Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating the National Black Data Processing Associates (BDPA) on its 35th anniversary of service to the residents of the District of Columbia and, the national capital region and its 45 active chapters across the United States.

Founded in May 1975 by Earl Pace and the late David Wimberly, BDPA was formed out of a concern shared by both men that minorities were not adequately represented in the information technology industry. The first BDPA chapter was organized in Philadelphia, PA in 1977. A year later, the second chapter was organized in Washington, D.C., and shortly thereafter, the third chapter was organized in Cleveland, OH. In 1979, BDPA was restructured as a national organization.

As the oldest and largest African American information technology (IT) organization, comprised of over 2,000 African-American IT professionals as well as, science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) college students, BDPA's vision is to be a powerful advocate for their stakeholders' interests within the global, technology industry. Its mission is to be a global member-focused technology organization that delivers programs and services for the professional well-being of its stakeholders.

BPDA continues to promote professional growth and technical development for the young people and those entering into information and communication technology (ICT) in academia and corporate America. We also appreciate BDPA and its 45 chapters for continuing to provide ICT opportunities for STEM students and professionals.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the 35th anniversary of the National Black Data Processing Associates, in congratulating them on their outstanding accomplishments and commitment to the residents of the District of Columbia and around the country, and in welcoming those attending the BDPA Annual National Technology Conference and Career Fair titled ``Diverse Opportunities In The Age of Convergence by Bringing Jobs Back to D.C.,'' on August 14- 17, 2013, at the Washington Hilton Hotel.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for the wise words of his opening statement. I also thank him for retrieving the views of law enforcement officials--inasmuch as we had no hearing on this bill. They were very informative.

Madam Speaker, with most of the business of the Nation languishing with no action in this House, Republicans have rushed to the floor with these so-called ``messaging'' bills. Let's make sure we get the message:

Republicans--the party that champions states' rights--want to preempt the States, to require Federal employees acting for the government to record conversations with clients. Republicans--the party that wants the Federal Government to operate like the private sector and pay people on the basis of merit--wants to deny bonuses to Federal employees who deserve them, regardless of merit. Perhaps worst of all, Madam Speaker, Republicans--who spent most of this term accusing IRS employees of denying due process to Republican organizations--now propose to fire SES employees without due process.

And get this: the Republican version of due process is to give the employee the right to apply for reinstatement to the political appointee who fired him. Then, after the fact, having never had a hearing, the dismissed employee can now appeal to the MSPB. This last one, of course, reverses the age-old principle of innocent until proven guilty, but it's much worse. Not only is there no due process, there's no process at all. You're fired. That one is embarrassingly unconstitutional.

These are messaging bills all right, Madam Speaker, and we get the message. Republican principles apply--except when they don't.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the District of Columbia Incentives for Business and Individual Investment Act, to reauthorize the federal tax incentives for investment in economically distressed areas in the District of Columbia, commonly known as the D.C. empowerment zone, and the D.C. $5,000 first-time homebuyer tax credit, both of which expired at the end of 2011. This bill would reauthorize the tax incentives through the end of 2015, and would be retroactive for 2012 and any period in 2013 during which they remain lapsed, consistent with similar empowerment zone legislation. The empowerment zone incentives include a special capital gains rate, expanded tax-exempt bond financing, additional expensing for equipment purchases and a wage credit of up to $3,000.

The D.C. tax incentives were due to be extended with the package of temporary tax provisions that Congress regularly extends, commonly known as ``tax extenders.'' However, the D.C. tax incentives, for the first time, were not included in the most recent tax extenders package, the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA or P.L. 112-240), which was approved at the beginning of the year. This omission was possible, and we believe occurred, because the D.C. empowerment zone was separately and specially created in 1997, several years after the first, similar urban empowerment zones were created.

Although the D.C. tax incentives, as well as a small number of other expiring temporary tax provisions, were not extended in ATRA, Congress, in the same bill, recognized that the benefits of incentives for investment in economically distressed communities outweighed their costs when it extended all the other empowerment zones. This same logic has particularly strong application to the D.C. tax incentives.

