear that policies to address today's unusually stubborn unemployment need to be targeted in order to be effective. Without significant targeting, young graduates will continue to face their first years as adults without jobs and with no way to acquire work experience. They deserve better. I ask my colleagues to support this urgently needed targeted assistance for young, unemployed Americans.

Mr. Speaker, as we commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, my colleagues Representatives Donna Edwards, Jim Moran and Frank Wolf join me to introduce a bill to recognize and preserve the Civil War Defenses of Washington located in the District of Columbia, Virginia and Maryland. The defenses of Washington, including forts, unarmed batteries and rifle trenches, created a ring of protection for the nation's capital during the Civil War. This bill would redesignate the 22 Civil War Defenses of Washington currently under National Park Service jurisdiction as a national historical park, and allow other sites associated with the Civil War Defenses of Washington that are owned by a unit of local government in Maryland, Virginia, or the District of Columbia to be affiliated with the national historic park through cooperative agreements. This bill would also require the Secretary of the Interior to facilitate the storied history of the Civil War for both the North and the South, including the history of the defenses of Washington and the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864, being assembled, arrayed and conveyed for the benefit of the public for the knowledge, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.

The Civil War Defenses of Washington were constructed at the beginning of the war, in 1861, as a ring of protection for the nation's capital and for President Abraham Lincoln. By the end of the war, these defenses included 68 forts, 93 unarmed batteries, 807 mounted cannons, 13 miles of rifle trenches, and 32 miles of military roads. The major test of the Civil War Defenses of Washington came with the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864, when Confederate Lieutenant General Jubal Early, directed by General Robert E. Lee, sought to attack the nation's capital from the north, causing Union Forces threatening to attack Richmond, the capital of the Confederacy, to be withdrawn. General Early was delayed by Union Major General Lew Wallace at the Battle of Monocacy on July 9, 1864, and was stopped at the northern edge of Washington at the Battle of Fort Stevens on July 11-12, 1864. The Shenandoah Valley Campaign ended when Union Lieutenant General Philip Sheridan defeated General Early at the Battle of Cedar Creek, Virginia, on October 19, 1864.

Nearly all the individual forts in the Civil Defenses of Washington-- on both sides of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers--were involved in stopping General Early's attack, and the Battle of Fort Stevens was the second and last attempt by the Confederate Army to attack Washington.

Taken together, these battles were pivotal to the outcome of the war and the freedom and democracy that the war represented for this country. It is therefore fitting that we recognize these sites by redesignating them as a national historic park as we commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Civil War.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor two Clerk of the House employees, Trudi Terry and Irene Dickerman, for their years of service to the House of Representatives. Both Trudi and Irene will be retiring after working in the Clerk of the House's organization for more than 15 years.

Trudi was born in Amarillo, Texas and received a Bachelor of Arts and Science in Secondary Education with certification in English, Speech, and Physical Education from West Texas State University. After college, Trudi became a Certified Reporter Instructor

(CRI) and Certified Program Evaluator (CPE) from the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA). As a CPE, Trudi was a member of the national evaluating team tasked with traveling to schools nationwide and determining if those schools met the certification requirements of the NCRA. In 1999, Trudi was hired as a Scopist in the Office of the Official Reporters, a division within the Clerk of the House's organization. As a Scopist, Trudi edited the official transcript, first for House committees and then proceedings of the House floor for the Congressional Record. In 2001, Trudi moved into a new role within the Clerk's organization and assumed the position as the Assistant Chief Clerk of Debates.

In 2004, Trudi became the Chief Clerk of Debates and will hold this position until her retirement on February 3, 2014. During her tenure, Trudi developed a reputation of having a strong work ethic and steadfast dedication to the institution of the House of Representatives. She will be missed by Members of Congress, House staff, and her department colleagues.

Irene Dickerman was born in Los Angeles, California and received a Bachelor of Arts and Science in English Literature from California State University in Northridge, California. After college, Irene also became a CPI from the NCRA. In 1999, Irene was hired as a Scopist in the Office of the Official Reporters. As a Scopist, Irene edited the official transcript, first for House committees and then proceedings of the House floor for the Congressional Record. In 2006, Irene became the Chief Editor and will be in this position until her retirement on February 3, 2014. Irene was well respected as an individual who possessed deep institutional knowledge and maintained a strong level of accuracy in her capacity within the Clerk of the House's organization.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I appreciate the opportunity to speak, particularly since I was denied the courtesy of speaking on this bill, which targets my own district.

Madam Speaker, the only thing worse than targeting the reproductive health of the Nation's women is reaching beyond that to do even greater damage to the women of a local jurisdiction--to permanently keep the District of Columbia from spending its own local funds on abortion services for poor women, as 17 States do. Among them are Alaska, Arizona, and Montana, hardly bastions of liberalism.

Mind you, such spending is already barred in the annual D.C. appropriations bill. Yet H.R. 7 strips--imagine this--strips the District of Columbia of its very identity for purposes of abortion by deeming the District of Columbia government to be part of the Federal Government. What an indignity.

Republicans captured the majority in the name of local control and devolving Federal power to the States and localities. Today, you turn your own principles on their heads to snatch power from a local jurisdiction. We will insist that Republicans practice what they preach.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 125th anniversary of Rock Creek Park, I introduce a bill to redesignate Rock Creek Park in the District of Columbia as ``Rock Creek National Park in the District of Columbia.'' The bill will help clarify the difference between the contiguous Rock Creek Park land that is owned by the State of Maryland and the portion that is under federal jurisdiction in the District of Columbia. Renaming this park will also highlight the significance of the park for the nation, including visitors to the nation's capital, and particularly for the residents of the District of Columbia, to encourage more daily use and involvement with the park's beautiful trails, waterways and features.

Rock Creek Park is a historically rich 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 the natural state of the park is maintained as much as possible.

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 great pre- Revolutionary War architectural merit, was acquired. The building was restored, and programs explain the house's rich history from the colonial period to present day. The Fort Circle Parks were also acquired to interpret and preserve the Civil Defenses of Washington, which created a ring of protection for the nation's capital during the Civil War.

Today, Rock Creek Park offers District of Columbia, Maryland, and Northern Virginia residents an escape from urban living. 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. Moreover, residents are involved in the cleanup and maintenance of the trails and waterways. Rock Creek Conservancy works directly with the National Park Service and is dedicated to protecting and promoting the entirety of the Rock Creek watershed through conservation, recreation, and education programs.

Redesignating Rock Creek Park will help highlight its national status and protect and revitalize this remarkable resource in our nation's capital. It also is fitting that we recognize its historical significance as we approach the 125th anniversary of Rock Creek Park.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Madam Speaker, Congress has a lot on its plate, and it is trying its best to pursue it. I am pleased to hear that we may be close to an agreement on the budget, but with all we have to do with respect to the economy, the environment, income inequality, and unemployment insurance, I think the public would be concerned when the Congress goes off course and no longer involves itself only in the Nation's business but interferes with the business of local jurisdictions. One of the cardinal principles of our Nation is, of course, what is local is local and not for the Federal Government.

This afternoon, I want to speak about three issues where the Nation has been drawn into local affairs by the Congress, much against the bipartisan principles on both sides of this Chamber and of the Senate as well. One issue involved the shutdown of a local government. Another involved something, perhaps, even more sacred: the autonomy every local government demands over its local funds and, only yesterday, the near- sacred autonomy over the local laws of a local jurisdiction.

Yesterday, there was a hearing. I would not have objected to the hearing. It was about a very controversial subject, and I happened to be on the other side of the majority, but it is a subject that divides the Nation, and it deserves to be aired. It had to do with what looked to be re-codifying and, perhaps, also adding some provisions on reproductive choice by Members of the majority who oppose abortion in all of its forms, as do many of the American people.