The Republican Party Platform first proposed the D.C. tax incentives in 1996, a year before Congress created them. Republicans, who saw D.C. as a demonstration for what tax incentives could do to revitalize a city, wanted to make the entire District of Columbia an empowerment zone. The Republican platform stated, ``We endorse proposals by the congressional Republican Leadership for dramatic reductions in federal taxes . . . within the District . . . . A Republican president will make it part of a comprehensive agenda to transform the nation's capital into a renewal community, an enterprise zone leading the way for the rest of urban America to follow.'' Every Republican platform since 1996 has indicated strong support for one or more of the D.C. tax incentives.

Senate and House Republicans took the lead in the creation of the D.C. tax incentives after an unprecedented financial crisis revealed the unique peril for a city required to pay for many state-like functions. They reasoned that the tax incentives would revive and sustain the District, and where they have been applicable, they have met that test. The success of the tax incentives is a vindication of the work of the cosponsors. The D.C. tax incentives were proposed by, among others, then-Senators Trent Lott (R-MS), Connie Mack (R-FL), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Spencer Abraham (R-MI), Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT), as well as by then-Representative Amo Houghton (R- NY), and have always been embraced by both Republican and Democratic Congresses and presidents.

The wisdom of the bipartisan use of modest, targeted tax incentives has been amply and visibly demonstrated in the economic resurgence in parts of the city designated as empowerment zones, including parts of downtown Washington. Effects of the empowerment zone incentives are apparent throughout the city, but among the most visible are the Penn Quarter neighborhood, which had limited residential, commercial and retail spaces and is now a popular mixed-use neighborhood, and the vibrant area around the Verizon Center, then a virtual downtown slum but now surrounded by offices, restaurants and nightlife.

Before the business tax incentives, the city found it difficult to retain, much less attract, businesses. However, one of the business tax incentives enabled the city government to issue more than $155 million in tax-exempt bonds on behalf of for-profit and non-profit entities for capital projects. For example, $15 million was issued for the construction of the International Spy Museum, which has brought the added benefit of increasing tourism.

In addition to the business tax incentives, the $5,000 homebuyer tax credit has provided invigorating nourishment to the District's badly starved residential tax base. This credit, which applied citywide, almost immediately reversed the city's alarming residential decline. According to the 2010 census, the District gained population (5.2%) for the first time since the 1950 census, with much of this increase traceable to the homebuyer tax credit. Not only did the homebuyer tax credit staunch the taxpayer exodus for the first time in decades, but with the stability that the credit initiated, other individuals and families began moving to the city. The District is attracting 1,100 residents a month, but these are mostly young, unmarried people. However, the goal of growing the residential tax base by 100,000 to ensure sustainability, set by Alice Rivlin, chair of the D.C. Financial Control Board, as well as a respectable business tax base, is far from being achieved. The city's residential tax base remains well below the Washington metropolitan region and the nation, where it trails all 50 states. In 2012, the homeownership rate in D.C. was 45%, compared to the national rate of 65.4%. D.C.'s homeownership rate was also lowest among the 75 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas and significantly lower than in the statistical area for the Washington metropolitan region, which was 66.9%. The reauthorization of the homebuyer tax credit is essential if the District is to reach the 100,000 residents the Financial Control Board said was required for the city to sustain itself.

For all of its recent economic progress, the District remains a city without a state backstop. Recognizing this anomaly, Congress passed the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, but the city continues to operate many state-like services, such as higher education, roads and bridges, and health and human services. Furthermore, the federal government continues to impose significant revenue constraints on the District in the Home Rule Act, including a tax exemption on the federal government's use of the city's most valuable real property, a federal limit on the height of buildings in the District and a prohibition on taxing non-resident income.

Now, the city's low-income neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River and in Northeast are on the brink of developing economically, similar to the development experienced in other parts of the District such as NoMa and Capitol Riverfront. The new headquarters for the U.S. Coast Guard will open in August, the first in a complex of buildings Congress has authorized for the federally owned West Campus of the St. Elizabeths hospital. The tax incentives have demonstrated that they can revitalize the eastern half of the nation's capital. Particularly after the recent recession, the business and homebuyer tax incentives are essential for these neighborhoods to see the revival that the incentives have contributed to in downtown and near-in neighborhoods. Withdrawing these incentives, particularly after they have proven effective elsewhere in city,

leaves the nation's capital with essentially half of a revival, and would be tragically timed just as the lower-income parts of the District, which need the incentives most, are ready for residential and commercial redevelopment.