Of course, we have a Supreme Court decision that has ruled on abortion. Nevertheless, there continues to be legislation and interest in this issue here.

Yesterday's hearing was a little curious because, for the most part, the issues have long been addressed by the Congress in appropriations bills. Nobody talks about the so-called Hyde amendment anymore because that has to do with Federal funds for access to abortion. That is no longer much contested.

There is a so-called Helms amendment, which denies access to safe abortion care with U.S.-paid funds in other parts of the world; codifying that. There were some add-ons that you typically might expect from the subcommittee for the Affordable Care Act; to make sure that federal civil servants and the military do not have access to abortion, etc.

I went to the hearing. Frankly, I found it very interesting, the press was interested in only--at least as I read this morning--largely interested in only one matter. That had to do with my request to testify on what was really a minor section of this bill. It was very important to us, but very minor in the bill.

It is a section that would codify something, again, that the appropriators already have done, that is, to keep D.C. from spending its own local funds on abortions for low-income women.

Remember, I just said the Hyde amendment keeps us from spending Federal funds. Note that I am talking only about local funds. In case you think we are an outlier here, 17 States provide local funds for abortions for their poor women because states and localities cannot spend Federal funds. We only want what they have. Those 17 States, by the way, include Alaska, Arizona, Montana--and I won't go on, but you can see that they may be States of various political views that simply don't want low-income women to be left out of the reproductive choice guaranteed by the Supreme Court's decision regarding abortion.

What the press was most interested in was not the major portions of the bill but the fact that Chairman Trent Franks included a D.C. provision in his bill, a provision that says though these are D.C.'s local funds--$8 billion, we are proud to say--raised by local taxpayers, our businesses and our residents, 100 percent of it local funds--that we, and we alone, in the United States must accept the dictates from the Congress of the United States about where we may spend our own

local funds when some of its Members disagree, as I am sure they would disagree with the 17 States who spend their local funds in the very same way.

Since my own district was the only district mentioned in the bill, I did what any red-blooded Member of Congress would do. I wrote a respectful letter saying, as a courtesy from one Member to another, may I testify for a few minutes with respect to the D.C. provision?

I wrote that letter the moment I heard that this matter was to come forward for a hearing. It was hand-delivered to Chairman Franks' office. I heard no response. My counsel, Brad Truding, called repeatedly the next day. Frankly, I never heard a response until our office called.

We called the ranking member, Jerry Nadler, who did tell us that he heard a response, and that I was to be denied the right to testify on a provision involving my own district.

That is what has captured the press, not the many underlying issues, some of which I have just reiterated, of the bill itself, because one thing that captures the public imagination is discourtesy here in this Congress. I didn't receive a courtesy of a reply, and I didn't receive the courtesy of testifying with respect to a provision affecting my district.

Yet, Members are routinely offered the right to testify, usually before the named witnesses, just as a courtesy. In addition, even though you see us go at one another on this floor, if we are discourteous on the floor, they will take down our words and we will have to come to the well of the House and explain ourselves. That is how important courtesy is. You can't have 440 Members without that kind of courtesy.

I don't even know Chairman Franks. I don't think he meant any personal discourtesy to me. I am sure of that, as I sat in the hearing and he explained himself and welcomed me to the hearing, it was clear that he didn't mean any personal discourtesy. What he did, however, was to exercise discourtesy from one Member to another Member, and he did so on a matter of some importance.

There is no Member of this body who would sanction an attack on her local jurisdiction without getting up to protest it. I may not be able to vote on this bill when it comes to the floor, but should I not be able to speak on the matter?

D.C. matters come to this floor time and again, and all I can do is talk. If there is any decency in this body, surely nobody would shut me up. There is no Member of the Senate of the United States who represents the 640,000 residents of D.C., who pay taxes to the federal government and have gone to war each and every time since the Nation was created. There is only one Member. She is a delegate. She has no vote on this floor. She only can vote in committee. All she can do is speak.

In our democracy, who would want to say you cannot even speak? That is what happened yesterday. As a result, important issues--certainly, important to the committee regarding abortion--were not even the focus of the media attention. They just flew from their attention span because of the denial of a Member the right to speak on a provision that affected only her jurisdiction.

I am clear on where I stand on reproductive freedom, and I oppose that bill in its entirely. Every Member of the House knows that bill will never see the light of day on the other side of the Congress, in the Senate, and will never become law. It is a message bill. That is all right. Both sides, when they capture the Congress, participate in message bills. The problem with the majority in the House today is that it only does message bills. That is why this Congress has now gone down as the Congress that was the least productive in American history, because all it did was message bills.

Well, it is one thing to have a message bill on the United States of America. It is another to have a message bill that involves a message pertaining to a local jurisdiction where the local jurisdiction has no voice. No vote, no voice.

The bill managed to be an affront on two counts. It denies our low- income women the right to the reproductive choice that they would have if D.C. could pay for their reproductive choices, as 17 different States do, and it violated the very principle of local government, which was at the root of the American Revolution.

In one of the great contortions in legislation, the bill seems to have recognized that you cannot really legislate for a local jurisdiction. So it redefines the District of Columbia government as a part of the Federal Government for purposes of abortion.

Imagine having your city and your county redefined as now a part of the United States Government in order to pass a bill you do not want. That was a concession in itself against the bill, that they had to redefine us out of who we are into who this Nation is. That kind of contortion undercut any possible legitimacy for the bill.

This is the kind of thing that led to the war on women last Congress. You see what effect that had.

The Republicans want to start out again with the Member who cannot fight back in the way they do because she doesn't have a vote on this floor by denying her even the right to speak on a bill affecting her jurisdiction. Go at it. We will not let it rest.

We all witnesses this same local jurisdiction, the District of Columbia, now one of the most successful local jurisdictions in the United States, that raised $8 billion on our own. We are building everywhere. We added 50,000 people in the last census. Yet, this jurisdiction faced the shutdown in the just-past infamous shutdown of the Federal Government.

Well, the public will say, That can't be. They shut down the Federal Government. As a matter of fact, the Congress makes the District of Columbia bring its $8 billion local budget right here, to sign off on it, before we can spend our own local funds.

You are hearing the very definition of autocracy, not democracy. When money that the Congress has nothing to do with has to come before this Chamber in any form or fashion, that can lead to catastrophe--and it almost did, because the Congress had gotten to not one bit of the one business it has to do every single year, and that is pass bills for appropriations for its own government. They hadn't done one.

Among those, tucked into one of its bills was the independent jurisdiction of the District of Columbia. The mayor was put to using contingency funds to keep the city open during those 16 days. Normally, he has to do the same shutdown preparation that OPM, the Department of Education, or the Department of Transportation has to do. Instead, he used his contingency funds. The problem is he was running out of contingency funds.

There were Members of this body that helped me finally in negotiations with the administration, with our Republican colleagues, and of course, with the Democrats in the Senate. I thank Chairman Darrell Issa, who chairs the Oversight and Government Reform Committee with jurisdiction, among other things, over the District of Columbia.

I thank majority leader, Eric Cantor, a member of this regional delegation, for his efforts as well. There were just as many Republicans and Democrats in the Senate who were helpful, and others whom I have not named, who were helpful here.

But it took a three-way negotiation to get us out of that; and the reason that negotiation was important is that we are waiting, as I speak, to see whether or not there is going to be another government shutdown now. I am hopeful about that because we are told that we may have a delay for a few days.

The prospect is there won't be another shutdown; but we didn't know that, then, so I had to negotiate for something that the Federal agencies do not yet have. They are now being run on what is called a ``continuing resolution'' based on last year's appropriation, 2013 funds.

Imagine if we had had to do that, run a big city on funds from last year instead of your appropriated funds for this year. That could result in violation of contracts, all kinds of upheavals in your city.