There is no reason to extend incentives to the other large empowerment zone cities but not to the nation's capital, which lacks many of the advantages of other cities. Like the health of many other cities, the District's fiscal health has improved since the tax incentives were established in 1997, but the incentives continue to be indispensable for ensuring that lower-income areas of the city are part of the city's economic progress. It would be tragic to single out the nation's capital as the only empowerment zone city not to be renewed just as the eastern sections of the city are about to take off. As essential as the federal incentives have been, their costs have been de minimis compared to the billions of dollars in construction, new local revenue and new taxpayers the incentives have generated. They deserve to be extended.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding.

You know, it has been sad to have to sit here for so long and hear the Kafkaesque understanding of due process by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. In a word, due process has to come before the sanction, not after; before the loss of job, not after, or it means nothing.

Today, of course, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2579 that would eliminate due process protections for senior executive servicemembers by allowing agency heads, political appointees, for the first time since the passage of the great civil service reforms in the early part of the 20th century, to fire Federal employees without giving them advance notice or an opportunity to address allegations against them before they are dismissed.

This bill, in particular, gives real credence to the view that the series of bills on the floor today are an attack on Federal employees. H.R. 2579 would reverse the long-settled principle of ``innocent until proven guilty'' to ``guilty until proven innocent.''

Employees could be immediately fired by the politically appointed agency head. They could get their job back only by accepting the burden of proof to prove their innocence. It's not enough that employees would be notified of the reasons of their removal and would have 30 days to respond. They're gone. They're fired immediately. No due process rights like those currently in place: at least 30 days notice; representation by an attorney; a written decision; a right to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board.

The absence of due process and of standards that the political appointee must use in making the decision to fire is nothing short of breathtaking. Under this bill, the agency head, one person, one political appointee, determines whether the employee knowingly acted in a manner that--get this--``endangers the interest of the agency mission.'' What could be broader than that? You could be fired for anything under that standard.

One person decides whether the employee's removal is ``necessary in the interest of the United States.'' Wow, let's rein that in somewhat.

One person decides that other procedures prescribed in other provisions of law just can't be invoked; they're not good enough. There you have it--judge and jury--exactly what the civil service system was developed to avoid, exactly what the Constitution says we must avoid. If you believe in the Constitution, it is important not to demagogue, but rather to explain to the public why every State, local, and Federal government puts employees--

I thank the gentleman.

Why is it that every unit of government puts employees they want to fire, they know they want to fire them, on administrative leave with pay while due process proceeds, even when the person is accused of serious offenses? Because the employer, my friends, is the government. That's the difference. The employee has certain due process rights that the same employee would not have if the employer were a private business. That is civics 101, gentlemen.

Justice Powell, writing in Arnett v. Kennedy about due process rights of employees said:

Due process is conferred not by legislative grace, but by

constitutional guarantee.

This bill comes from a Republican House that requires that Members state the constitutional basis for every bill introduced in this House. This bill expresses a Republican frustration that Lois Lerner of the IRS was placed on administrative leave with pay. Sorry folks, you're not allowed to support the Constitution only when you like the results. Let's defeat this ``prove your innocence'' departure from the Constitution of the United States.

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

Mr. Chair, this is a slash-and-burn budget. I don't know why we bother.

Whether you're looking at the community block grant or the section I'm going to say a few words about, the Amtrak section, you can see what we're about--we're supposed to reauthorize a highway bill this year and a railway bill this year. That certainly won't matter if the Transportation and HUD appropriations bill simply ignores authorized infrastructure spending and building.

The federal government has Amtrak because the private sector insisted that we take it. They showed, they proved that you can't run a railroad without public subsidy.

Amtrak has done an amazing job considering how little public subsidy it has gotten. The private sector gave it to us because they couldn't handle the operating expenses, and they couldn't handle the capital costs.

Now, Amtrak, by the ticket, is basically handling the operating expenses. Shame on us that we will not come forward to do our part with the capital expenses. With a 37 percent cut in capital expenses, that is the way, Mr. Chairman, to run a railroad into the ground

that otherwise is doing very well on its own dime.