Fortunately, I was able to negotiate a bill that would keep us open for the rest of the year, that is, the fiscal year. The Federal Government still has to do that for its own agencies.

Why in the world would anybody want any local jurisdiction to be caught up in that federal mess?

Fortunately, there is no disagreement on this. I don't want to leave the

impression that this is a matter of great contention. The Senate has what we call ``shutdown avoidance language'' for the Nation's Capital in its D.C. appropriations bill. The President's budget had such language too.

My own colleagues here, Mr. Issa, for example, is for anti-shutdown language. The appropriators have indicated the very same.

I am hoping that as the appropriation bill passes--sorry--comes to the floor, it will have that shutdown avoidance language in it. Indeed, I am hoping it will have budget autonomy in it.

The President's budget had budget autonomy language. The Senate appropriations now has budget autonomy in it.

Hasn't the time come to say to the Nation's Capital, the residents who raise their own money here in the District of Columbia, that if you raise it, you can spend it, and the Congress does not have to be a pass-through for you?

Isn't it time to say that, at least, because Wall Street charges D.C. a penalty because, after it passes its balanced budget, the city has to come to the Congress, which passes no balanced budgets. Any time somebody else has to look at your budget, there is an additional layer. You pay for the extra layer because it should not be there and is not there for any other jurisdiction.

If all of this seems strange and against American traditions, imagine legislation coming here. That one, the last one I want to discuss is Kafkaesque in the extreme.

The District of Columbia passes a bill, it is supposed to lay over here before it can take effect for 30 legislative, not calendar, days, and 60 for criminal matters, except our legislative days are far and few between. So bills have to lay over here long past a 30-day period, usually for at least 3 calendar months.

Now, you are running a big city. Let me give you one of the more laughable examples that is not atypical, but I give it to you because you can see that this is the kind of subject matter that would never interest the Congress.

The congressional review, or layover, period for the change that the District made in its laws to exchange the word ``handicap'' for ``disability'' took 9 months. It took 9 months. In order to keep legislation from lapsing, the District has to pass temporary legislation and then another extension of legislation. And it has to keep passing various kinds of temporary bills of its final bills until it finally gets through these review days.

The council estimates that about 65 percent, up to 65 percent, of the bills it passes could be eliminated were it not for this make-work procedure.

Now, this isn't painless. The council says it takes 5,000 employee- hours and 160,000 sheets of paper per Council period; and you'd better be precise, because if you miss one of these periods, and there are usually three different periods during which these bills pass until you get to the 30 legislative days, the bill could lapse, and then you would have to start all over again.

That would be bad enough if Congress had a reason for requiring these bills to come here. Congress never looks at these bills. If there is something that the Council of the District of Columbia does that the Congress thinks it shouldn't do, it knows exactly what to do, at least in its own view.

Why bother with introducing a bill here, having it come to the floor, and doing the same thing in the Senate?

Why not simply try to attach your objection or amendment to something else?

So the Congress simply uses the appropriation bills and attaches whatever it wants to overturn. At the moment, there is only one such matter and that is the abortion rider; and it simply tucks that into another bill.

On only three occasions has the Congress ever used the review, or layover period, to overturn a D.C. law: 1979, 1981, and 1991. And two of those directly involved Federal interests, so Congress was within its rights.

In fact, if the truth be told, the District was not trying to defy the Federal Government.

In fact, I would have been with the Congress on this because Federal interests were involved on two of them. The District mistook, was mistaken in the extent to where there was a Federal interest involved.

So those were not even attempts to try to challenge the Federal Government. Those were mistakes. Had I been here at the time, I would have tried to correct them before they got very far by going to the District before they ever got here.

In any case, you have a Sisyphus-like process, keep rolling up the hill, keep spending all that money, keep exerting all those employee- hours, for a process that Congress has long abandoned and pays no attention to.

My bill says to a Congress which regularly passes paperwork-reduction bills, this is a classic example of where it is needed. I do not believe there is the slightest opposition here. It is a matter of inertia. I am trying to make it rise above the ground where it has laid since I have been introducing this bill.

I don't believe for a moment that there is a single Member that wishes the District, or any other jurisdiction, or any part of this government, to engage in such a labor-intensive, costly process, even if it had an outcome, but particularly one that the Congress itself abandoned and has abandoned into disuse.

So, Madam Speaker, I brought these matters of local concern to the floor today because they are, I think, every last one of them, matters about which most Members are unaware, and for good reason.

Members are dealing with their own districts and with the Nation's business. They really don't have any reason to care about whether or not the District spends its local money one way or the other, about what laws it has passed, and if it is shut down. In the case of D.C. bills only three out of 4,500 D.C. bills have been overturned. It has abandoned one of these processes altogether.

The District had a budget autonomy referendum that, technically, is law. It is in some danger, so I am trying still to get budget autonomy through the Congress and to the President.

I can not believe that, with many conservative Members of this House who believe in local matters for local folks, that I would not have support here. I recognize that abortion is a controversial issue, and I have the deepest respect for those who disagree with me on that issue; but I think most Members would agree that that is a matter for local jurisdictions to decide.

Wherever we stand on the Nation's business, we are as one on local principles. Local matters are for local jurisdictions. That cannot be your principle for every jurisdiction in the United States except the District of Columbia. The matter of democracy, which we have tried to spread throughout the world, cannot be a matter for every nation on the face of this Earth except the Nation's Capital.

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

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 58 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, January 13, 2014, at noon for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the District of Columbia Paperwork Reduction Act, to eliminate the wasteful congressional review process for legislation passed by

the District of Columbia Council and to align longtime congressional practice and the law. The congressional review process for D.C. bills provides no benefit to Congress, but imposes substantial costs (in time and money) on the District. Indeed, Congress effectively abandoned the congressional review process as a mechanism for overturning D.C. legislation twenty-three years ago, yet it still requires the D.C. Council to use Kafkaesque make-work procedures to comply with the abandoned congressional review process established by the Home Rule Act of 1973.

The bill would eliminate the congressional review process for legislation passed by the D.C. Council. Congress would lose no authority it currently exercises because, even upon enactment of my bill, Congress would retain its authority under clause 17 of section 8 of article I of the U.S. Constitution to amend or overturn any D.C. legislation at any time.

The congressional review process (30 days for civil bills and 60 days for criminal bills) includes only those days when both houses of Congress are in session, delaying D.C. bills from becoming law, often for many months. The delay forces the D.C. Council to pass most bills several times, using a cumbersome and complicated process to ensure that the operations of this large and rapidly changing city continue uninterrupted, or in the alternative, the lapse of the bill before it becomes final. The review period, based on legislative, not calendar, days means, for example, that a 30-day period usually lasts three calendar months and often much longer because of congressional recesses. The congressional review period for a bill that changed the word ``handicap'' to ``disability'' lasted nine months. The Council estimates that 50-65 percent of the bills the Council passes could be eliminated if the review period did not exist. To ensure predictability, the Council often must pass the same legislation in three forms--emergency (in effect for 90 days), temporary (in effect for 225 days) and permanent. Moreover, the Council has to carefully track the days Congress is in session for each piece of legislation it passes to avoid gaps and to determine when the bills have taken effect. The Council estimates that it could save 5,000 employee-hours and 160,000 sheets of paper per Council period if the review period were eliminated.