There is a thirty-five percent difference between the House and Senate bills. The Republican bill is bipartisan. Yet, we're about to pass a bill here that nobody would consider in the Senate, and that the President would have to veto.

Why are we going through these appropriations exercises that amount to nothing?

Amtrak is more than sustaining itself. Virtually each month this year, it has had record ridership. Amtrak actually recovers almost 80 percent of its operating costs out of ticket revenue. That's amazing. It seems to me Amtrak ought to be rewarded rather than, as this bill does, be punished.

Amtrak carries 31 million passengers every year, and it keeps increasing. Travellers are preferring rail and 20,000 people across 47 States work for Amtrak. Yes, we know about it best here in the East, where Amtrak also has 1 million daily commuters.

This is our national railroad. It's unbelievable that we would be content to see every single nation in the world that considers itself an advanced nation be generations ahead of us on railroad development. We are two generations behind, for example, on high-speed rail. Yet there are zero dollars in this bill for high-speed rail.

Amtrak is very well managed. In the committee we have heard what they have done and how they have done it. But they can't manage without at least some recognition from the Congress that we, too, have a role to play in the railroad. No railroad in the world is unsubsidized. This one is subsidized very little. It is still able to run most of its trains over 100 miles an hour.

We ought to understand who we're talking about. We're not just talking about the Acela from the District of Columbia to New York. Among the 25 busiest Amtrak stations are Seattle, Harrisburg, and Bakersfield, California.

At a time when the airlines are in trouble and have reduced their operations, Amtrak keeps growing in ridership each month. I have a winning operation here. But this bill sends it back into losing for us. We don't need to do that. We have a railroad that offers middle class jobs to 20,000 people, 200 of them in the District of Columbia. Let's do what we need to do in the T-HUD bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gallego

Offered By: Ms. Norton

Amendment No. 15: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

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

I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 44, which authorizes the use of the Capitol Grounds for the 28th Annual Law Enforcement Torch Run, which benefits the District of Columbia Special Olympics.

The torch relay event has traditionally been associated with the summer D.C. Special Olympics, which took place this past May. Each year, approximately 2,500 Special Olympians compete in over a dozen events here in the Nation's Capital, and more than 1 million children and adults with special needs participate in Special Olympic programs worldwide. The Law Enforcement Torch Run has become a truly popular event on Capitol Hill and is an integral part of the fundraising efforts for the D.C. Special Olympics. Nearly 1,500 Law Enforcement Torch Run participants are expected to assemble at the West Terrace of the U.S. Capitol Building on September 27, 2013, for a 2.3-mile run to Fort McNair, which culminates in a picnic and a celebration for all participants.

The Special Olympics of D.C. provides year-round sports and fitness training, health screenings and athletic competition to all children and adults with intellectual disabilities, and it touches thousands of families in D.C. and the region. Participants are involved in basketball, bowling, golf, soccer, tennis, track and field, volleyball, and many other sports programs that address various levels of ability. Best of all, the different programs offered to Special Olympics athletes are always free of charge and are partially supported by the event that we would authorize today.

I am truly pleased to support such a meritorious organization and to support the passage of this resolution, and I ask my colleagues to do the same.

I thank the gentleman for his cooperation in bringing this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the distinguished tenure of Mr. Joseph M. Potenza of the District of Columbia, on the occasion of his retirement as Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Intellectual Property Law. At the helm of this esteemed organization, Mr. Potenza has brought a wealth of knowledge, experience and leadership--leaving a profound impression on our country's intellectual property laws.

Mr. Potenza, partner with the firm of Banner & Witcoff, LLP, will end his one-year term as Chair of the ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law in early August. With thirty-eight years' of experience as an intellectual property law practitioner, Mr. Potenza's current practice focuses on litigation, counseling on patent and copyright matters, and preparation and prosecution of patent and copyright applications.

Mr. Potenza graduated with honors from the Rochester Institute of Technology with a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering degree followed by a Juris Doctorate degree from Georgetown University's law school in 1975. Among his many accomplishments, Mr. Potenza has served as a member of the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, the ABA Standing Committing on Publication Oversight, the ABA House of Delegates, and as Chair of the ABA Section of Science & Technology Law, and the ABA Young Lawyers Division. He was also a past President of the Patent Lawyers Club of Washington, and Master of the Giles S. Rich American Inn of Court.