My bill would do no more than align the Home Rule Act with congressional practice over the last twenty-three years. Since the Home Rule Act, of the more than 4,500 legislative acts transmitted to Congress, only three resolutions disapproving D.C. legislation have been enacted--in 1979, 1981, and 1991--and two of those mistakenly involved federal interests in the Height Act and the location of chanceries. Placing a congressional hold on 4,500 D.C. bills has not only proven unnecessary, but also a waste of money and time for both the District and Congress. Instead of using the congressional review process to overturn D.C. legislation, Congress has preferred to use appropriations riders. It is particularly unfair to require the D.C. Council to engage in a labor-intensive and costly process that Congress has itself long ago abandoned. My bill would only eliminate the automatic hold placed on D.C. legislation and the need for the D.C. Council to use a process initially passed for the convenience of Congress, but one that Congress has since eliminated in all but law. The bill would promote efficiency and cost savings for the District, and carry out a policy stressed by Congress of eliminating needless paperwork and make-work redundancy.

I urge my colleagues to support this good-government measure.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Transit Parity Act of 2013. The bill will extend federal tax benefits for mass transit and parking at current levels for one year. There is currently a permanent provision providing federal tax benefits for parking and mass transit; however, the mass transit benefit is funded at half the level of the parking benefit. The mass transit benefit was temporarily raised this year, but with cuts to the mass transit benefit set to occur on January 1, 2014, impacts will be felt throughout this region and the country.

Millions of people commute in and out of cities every day, bolstering their economies and improving the overall wellbeing of the country, with this region as a prime example. Why would we want to encourage people to drive rather than use mass transit? At the very least, there is no excuse for preferential treatment of driving.

I support a permanent equalization of commuter benefits, but given the costs associated with a permanent extension, the focus of this bill is a temporary one-year extension of benefits. I will seek to bring this bill to the floor before Congress adjourns for the year. If the bill is not passed before then, I will seek retroactive equalization of benefits.

The bill will continue to encourage commuters to use mass transit by equalizing tax

benefits for mass transit and parking. Congress did the sensible thing when it increased the commuter benefit cap to $245 per month, the same as for parking earlier this year. Unless Congress takes action now, however, mass transit benefits will decrease by nearly 50 percent, to $130, while the benefit for parking will increase to $250. However, this bill makes federal tax benefits for mass transit and parking equal at $250 in 2014. I support a permanent equalization of commuter benefits, but given the costs associated with a permanent extension, the focus of this bill is on a one-year extension of equal benefits.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Reducing Long- Term Unemployment Act, to address one of the lingering workforce tragedies resulting from today's economy--our long-term unemployed--and to spur economic growth. While millions of Americans are unemployed, my bill targets those particularly hard hit by unemployment. In November 2013, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was 4.1 million, which accounted for 37.3 percent of the total unemployed population.

To make matters even worse, the unemployed now face employment discrimination and employers are reluctant to hire the long-term unemployed because of the length of their unemployment. Therefore, my bill provides a necessary incentive--a $5,000 tax credit for employers against their payroll tax liability for each (net) new long-term unemployed person they hire. The tax credit is large enough to give employers an incentive to increase hiring and wages, which would inject demand into the economy. The credit would be available to the broadest base of employers because every employer--government, non-profit and for-profit--pays payroll taxes, and employers could claim the credit on a quarterly rather than annual basis. According to the independent, non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the proposal would ``increase both output and employment,'' through four mechanisms: (1) with lower employment costs, employers would reduce the costs of their products and services, which, in turn, would first boost sales and then hiring and hours worked; (2) employers would pass on some of the tax savings to employees in the form of higher wages or other compensation, which, in turn, would increase employees' purchasing power; (3) higher profits would lead to higher stock prices for public companies, increasing shareholders' wealth and therefore their willingness to spend; and (4) with lower employment costs, employers would increase hiring. The bill has safeguards to prevent employers from gaming the system, including denying a credit to an employer that fires one employee and hires a replacement.

For some time, it has been clear that policies to address today's unusually stubborn unemployment need to be targeted in order to be effective. Without significant targeting, the long-term unemployed are in danger of becoming permanently unemployed. This group deserves better. The long-term unemployed are also at risk for losing their unemployment benefits without an extension of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program before December 28, 2013. I ask the House of Representatives to support this bill because it targets this too-often neglected group of Americans.