Additionally, Mr. Potenza's remarkable achievements have led to his being listed in Euromoney's recent ``Guide to the World's Leading Patent Law Practitioners.'' He is also listed in The Best Lawyers in America for his work in intellectual property law, as well as recent editions of The International Who's Who of Patent Lawyers and Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business. In 2009, Mr. Potenza was selected by Washingtonian Magazine as a ``Top Lawyer,'' a designation that represents the top one percent of attorneys in the Washington D.C. area.

During his year as Chair of the ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law, Mr. Potenza guided the Section's work on complex IP policy issues to be considered for adoption by the ABA House of Delegates as ABA policy and subsequently presented in the form of amicus briefs to both the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Mr. Potenza has led efforts within the ABA to develop IP policy submissions to several international government agencies in Europe and China. He has also championed the Section's participation on international delegations, global roundtables, and national and regional liaison efforts all aimed at fostering these relationships and expanding the Section's global reach. At the same time, he spearheaded efforts to provide commentary on IP policy on numerous occasions to U.S. government agencies, including the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Copyright Office, the U.S. International Trade Commission,

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church, also known as ``The National Cathedral of African Methodism,'' on its 175th anniversary, and for its contributions to the District of Columbia.

Founded in 1838, Metropolitan AME Church has a long history of notable activities and events. The church was a safe haven to runaway persons who were enslaved, and pioneered the Bethel Literary Society, which enriched the civic, cultural and intellectual lives of African American citizens. Through the years, Metropolitan AME Church has hosted a number of prominent speakers, such as Frederick Douglass, Paul Laurence Dunbar, Mary McLeod Bethune, Eleanor Roosevelt, Joel Elias Spingarn, E. E. Just, Alain Locke, Mordecai Johnson, Hubert H. Humphrey, Jesse Jackson, and Bishop Desmond Tutu, among others. The church was also the site of memorial services for Frederick Douglass, A. Philip Randolph and Rosa Parks. This historic landmark was also the location of both President Bill Clinton and Vice President Albert Gore's inauguration prayer services. In recent years, President Barack Obama and the First Family have worshipped at Metropolitan AME Church.

Members of the congregation are committed to charity. Together, they rose over $56,000 in money and goods for the survivors of Hurricane Katrina and Rita. Metropolitan AME Church also supports social justice initiatives that aim to improve the lives of all citizens of the District of Columbia and surrounding jurisdictions. The church has worked with ex-offenders, who are reentering society and most recently, the church has focused on initiatives to ``Stop the Pipeline to Prison'' and ``Ending Gun Violence.''

Metropolitan AME Church is committed to preserving the architectural and cultural heritage that distinguishes the District of Columbia. The church received the designation as an historical site and has renovated the church ($4.5 Million) to maintain its edifice as a part of AME history. Just recently, the church was awarded a $90,000 grant from the Partners in Preservation to restore the stained-glass windows surrounding the recently restored episcopacy windows on the church's primary facade.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the 175th anniversary of Metropolitan AME.

Mr. Speaker, today, as many our federal workers face furloughs and a third year of pay freezes, I introduce the Federal Employee Short-Term Disability Insurance Act of 2013, which will help provide some financial relief for federal employees who suffer a short- term injury or disability. 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. If federal employees elect to purchase the short-term insurance provided for in my bill, and they become injured or ill because of a non-work- related injury or illness, they will be able to collect disability insurance benefits, for up to one year, to replace a portion of their lost income.

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

According to the Social Security Administration, studies indicate that 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 conditions or illnesses, such as cancer or back injuries, according to the Council for Disability Awareness.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

The timing on this bill could not be more appropriate. Later this month, we will cut the ribbon for the new Coast Guard building, the first building the Coast Guard has ever owned.

Next month, Coast Guard employees will begin moving into the building located on the old Saint Elizabeths Hospital campus in southeast Washington, D.C. It is only fitting that the Coast Guard should be moving into a building named for one of their own, Signalman First Class Douglas Albert Munro. Signalman First Class Munro is the U.S. Coast Guard's only Medal of Honor recipient. The Coast Guard specifically requested that I write this bill in time for the opening of the Coast Guard headquarters.

I want to express my appreciation to my good friends on the other side for promptly passing this bill in committee last week and then seeing to it that it got to the floor this week.

Munro died heroically on Point Cruz, Guadalcanal, after succeeding in his volunteer assignment to evacuate a detachment of marines that had been overwhelmed by the enemy. Signalman First Class Munro had an outstanding record as an enlisted man and was promoted rapidly through the various ratings to a signalman first class. In addition to being a Medal of Honor recipient, Signalman First Class Munro was also posthumously awarded the Purple Heart Medal and was eligible for the American Defense Service Medal, the Asiatic-Pacific Area Campaign Medal, and the World War II Victory Medal. He, indeed, was a hero.

Signalman First Class Munro is an excellent example of the commitment to service and bravery that our men and women of the Coast Guard still provide today, much of it here at home. It is an honor to be the lead sponsor of this bill to name the building in honor of a true American hero.

The new Coast Guard headquarters building that would be named for Signalman First Class Douglas A. Munro will be a 1.1-million-square- foot building and will house up to 3,700 members of the U.S. Coast Guard and civilian employees. This building, which will be the first office building completed for the Department of Homeland Security headquarters consolidation, will mark the first time that a Federal agency will be located east of the Anacostia River.

I believe Signalman First Class Douglas A. Munro's outstanding service to his country and his unique status as the only member of the U.S. Coast Guard to win the Medal of Honor ensures that it is particularly fitting to name the new U.S. Coast Guard headquarters the Douglas A. Munro Coast Guard Headquarters Building.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I want to say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that we honor Signalman First Class Munro by naming a first class, extraordinary, state-of-the-art building after him. But in honoring Signalman First Class Munro, I think we also honor members of the Coast Guard. These are, to coin a cliche, real unsung heroes in our society. They are the men and women who save men and women and children every year right here in our country as part of their duties here. In a real sense, when we name this building for the only Medal of Honor winner, I think it will make Americans understand there are many heroes of the Coast Guard who also serve them every day of every year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill and the underlying rule because it increases hunger and poverty in America.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Smithsonian Free Admission Act of 2013 to reinforce 170 years of consistent Smithsonian Institution policy of admitting the public to all permanent exhibits without charge. This policy has served the nation well. Families come to Washington, D.C. to learn about their country through its public monuments and sites. While the private amenities here can be costly for the average family, Americans have looked forward to the free museums and other official offerings for generations. The Smithsonian's free admission policy reflects the intent of its founder, John Smithson, whose gift to the federal government carried the condition that the Smithsonian be established to increase the knowledge of the public, free of charge. The bill establishing the Smithsonian, introduced by Senator William C. Preston on February 17, 1841, stated explicitly that the Smithsonian would ``preserve and exhibit with no fee'' all works of art and science. This intent and tradition was interrupted by the Smithsonian's Board of Regents, which, without notice to Congress, said casually that it would charge an admission fee for a permanent exhibit for the first time in its history, and on January 29, 2007, the Smithsonian instituted a fee for admission to the National Museum of Natural History's Butterfly Pavilion. Congress, of course, not the Board of Regents, should decide so basic a policy, especially when it departs from long-standing public policy. This admission fee sets a harmful precedent for future permanent exhibits, making it difficult to deny the other Smithsonian entities that right and may encourage other Smithsonian entities to structure their exhibits to fit the Butterfly Pavilion model.

The Butterfly Pavilion opened on February 14, 2008. Although the Smithsonian had previously charged fees for films and shows, such as IMAX films, the National Air and Space Museum's Planetarium, and the National Zoo's Christmas Lights special, the $6 admission fee for the Butterfly Pavilion marked the first time an admission fee was charged for a permanent exhibit. My bill requires a report to Congress in advance of any proposed fees and requires the Secretary of the Smithsonian to submit a plan for funding the Butterfly Pavilion without an admission fee.

The Smithsonian Modernization Act, which I am also introducing today, addresses the Smithsonian's fundraising capacity by restructuring and expanding the Smithsonian's Board of Regents, from a board almost half of whose members are public officials to a board consisting solely of private citizens, who have greater experience and fundraising capacity than public officials. The fundraising ability of the Smithsonian was clear in the opening of the National Portrait Gallery, for example, where, according to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (RL 33560), donors contributed funds for the new auditorium and roof over the courtyard of the National Portrait Gallery. This private fundraising capability would be enhanced by my bill.

The Smithsonian Modernization Act and similar measures, not admission fees, provide the most realistic vehicles to raise funds for the Smithsonian without cost to the government or to the public. Admission fees can bring in only token amounts. According to CRS, the Smithsonian has long prided itself on ``free access.'' Admission fees are not the answer for taxpayers, who have already paid through the federal government's 70 percent contribution to this public institution's annual budget. Federal taxpayers do not expect to pay again through an admission fee to a federally financed institution.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Open and Transparent Smithsonian Act of 2013 to further ensure that the Smithsonian Institution is accountable to the public for the taxpayer funds it receives. The bill provides that, for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act, the Smithsonian shall be considered a federal agency.

The bill complements my Smithsonian Modernization Act and my Smithsonian Free Admission Act. I introduce these three bills today to make the Smithsonian accountable for the annual federal appropriations it receives, which account for 70 percent of its budget. Although the Smithsonian was created by Congress as a federal trust, it receives the great majority of its funding from the federal government, much like federal agencies, and has always been treated as a federal agency. However, in the 1990s, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the Smithsonian is not a federal agency for purposes of FOIA and the Privacy Act. Indeed, the Smithsonian's website clearly states that it is ``not an Executive Branch agency, and FOIA does not apply to the Smithsonian.''

This lack of transparency is of great concern, particularly in light of the Smithsonian's recent history of secrecy and corruption. In 2007, an independent review found that the Smithsonian Board of Regents had violated many principles of good management during the tenure of Lawrence Small as Secretary of the Smithsonian. The report indicated that the Board had failed to provide desperately needed oversight, had overcompensated the Secretary, and had allowed the creation of an ``insular culture.'' The report further found that the Smithsonian's deputy secretary and chief operating officer, Sheila Burke, had frequent absences from her duties because of outside activities, including service on corporate boards, for which she earned more than $1.2 million over six years. Importantly, the report indicated that Smithsonian leaders took great measures to keep secret these missteps and mismanagement.

While the Smithsonian now has new leaders, who are moving away from the mistakes of the past, its transparency should not depend on who is in charge. An entity supported primarily by the federal government must be accountable to the American people. The American people have a right to know that their interests are being served.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to make the General Services Administration (GSA) a more transparent federal agency.

This bill would require GSA to provide public notice of excess properties as soon as they are identified by federal agencies as such. Although excess properties will continue to be offered to other federal agencies before going through the normal property disposal process, this early notice to all, including federal agencies, the larger community and Congress, will increase transparency in how the federal government manages its property. The Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management has had difficulty ensuring that GSA acts as soon as possible to dispose of properties it has determined to be excess. GSA's practice of delaying notice of unused properties to the public while it informs federal agencies only furthers existing delay by GSA in moving either to use or dispose of property for the benefit of taxpayers. Importantly, the early public notice required by this bill also will provide the opportunity for local communities to plan for possible disposal of the property.

Recent hearings held by two different subcommittees documented how delayed notice had resulted in inaction by GSA, which did not move on the problem until the hearings were called. With silence from GSA about a long-vacant but large and valuable property, residents in the burgeoning M Street Southeast area of the District of Columbia went to the trouble of creating a professional proposal for redeveloping the property, as revealed in the hearing.

Both the Administration and the House, where two property disposal bills are pending, have weighed in on GSA's poor asset management and missed market opportunities, which continue to cost taxpayers significant sums of money. There are significant costs associated with GSA's vacant or underperforming assets, including for operation, maintenance and security. For this reason, in 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) placed real property management on its list of ``high risk'' government activities, where it remains today. GAO conducts biennial reviews of the federal government to highlight specific areas needing added attention and oversight. Programs are identified as ``high risk'' due to their greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement or due to the need for broad- based transformation to address major challenges.

Still, the periodic GAO reviews, executive orders and memoranda issued during this and

the prior administration, and acts of Congress have not brought significantly improved management of federal real property. My bill would ensure that Congress, local communities and federal agencies have the earliest notice that federal properties may become available, and would be a further tool to foster earlier and more efficient property disposal.